BEST-SELLING AUTHOR TIM FLANNERY
Global Climate Change Expert To Speak In Bozeman Monday
By Todd Wilkinson, 2-28-07
Best-selling author Tim Flannery, whose book The Weather Makers, has influenced members of Congress, CEOs of American-based multinational corporations, and hundreds of mayors, governors, and other policy makers on the science of climate change, will deliver a lecture in Bozeman Monday, March 5 in the Strand Union ballroom at 7:30 p.m.
While some in the West still stubbornly equate the seriousness of climate change to whether one holds Al Gore in high or low esteem, Flannery is respected because he has no overt partisan affiliation and he knows the science.
Lecturing before packed houses around the world, Flannery has been influential in using the ever growing body of scientific evidence to challenge leaders in his native Australia to become engaged in formulating a global strategy for addressing human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. A year ago, New West contributing writer Todd Wilkinson wrote a book review of The Weather Makers. The work has sold more than one million copies and is currently the best-selling book on the topic of climate change in the world.
Tickets to Flannery's lecture cost $5 and can be purchased online at TicketsWest and at the Bobcat Ticket Office on the MSU campus. As of Wednesday, there were only 500 left.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
He has me on side, so that makes two. I talk the talk and walk the walk.
We often get twisted news on the climate problem. For instance recently it was published that Gore lives in a very big box relative to the rest of us. No mention of the inner workings of that box. Another news story mentioned the progressive 'greening' of that box. The first story omitted that important detail. I understand that even Mrs. Bush's little boy has been secretly greening up his own residence. Regardless of whether or not these things are true, none can be excused from failing to save the drowning child just because everyone else is just watching. Maybe they just don't know how to swim.
As I say on my website;
"To me it is so obvious that 7 to 8 billion people on a tiny planet with only a 10 mile high atmosphere are going to have a major effect on the climate if they burn everything in sight. It boggles the mind that anyone could actually think otherwise."
One of the major stumbling blocks in dealing with changes in climate is that they are so slow. You and I may both have crossed over before the fan is inundated with defecant. So we won't have to answer to our children. Besides who cares about them anyway? They are just little people who give us something to have a little power over in a world where we are otherwise powerless.
In a society like ours if some can’t swim, it’s up to those who can to teach them. Then maybe we can all be saved from drowning.
Note to Todd: I have no right to correct the verbage of a very good writer, but; I Quote "...New West contributing writer Todd Wilkinson..." The word "I" would have sufficed. Keep up the fight!
- C02 is the enemy (Dr. Flannery)
- Solar and cosmic radiation is the cause (Dr. Shaviv)
- Prioritization of limited response money (Dr. Lomborg)
- Balancing of adaptation with mitigation strategies (Dr. Pielke)
If it were possible to get the diversity of perspectives wrapping their brains around the problem together, maybe something worthwhile would happen. In my opinion, there is too much of the singular view points expressed in isolation to make sense of things.
Did you see this about Neanderthals and Solutreans? http://www.surinenglish.com/noticias.php?Noticia=10177
>>>>>>>
...The paper, entitled ‘Climate forcing and Neanderthal extinction in southern Iberia: insights from a multiproxy marine record’, reveals that conditions in southern Iberia became highly inhospitable around 24 thousand years ago. The Neanderthal extinction appears to be linked to these extreme conditions, which, the scientists say, were the most severe in this part of the world for a quarter of a million years.
An armada of icebergs reached the Portuguese coast, and the lowest annual mean sea surface temperatures (calculated at around eight degrees Celsius) for a quarter of a million years were reached in the Strait of Gibraltar and the Alborán Sea. It appears that the cause was a combination of the rearrangement of current circulation and reduced solar radiation caused by changes in orbital geometry. On land, many continental areas of southern Iberia became arid and dominated by steppe plants. Linked to this is evidence of an increased input of wind-blown sand which appears to be related to the amplified aridity at that point.
Overall conditions were severe but also highly variable at short time scales and this seems to have affected many stressed populations of animals as well as the Neanderthals, whose last refuge were the caves in the Rock of Gibraltar. The climate changes also caused a significant readjustment of modern human populations. Some traditional modern human cultures also disappeared and the emergence of a new human culture, the Solutrean, coincides with this climatic event. It now seems clear that rapid climate change not only caused the demise of the last Neanderthals on the planet but that it also generated significant cultural transformations among modern human groups. Those who managed to scrape past this event were our ancestors.
<<<<<<<<<
Orbital geometry coupled with solar radiation appears to be a real bummer at times past.
I have learned a lot from him. I was a member of his foundation for a while but unfortunately the foundation lacks much. No reflection on him. The foundation does not recognise the many people that are trying to help and we are left out in the cold. It leaves the impression that only they are doing anything. I often comment on other news sghts and their are still many, not necessarily sceptics, but people with vested interests. Not everyone cares about the future of man. A recent article in an Australian paper "Going cold on climate change" was submitted by a menber of the coal producers in Austrailia. Seems that some of the arguments suround the loss of jobs but if most of us die then we won't need the jobs. Personally, I think the scientists, who don't like to go too far out on a limb, tend to be conservative (not left or right) in their predictions. The changes seem to be very minor here but when one thinks about the ramifications of these minor changes it gets scary. Todd merntioned about the local bees and their importance. Our bees are already being hit with disease and many hives have had to be killed. You cant have trees without bees. Guess we should include the small wasps and some flies in this but they too are vulnerable th the changes. It is all so obvious when you take the time to look.
"Stuart, does your ass buggy come with wheels or skis? " I'll have to think about that. Since all facts are based on assumptions, then is this a fact? Sometimes I think too much. I was listening to a program on radio Sweden which talked about recent studies on language. The program confirmed my opinion that most dialog results in only about a 40 to 50% understanding by the recipient. This may have a lot to do with why we can't communicate the climate problem. The language has a lot of flaws. A very simple example of this is "The man was chasing the girl on a bicycle." Who was on the bicycle? This is not a test. You will not get credits.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1834432006
You are quite good at providing online references which demonstrate that climatic changes have been an ongoing natural process throughout recent geological history. No one here disagrees with that assessment. I would like to ask you a few (rhetorical) questions:
First, do you agree that CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases, which have the effect of raising and lowering the average global temperature depending on their concentrations?
Next, do you agree that these gases have had a cyclical variation tied to temperature over the past several hundred thousand years?
Lastly, do you agree that present day concentrations of these gases are consistent with the levels they have maintained in the past as would be suggested if the current situation was mainly the result of ongoing natural cycles?
Before you answer, you may want to look over this paper presented by Dr. James Hansen to the American Geophysical Union in December 2005 in which he points out that the current situation is like none of those other episodes in the past:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf
It consists of 14 pages of text followed by about 50 slides. I recommend slide #17 (page 31) of the presentation which shows the fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentrations over the past 400,000 years based on Antarctic ice core samples along with estimates of the global temperature variations. These are all quite well correlated, as you can see. At the extreme right edge of each graph, he blows up the timeline to show these effects in the post-industrial age (since 1850), in which we see that the CO2 concentration has increased from a peak of 300 ppm to a value of 377 ppm in 2004, and the CH4 has increased from 800 ppb to 1755 ppb. Both of these values are far outside the range of fluctuations of these gases over the given timespan. Given the correlation between temperature and these atmospheric greenhouse gases, the inevitable impact on global temperature can only be disastrous, especially when one considers the rate at which both of these continue to increase (see some of the earlier slides for this).
Continued reliance on the argument that the current effects on climate are primarily due to a natural cycle are no longer cutting it. We are having a significant impact and we need to alter our ways or face serious long term ramifications. As things stand now, even if we take drastic measures on emissions, there will still be some impact on the biosphere over the next few centuries in all likelihood as the inherent thermal inertia of the system catches up to the damage we've already caused.
Today our society stands at a crossroad. We can continue business as usual and face even more severe environmental impacts in the long run, or we can alter our course and limit the extent to which we as a species suffer. It's as simple as that.
And for those of you who continue to see this as a zero-sum game: it is possible to be both eco-friendly and economically competitive (unless you're in the coal industry :-). Nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, hydro...all of these should be on the table as options to replace our dependence on fossil fuel. They can work. They can be competitive.
/disclaimer on
One such potential option in the solar field is a new company called Citizenre. As a disclaimer, I am stating that I recently signed on as an Independent Ecopreneur looking to help bring this opportunity to my fellow Americans. The goal of this company is to convert 25% of the US single family home residential market to solar power by the year 2025. I encourage you to take a look at their website and if this possibility interests you, to sign up as a customer. The website is
http://www.jointhesolution.com/irwinh
There is no cost or obligation on your part until your system has been designed and you've approved the plans, at which time a modest security deposit will be collected. If you've been thinking about getting a solar PV system or other renewable power source for your home but were concerned about the upfront costs, you owe it to yourself to check this out. And yes, I will get a commission on the customers I bring in, but I also get the satisfaction of helping others make an impact to save our planet.
/disclaimer off
I saw today an editorial by Dr. Thomas Sewell. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070303/OPINION03/703030312
He frames the issue this way: “There have been periods of global warming that lasted for centuries -- and periods of global cooling that also lasted for centuries. So the issue is not whether the world is warmer now than at some time in the past but how much of that warming is due to human beings and how much can we reduce future warming, even if we drastically reduce our standard of living in the attempt.”
In my opinion, science needs to address this issue before drastic investments are committed to arresting only one GHG, C02 in a global scheme.
He goes on to write: “Anyone who remembers the 1970s should remember the Club of Rome report that was supposed to be the last word on economic growth grinding to a halt, "overpopulation" and a rapidly approaching era of mass starvation in the 1980s.
In reality, the 1980s saw increased economic growth around the world and, far from mass starvation, an increase in obesity and agricultural surpluses in many countries. But much of the media went for the Club of Rome report and hyped the hysteria.
Many in the media resent any suggestion that they are either shilling for an ideological agenda or hyping whatever will sell newspapers or get higher ratings on TV.”
I wish the media were more focused on issues such as Dr. Sewell framed rather than selectively touting snippets of science that support one view or the other. We need a comprehensive approach and a clear statement of what it all means to the world now and in the future.
Stuart, my reference to the buggy was to your ego cart. Do you ever get up to Ottawa to watch the Senators?
First, Dr. Hansen's presentation discussed both CO2 and CH4 and their effects on global climate. Second, he rather convincingly shows the strong correlation between the atmospheric concentrations of these two gases and average global temperatures. Lastly, he shows that current levels of both gases are well beyond the maxima that have occurred as a result of natural cycles (orbital changes, solar insolation changes, etc.) and that these levels are continuing to increase dramatically.
Now, I don't know what economic pressures will work to reduce these levels. I'd rather come up with new clean industries that can reduce our need to depend on polluting sources like coal. That was a significant reason why I've joined this new venture mentioned in my post above.
On a semi-related note, today both the AP and Reuters have written about a newly released draft from the White House Office of Environmental Quality which states that they expect emission rates to be almost 20% higher in 2020 than they were in 2000. Here are links to the two articles:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070303/sc_nm/globalwarming_usa_report_dc_1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070303/ap_on_sc/global_warming_2
I'd rather see our country take steps to reduce those emissions instead of allowing them to continue to increase. Whether those steps involve economic incentive packages to promote renewable energy or carbon taxes or increasing conservation and efficiency, whatever it takes to reverse the trend and to do so ASAP, makes sense to me. And I don't buy into the fallacy that such steps necessarily imply economic hardships.
Regarding your comment of an economic hardship fallacy, I look and see how much of US manufacturing effort and jobs have gone to foreign lands where there is a large delta between US regulatory requirements and costs versus those other countries. As I understand, Asia, as a region, emits more CO2 and GHC's that North America today. Having Asia exempt from any emissions scheme only further pushes the bubble in their direction without reducing the size. So long as the prevailing winds blow from the West we will feel the effects from the carbon havens. Regarding ideas of carbon taxes being used to subsidize 3rd world countries, we have many examples like the Oil for Food Program where only the rich and powerful in poor countries benefit while the underclass gets little to nothing. Just my 2 cents.
Irwin, I enjoy our conversations. Will you be watching the moon and its show?
The US has a roll to play in world affairs but over this last presidency that roll has met with much resistance. Always gives the appearance of self interest, in that the intervention seems to come in oil rich areas rather than where it is really needed. Often the US govenment pushes reluctant countries into deals such as the North American free trade deal which they welch on when it suits them. They have done the same at Guitanamo. Isreal was created on Palestinian land with the US. I think US intervention has been and will be very welcome when it is benevolent rather than self serving. Some would say that 9-11 was not an act of terrorism but rather an act of retaliation. Just used what means they had to attack with, since they did'nt have nuclear weapons. Iran would not need such weapons if they were not afraid of US intervention in the area. Rather than providing a safer world with it's arsenal, the US is causing others to band together to fight against it. The US is it's own enemy. I am pretty sure that Canada is only fighting along side the Americans in Afganistan due to US arm twisting. True enough that many of the governments of the world are not the best, but how many of them can say, like Canada and the US, that they still have slaves to do their work. We just stopped importing them. Now we let them work at home. How very nice of us. Jeesse! What a rant. Hope we can get back to more important matters soon. We need to get the pressure on to curb the warming problem. There is so much that could already have been done if we only lived in a dictatorship instead of a democracy. LOL By the way many of our (Canadian) jobs are off shore now too. Most of the nay sayers on global warming either don't have the facts, or not enough of them, or they are self serving. Actually, I don't think you can get a swarm of locusts to stop eating when the the field is still half full.
Speaking of scams, what about this guy Todd, who writes a few hundred words, and then sits back while the rest of the world fills up the rest of the page. Nice going Todd.
Unfortunately, by the time the Moon rose here in Boise the eclipse was basically over. That along with the clouds meant that I wasn't able to enjoy it this time, though I have had the opportunity to observe numerous lunar eclipses in the past, as well as a few solar eclipses (including the total eclipse in 1991 from Baja California...that was an awesome sight!). Now I'm looking forward to August 21, 2017, when a total eclipse will pass right through the continental US, with the centerline passing about 50 miles north of Boise.
Irwin, I too remember the '91 eclipse. I was walking on the streets in Seattle at the time. The best lunar eclipse I remember was when I was in Omaha during the summer of 1964 I believe.
Take care gentlemen.
"I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway network, it might work, maybe, to power a small transistor radio."
Personally I don't see why a solar panel couldn't power a dozen steel mills. I, we are building a parabolic dish in the yard that is 10 feet in diameter. since a 12 foot dish can produce temperatures of over 4000 degrees F. Unfortunately even the solar industry is hung up on flat plate fixed collectors that are useless and if that's what he is talking about then I'm in agreement but to me solar is the only way to go and the sun is aalways shinning somewhere. I have calculated ours should be capable of 1500 deg easily. We plan to use an inefficient steam engine to drive an alternator and tap into the existing hot water heating system of the house for spaceheating. Steel melts at just over a 1000. Any doubts? Just focus a 1/2 lense on your hand. Seems that everyone knows his own field but can't work "outside the box". One of the neat things that
Ontario hydro does at Niagara Falls is htat they have a huge reservoir at the top of the gorge.
During peak hours they run the water from the reservoir down through the penstocks too the generators in the gorge. When there is a surplus of power some of the generators are motored to pump the water back up and fill the reservoir. NO BATTERIES. I think that's pretty neat, and similar arrangements could apply to solar. One thing about solar heat is that efficiency is less important and there are very few tranportation requirements.
I'll try to watch the show.
Trust me when I tell you there is a WORLD of difference between observing a partial solar eclipse and a total solar eclipse (actually even that doesn't truly convey the extent of the difference). As for the 1964 lunar eclipse, I was probably pooping in my diapers at the time :-) (was born in April of that year).
Stuart, why don't you write a 'guest column' about your solar living. I remember back to my 7th grade science class to making a solar furnace. It simply was a matter of taking a funnel and inserting a thermometer into the neck through a cork, attaching the devce to a stand, and pointing it at the sun. The temperature climbed well over a 100 degrees. Also, I would be interested in your potty pastureizer. Think of the commercial possibilites of something akin to an espresso stand. Call it something like 'Potty Toddies.' Maybe not.
Irwin, one of the treats of wilderness camping to me is the night.
Star gazing without the light polution. Perhaps you could write about those interesting constellations that make it a treat. Not all Ursa's walk the gound.
LEDs in the sky (I'm a retired, or is it retarded, technologist (officially)) does get me writing I am not an english major.
I don't even know all the words. It is only recently that I have taken to telling what I am doing because I am more of a doer that a teller and normally I would just keep doing. It was only when confronted by the mental deficencies of my own government that I started to write. (Sometimes very nasty) If you want to know more about the poop machine, get the pdf file at stueysplace.ca These things are very cheap to build. You could build one for less than the cost of a washing machine. Far better than the cost of a pollution generator (septic system). Will be adding more about how septic systems "work" later this month. As for solar living, even as an agnostic, I still praise god every time the sun comes out and the solar blower on the roof cranks up. Mine is an old house designed and built in the 70's, before solar technology information was readily available, so it is very much experimental and so it has it's problems. The first of which was the melting of the insullation in the roof because it got too hot without proper safety vents. Fixed that, replaced the insulation. Vents too small. Did it all again, and so on. Now is good but want tracking to try and such the sun dry. Do you think that if everyone used solar tracker to get heat and electricity from the sun that the sun would be depleated and burn out? I don't know.
I lived in Toronto as a boy and we could see the LEDs in thesky. Not so anymore. You have to get out of the city to see the sky.
As always:
All spelling, punctuation,and grammatical errors in this document are the sole property of the author. No copies of the errors in this document may be made without written consent .
Stuart, it's not how many words you know or how they are spelted (sic!) it's how you hit the target with the ones know. I'm sure Todd would work with you on any article you may write as your editor. You live a very interesting life. I would like to have discussion exploring how what you have learned in your backyard may be crucial to the West as we run out of clean water for growing populations. Your solar furnace idea may have applications to designing communities and even office buildings. Besides, you and Irwin are on the same path. Perhaps a little collaboration would lead to solar synergy.
Gentlemen, we have many areas where we may disagree. So be it. I care more about you as people.
Todd, good luck with Dr. Flannery this week.
I realize I have a habit of hanging my underwear on the front door when I'm home. Don't really know where you guys are coming from. So what is it, boxers or briefs?
I am looking forward to Todd's effort about the Flannery visit.
I have added channel 4's show to my list of must see's but as with so many websites they don't tell their call letters or whee they are, and since my sat channels start at 200, I don't think channel 4 is going to be it. Do you know their call letters? There are a lot of channel 4's on the planet.
"Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated."
For the rest of the article see
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Remeber each individual government will have the same information and will act in their self interest. Scientists for the most part are conservative in their estmates. The IPCC report in addition to scientists, required that politicans also sign off. Consequently, instead of being too dire this report might be too optimistic--certainly this should not be discounted.
If you check out the Travel & Outdoors page for New West, you'll find my first guest column on astronomy. Hope you like.