>>BRUCE: GOOD EVENING WELCOME TO THE JANUARY 2015
NOAA CLIMATE STEWARDS WEBINAR.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE.
THIS EVENING WE'RE REALLY PROUD TO HAVE DR. PIETER TANS WHO
WILL BE PRESENTATION THIS EVENING:
THREE CRUCIAL FACTS MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE.
WE ALSO HAVE JOINING HARRISON, MY CO- COORDINATOR,
NOAA CLIMATE STEWARDS AS WELL AS PEG STEFFEN,
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR OF STEWARDS,
AND DR. HILARIE DAVIS, OUR PROJECT EVALUATOR THIS EVENING.
I HAVE A ANNOUNCEMENTS TO START OUT WITH
AND THEN WE'LL DR. PIETER TANS.
SO THE FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT, TONIGHT'S WEBINAR IS BEING
RECORDED.
EVERYONE WILL WHO REGISTERED,
WILL RECEIVE A EVERYONE WHO HAS REGISTERED
WILL RECEIVE A LINK ARCHIVE WHERE THERE ARE NOT ON
THE VIDEO ARCHIVE, AS ALL THE PRESENTATION SLIDES.
IF YOU DON'T RECEIVE A L ACCESS THE ARCHIVE WITHIN 72
HOURS PLEAS SEND ME, BRUCEMORAVCHIK@NOAA.GOV AN
E-MAIL WITH THE SUBJECT REQUEST ACCESS TO JANUARY 5TH WEBINAR
ARCHIVE.
PLEASE NOTE DURING T WEBINAR YOU SHOULD RECEIVE AN
E-MAIL WITH A LINK TO APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES,
POST WEBINAR POLE.
PLEASE, WE URGE YOU TO PROMPTLY RESPOND TO THIS.
IT DOES GIVE U METRICS FOR THE PROGRAM AND
ALSO HELPS TO FUTURE EVENTS.
NOW, THIS EVENING WAS STARTING SOMETHING SPECIAL THIS YEAR.
WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN HAVING INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS OF WEBINAR
TOPICS PRESENTED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE WEBINAR.
NOW, YOU CAN JOIN IN USING THE TOLL-FREE NUMBER, 866-662-7513.
AND THE PASSCODE IS 1170791.
NOW, WHEN YOU JOIN IN, PLEASE REMEMBER TO PRESS 6 TO MUTE
YOUR PHONE.
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK DURING THE SESSION PLEASE PRESS SIX AGAIN.
AGAIN, A DISCUSSION WILL BE AT A TOLL-FREE NUMBER 866-662-7513
WITH THE PASSCODE 1170791 AND THEN PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONE AS
SOON AS YOU ACCESS.
IF THERE IS EXCESSIVE NOISE, WE MAY HAVE TO END THE CALL WHICH
WE DON'T WANT TO DO.
ALSO, EVERYONE WHO I THIS EVENING FOR THE FULL
PERIOD WILL RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE.
WHICH YOU WILL RECEIVE THIS PDF VIA E-MAIL.
IF THERE IS A P HOURS WHEN YOU DO NOT RECEIVE
THE CERTIFICATE ME A DIRECT E-MAIL AND I WILL
SEND IT TO YOU.
ANOTHER ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THIS EVENING IS,
DO YOU WANT TO JOIN THE NOAA CLIMATE STEWARDS STEWARDSHIP
COMMUNITY?
IF YOU DO, PLEASE G NOAA CLIMATE STEWARDS HOMEPAGE.
THERE IS A LINK THERE WHICH YOU CAN SEE HERE TO APPLY AT.
NOW, IF YOU ARE IN THE STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY,
YOU WILL HAVE NOT TO MONTHLY WEBINARS AND BOOK
CLUB DISCUSSIONS, AS WELL AS, REGIONAL WORKSHOPS AND
INFORMATION OPPORTUNITIES VIA OUR WEBSITE,
BUT YOU WILL OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN PEER
FEEDBACK GROUPS TO PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS ON STEWARDSHIP
IDEAS.
YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR MINI GRANTS TO
SUPPORT A PROJECT OF UP TO $2,000.
FURTHERMORE, YOU W ACCESS AS A MEMBER OF THE
STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY ACCESS TO COMMUNITY-WIDE
PARTICIPANT LIST-SERVE ONLY FOR STEWARDSHIP
COMMUNITY PARTICIPANTS.
IN ADDITION, W CONTINUING SUPPORT FOR
IMPLEMENTATION AS EVALUATION OF YOUR PROJECT.
AND ONCE PROJECTS A IF INDIVIDUALS DESIRE THAT IT
WILL BE HIGHLIGHTED ON A PUBLIC NOAA WEBSITE.
IN ADDITION, P THE STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY HAVE
OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT TRAVEL TO CONFERENCES AND MEETINGS TWO
DISCUSS THEIR PROJECT RESULTS.
ANOTHER ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WE HAVE IS AT THE NEXT NOAA
CLIMATE STEWARDS BOOK CLUB WE WILL BE MEETING ON JANUARY 26,
AT 8:00 P.M.
THE DISCUSSION WILL BOOK THE COLLAPSE OF WESTERN
CIVILIZATION: A FUTURE,
BY DR. NAOMI NORESKES AND ERIK CONWAY.
NOW, IF YOU WANT TO MEETING ON JANUARY 26,
8:00 P.M.
EASTERN TIME, YOU BE USING THE SAME TELECONFERENCE NUMBER,
TOLL-FREE 866-662-7513.
THE PASSCODE AGAIN, 1170791.
AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED TO THE SPECIAL NOAA
CLIMATE STEWARDS BOOK CLUB E-MAIL LIST,
PLEASE CONTACT PEG.STEFFEN@NOAA.GOV.
WELL, FOR THIS EVENING'S BROADCAST,
I'D LIKE TO WELCOME DR. PIETER TANS TO THE SCREEN IN JUST ONE
MOMENT.
AND DR. TANS, YOUR MIC IS LIVE AND I JUST SENT YOU A WEBCAM
REQUEST.
NOW, DR. TANS NEEDS T CYCLE GREENHOUSE GASES GROUP IN
THE GLOBAL MONITORING DIVISION OF NOAA EARTH SYSTEM RESEARCH
LABORATORY IN BOULDER, COLORADO.
HE'S BEEN ACTIVELY I IN MANKIND'S INFLUENCE ON
CLIMATE SINCE HE WAS A STUDENT.
IN 1972, W INADVERTENT CLIMATE
MODIFICATIONS, A STUDY OF MAN'S IMPACT ON
CLIMATE, HE BECAME THAT MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE
WAS A PROBLEM AND WAS CERTAIN TO GROW IN IMPORTANCE OVER
TIME.
HE DECIDED TO CHANGE DIRECTION FROM STUDYING SOLID-STATE
PHYSICS TOO EARTH SCIENCE.
HE OBTAINED HIS PHD FROM THE UNIVERSITY CRONIN CHEN.
I HOPE I'VE PRONOUNCED THAT CORRECTLY,
DR. TANS.IN THE NETHERLANDS.
AND IN 1978 W CARBON 14 AND CARBON 13 IN TREE
RINGS, WHICH HAD BEEN USED TO RECONSTRUCT INCREASES IN
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE SINCE THE LATE 19TH CENTURY.
SINCE 1985 IN THAT THE CARBON CYCLE GREENHOUSE GASES GROUP.
IT KNOWS OUR SYSTEM RESEARCH LABORATORY AND DISCOVERED
EXISTENCE OF A VERY LARGE OR UPTAKE OF CARBON DIOXIDE BY
TERRESTRIAL MID-LATITUDES IN THE NORTHERN
HEMISPHERE PARTIALLY OFFSETTING THE EMISSIONS CAUSED BY BURNING
COAL, OIL, AND NATURAL GAS.
AND FOR SEVERAL DECADES, HIS GROUP HAS MAINTAINED A
COOPERATIVE GLOBAL ATMOSPHERE OBSERVING NETWORK USING THE
MOST WIDELY USED DATA OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2, METHANE,
CARBON MONOXIDE, AND OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES AND SUPPORTING
MEASUREMENTS.
IN 2007, HIS GROUP LAUNCHED CARBON TRACKER,
A GLOBAL DATA SYSTEM TURNED OBSERVE SPATIAL
AND TEMPORAL ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE INTO
SPATIAL PATTERNS AND REMOVALS THAT ARE OPTIMALLY
CONSISTENT OBSERVATIONS.
HE INVENTED THE AIR CORPS, A SIMPLE SYSTEM TO COLLECT THE
CONTINUOUS AND THE VERTICAL RESOLVE SAMPLE OF THE AIR ALL
THE WAY FROM THE MID- STRATOSPHERE TO THE EARTH
SURFACE.
AND MOST RECENTLY H MEASURED EMISSIONS OR LEAKS OF
METHANE AND OTHER GASES FROM OIL AND GAS FIELDS WHERE
HYDROFRACKING IS USED.
AND IN JUST A MOMENT WE WILL HAVE DR. TANS ADDRESS YOU.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO OFFER TO
DR. TANS, PLEASE WRITE THEM IN THE QUESTIONS -- PANEL ON THE
RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF YOUR WHEN DR. TANS INDICATES WE WILL
BE TAKING QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE.
AND WITH THAT I TURNED THE FULL POWER OVER TO YOU, SIR.
>>DR.
TANS: CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>>BRUCE: YES >>DR.
TANS: DO YOU SEE THAT ON T RIGHT HAND PANEL?
YOU DON'T SEE THAT?
>>BRUCE: NO.
WE DO NOT SEE T SCREEN, SIR.
>>DR.
TANS: OKAY.
SO I WILL BE T ABOUT CARBON DIOXIDE.
IT'S ONE OF THE MOST I MOLECULES ON THE SURFACE OF THE
EARTH.
IT'S ALSO CALLED CARBONIC ACID BECAUSE IT ASSUMES IT DISSOLVES
IN WATER AND BECOMES AN ACID.
AND YOU COULD ALSO WRITE IT AS OCO,
WHICH IS AN ABBREVIATION OF ORBITING CARBON OBSERVING
SYSTEM.
IT IS A NASA LAUNCHED SATELLITE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO THAT WAS
SUPPOSED TO CONCENTRATIONS IN THE
ATMOSPHERE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE LAUNCH DIDN'T WORK OUT.
LAST YEAR H LAUNCHED A REPLACEMENT
SATELLITE THAT HAS BEEN UP FOR ALMOST A YEAR NOW.
CO2 IS IMPORTANT TO ALL L THINGS ON EARTH.
ALL ORGANIC MATTER, CARBON IS ONE OF THE BIG BONDS OF ORGANIC
MATTER.
AND PLANTS, PHOTOSYNTHESIZE IN ORGANISMS,
IN GENERAL HAVE OVER A LONG TIME OF EVOLUTION HAVE MANAGED
TO FIND A WAY WITH HELP SUNLIGHT TO TURN CO2 INTO
ORGANIC MOLECULES AND STRIP THE OXYGEN OFF.
SO YOU SEE THE S PICTURE OF THE LEAF,
THE CROSS-SECTION WITH STOMA SMALL OPENING,
USUALLY THEY ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF LEAVES.
CO2 GOING IN THE OXYGEN AND WATER VAPOR COMING OUT.
SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO LIFE.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO CLIMATE.
WE USE T BEGINNING OF THE PAPER THAT
SWEDISH CHEMIST, SVANTE ARRHENIUS,
HE WROTE ABOUT -- FOR CHEMISTRY IN 1896 -- WAS IT NOW,
1903 I THINK IT WAS ON THE INFLUENCE OF CARBONIC ACID IN
THE AIR UPON THE TEMPERATURE OF THE GROUND.
HE WAS LOOKING FOR P MECHANISM THAT COULD CAUSE THE
ICE AGES IN THE INTERVENING WARM PERIODS IN THE EARTH.
SO BY THEN ENOUGH OBSERVATIONS WERE KNOWN THAT THERE HAD BEEN
SEVERAL ICE AGES FAIRLY RECENTLY BECAUSE OF HISTORY.
AND HIS HYPOTHESIS WAS THAT PERHAPS THIS WAS ACTUALLY
CAUSED BY HIGHER AND LOWER AMOUNTS OF CO2 IN THE
ATMOSPHERE.
AND HE DID A V CALCULATION WITH PENCIL AND
PAPER.
THESE DAYS W HIGH-POWERED COMPUTERS.
BUT HE USED MANY M ESTIMATE THROUGH HE ABSORPTION
OF INFRARED LIGHT OTHERWISE GO TO SPACE.
BUT IF IT IS ABSORBED B REMAINS IN THE ATMOSPHERE,
HOW MUCH IT WOULD TEMPERATURE ON THE GROUND?
AND HIS CONCLUSION W APPROXIMATELY EVERY DOUBLING OF
CO2, THE TEMPERATURE AT THE SURFACE RISES BY 5 DEGREES AND
THE CO2, FOR SOME REASON, IS CUT IN HALF.
IT GETS COLDER BY 5 DEGREES.
SO HE CLAIMED T REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS FOR WHAT
CAUSES THE ICE AGES.
OF COURSE, HE C AGE THEMSELVES CAUSED CO2 TO GO
UP AND DOWN.
THIS IS THE OUTLINE THAT I AM GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT.
FIRST, BY WAY O MYSELF,
I SAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE DO ON A DAILY BASIS.
AND THEN, I WILL TALK ABOUT WHAT I CALL THE THREE MOST BEST
WELL-KNOWN FACTS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.
FIRST, HUMAN A RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EMISSIONS
OF GREENHOUSE GASES.
THERE'S NO O MAKES ANY SENSE.
THE ROLE OF GREENHOUSE GASES IN RETAINing HEAT IS ALSO
WELL-KNOWN AND UNDERSTOOD VERY WELL AND IN
GREAT DETAIL AND STILL INCREASING PERFECT DETAIL SINCE
THE FIRST PART OF THE CENTURY WHEN COMMON GAS WAS
INVENTED.
THE EMISSIONS WILL STAy IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND OCEANS FOR
THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
THIS IS VERY THORNY THAT MAKES THE PROBLEM VERY DIFFICULT TO
TACKLE.
WE CANNOT UNDO WHAT W DONE.
THAT IS NOT ON T CIVILIZATION.
AND I WILL SAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PREDICTIONS OF CLIMATE
CHANGE AND THE UNCERTAINTY OF CLIMATE FEEDBACKS CAUSING
UNCERTAINTY IN THE PREDICTION AND WHAT I THINK IS A REAL
POSSIBILITY FOR WHAT I WOULD CALL CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE
CHANGE.
NOW, THIS IS A VERY DIRE MESSAGE,
SO I HAVE TO END -- TO,
WITH SAYING THINGS WE CAN DO.
AND SOME OF THEM, THESE T THAT WE CAN DO,
ARE ACTUALLY VERY GOOD.
IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL FOR SOCIETY OTHER THAN JUST CLIMATE
CHANGE.
HERE'S A PICTURE OF SOME OF OUR MEASUREMENT PLATFORMS AND
SITES.
HERE'S ONE OF M OBSERVATORY ON THE VOLCANO
MAUNA LOA, THE MAIN HAWAII, AN ALTITUDE OF 3,
300 METERS.
AND YOU SEE A INLET,
WHERE FROM THAT TOP OF THE TOWER WE SUCK AIR INTO THE
BUILDING, THE MAIN BUILDING, WHERE WE HAVE CO2 ANALYZER.
I MOVED THE POINTER SO YOU CAN SEE IT.
AND INSIDE THAT BUILDING W HAVE OUR ANALYZER SYSTEM FOR
us.
ALL OF OUR MEASUREMENTS ARE EXTREMELY CAREFULLY CALIBRATED.
SO WHEN WE SAY O ON AVERAGE CO2 WAS 400 PARTS
PER MILLION IN THE ATMOSPHERE, WE KNOW THAT WITH INCREDIBLE
ACCURACY.
SO IT'S 400 BPM PLUS OR MINUS .
1 BPM.
AND WE KNOW THAT B VERY CAREFULLY CALIBRATE OUR
MEASUREMENTS ON BASIS, SEVERAL TIMES PER DAY.
IN FACT, MONTHS PER HOUR THIS PARTICULAR ANALYZER WE FEED IT
REFERENCE GASES TO THE RESPONSE OF THE ANALYZER TO
KNOW CO2 CONCENTRATIONS IN THE CYLINDERS.
THEN WE TAKE FLASK SAMPLES FROM ALL THE -- LIKE THIS SHIP HERE
OR SMALL AIRCRAFT.
AND THESE FLASKS A BY IN THIS CASE PAT LANG IN OUR
LABORATORY.
SO THESE FLASKS ARE SENT TO US FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.
WE EVEN SEE WHERE THEY ARE BEING SENT FROM.
ALL THE RED D FROM WHICH WE GET SENT TWO
FLASKS PER WEEK.
A PAIR OF FLASKS IN ALWAYS TAKEN BUT NEVER A SINGLE FLASK
BUT A PAIR WHICH IS A CONTROL MECHANISM.
OR SOMETIMES TWICE PER WEEK WE GET THE PAIR OF FLASKS FROM
SOME SITES.
THEN IN ADDITION, WE HAVE THESE GREEN TRIANGLES OVER NORTH
AMERICA.
I CAN'T SEE THE CURSOR RIGHT NOW.
GREEN TRIANGLES WHERE W VERY TALL COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS
WHERE WE TAKE MEASUREMENTS FROM UP TO AN ALTITUDE OF ABOUT
2,000 FOOT, SOME OF THESE.
WE TAKE ALTITUDES FROM THE HIGHEST LEVEL AND ALSO FROM THE
INTERMEDIATE LEVELS ON THE TOWER.
SO WE HAVE SOME IDEA O DISTRIBUTION OF CO2 WELL ABOVE
THE GROUND.
AND HERE YOU SEE HOW WE TAKE THE SAMPLES, OOPS, OOPS, SORRY.
WE HAVE A LITTLE SUITCASE THAT IS BATTERY OPERATED AND HAS A
PUMP IN IT.
AND ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE YOU SEE A FEW PEOPLE STANDING NEXT
TO IT THAT'S ON EASTER ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACIFIC
OCEAN.
SO A TELESCOPING F FIBERGLASS FISHING POLE,
GOES UP AND IT THE TOP OF AN INTAKE LINE.
SO WE TAKE AIR F ABOUT FIVE METERS ABOVE THE
GROUND.
AND THEN, IT GOES INTO THE -- THROUGH THE PUMP AND INTO THE
FLASK THAT GETS SENT.
I MENTIONED THESE CYLINDERS AND REFERENCE GASES.
WE MAKE THESE REFERENCE GASES OURSELVES.
WE HAVE CLEAN AIR P FACILITY AT ABOUT THE TREE LINE
IN COLORADO STRAIGHT WEST OF HERE CLOSE TO THE CONTINENTAL
DIVIDE.
THE ALTITUDE THERE IS ABOUT 3,600 METERS.
IT'S ABOVE LINE, SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE TREE LINE.
AND WE PUMP CLEAN AIR.
WE ONLY PUMP -- WE PRESSURIZE CYLINDERS WITH CLEAN AIR
NOTHING IS POLLUTION.
SOMETIMES WE SEE POLLUTION FROM THE FRONT RANGE IN COLORADO
THEN WE DON'T PUMP AIR.
AND THEN WE ADJUST THE CONCENTRATION AND ALSO THE
CONCENTRATION OF THAT WE CALIBRATE,
LIKE WE ADJUST CONCENTRATIONS BY SMALL AMOUNT
AND THEY ARE CARRIED THE LABORATORY WHERE WE COMPARE
THEM TO OUR PRIMARY CALIBRATION SCALES.
THESE CYLINDERS, ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN CALIBRATED THAT WAY,
BY COMPARING THEM WITH HIGHEST LEVEL CALIBRATION
SCALE, THEY ARE SENT OUT -- USED BY US,
BUT ALSO SENT OUT WORLD TO OTHER LABORATORIES.
THIS -- BRUCE M BRIEFLY AND WE SEE AN EXAMPLE
OF THAT THERE BOTTOM HERE, IS AN EXAMPLE.
IT'S 150 METER L COULD BE 100 METERS OR 400
METERS OF VERY, STAINLESS STEEL.
IN THIS CASE, IT ALSO HAS A SURFACE TREATMENT TO MAKE IT BE
MORE INERT.
AND IT GETS ROUNDED INTO A COIL AND IT'S LIFTED BY A BALLOON
ALL THE WAY TO MAYBE 30 KILOMETERS ALTITUDE,
QUITE HIGH INTO THE STRATOSPHERE.
THEN THE BALLOON POPS OR WE CUT THE PAYLOAD AND IT COMES BACK
DOWN BY AIR SHUTE.
AND HERE YOU SEE AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE HAD A LITTLE MISHAP.
THE PARACHUTE WAS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THIS ELECTRICAL VOLTAGE
SUPPLY LINE AND THE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
AND HERE YOU SEE THE P DANGLING FROM THE POWER LINE.
FORTUNATELY, WE W WITHOUT ANY ACCIDENTS TO WALK
AND GET IT.
THAT WAS A LITTLE MISHAP.
IT HAPPENS.
IT COULD HAVE ALSO L THE LAKE, FOR EXAMPLE.
IT WOULD HAVE C PROBLEM.
FINALLY, I'LL SAY SOMETHING ABOUT CARBON TRACKER.
SO CARBON TRACKER IS A MOTORING SYSTEM.
SO WE START WITH -- W TO SEE A TRANSPORT MODEL.
THE TRANSPORT MODEL H DERIVED FROM THE WEATHER
FORECAST.
AND THE WINDS AND ATMOSPHERIC MIXING ARE DEFINED EVERYWHERE
IN THE ATMOSPHERE THE WHOLE TIME,
BASED ON METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS.
AND FROM THAT FROM THAT SYSTEM,
THE WEATHER FORECAST ACTUALLY MADE.
BUT WE USE THE THING ANOTHER WAY.
WE TAKE THE FORECASTS, AND ESPECIALLY THE WIND PATTERNS,
AND THEN WE HAVE A FIRST GUESS OF WHAT TERRESTRIAL AND OCEANIC
CO2 SOURCES AND SINKS THE ATMOSPHERE.
SO AT NIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, PLANTS ARE PERSPIRING.
THERE'S NO PHOTOSYNTHESIS.
THERE'S A SOURCE FOR FOREST AND GRASSLANDS, AND FROM SEEDS,
CO2 IS ADDED TO THE ATMOSPHERE FROM THE SURFACE.
WELL, THAT KNOWLEDGE ALSO SIMILARLY FOR THE OCEANS WE
KNOW WHERE SOURCES AND SINKS ARE.
WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD THAT, CERTAINLY WHERE THEY ARE.
AND WE FEED THAT I TRANSPORT MODEL AND PREDICTS
THEN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATIONS EVERYWHERE IN
THE ATMOSPHERE.
WE COMPARE T OBSERVATIONS SHOWN BY THE MAP
IN THE UPPER RIGHT.
AND WE GET TWO R THAT.
ONCE WE COMPARE THOSE, THERE ARE STATISTICAL METHODS THAT
ALLOW US TO CHANGE OUR GUESSES OR SOURCES AND SINKS SO
THAT OPTIMAL AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVATIONS IS WHEAT.
SO NOT EVERY OBSERVATION IS EXACTLY HIT,
BUT ON AVERAGE THEY ARE VERY WELL,
SO MATCHED VERY WELL BY THE MODEL.
THEN, NOW, WE HAVE REVISED SOURCES AND SINKS AND THAT'S
INDICATED HERE ON THE LOWER LEFT.
SO NOW WE HAVE A TINY M SOURCES AND SINKS THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE OBSERVATIONS.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE NOW FILLED IN THE GLOBE WITH PREDICTIONS OF
CO2 EVERY THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE VERY SPARSE
OBSERVATIONS THAT THE SURFACE.
SO YOU COULD SAY THIS IS ALSO A EXTRAPOLATION SYSTEM OF.
SO BRUCE, IF YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
MAYBE I COULD ANSWER T ONE OR TWO ABOUT WHAT WE DO.
>> BRUCE: CERTAINLY.
ONE QUESTION THAT WE HAD IS FROM SARAH SAYS I HAVE ALWAYS
WONDERED HOW C02 MEASUREMENT IN MOUNA LOA ARE ADJUSTED FOR THE
FACT THAT C02 CAN BE RELEASED FROM VOLUME CAN KNOWS IN AREAS
OF TILT ON THE IN THIS CASE ACTIVITY.
IS THIS A PROBLEM AT MOUNA LOA.
>> PIETER: GOOD QUESTION.
YEAH, THIS WAS WELL-KNOWN ACTUALLY.
WHEN MEASUREMENTS AT MOUNA LOA IN 1958 AND THERE IS A VOLCANO
THAT IS NOW EXTINCT, IT IS AN ACTIVE VOLCANO.
FORTUNATELY, IT I SEE WHEN BEFORE A CONTRIBUTION
OF C02.
AND YOU CAN SEE FOR EXAMPLE BEFORE A MAJOR ERUPTION AND
ALSO, AFTER ERUPTION, KEEPS YOU GOING FOR YEARS LOWLY BECOME
LESS.
BUT THIS THING WITH FROM THE NATIONAL ATMOSPHERE THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO MAKE BY HAVING A VERY CLEAR PATTERN SO THIS HIGH C02
IS PART OF THESE EMISSIONS FLOWS DOWN THE MOUNTAIN LIKE
RIVERS.
AND THEY MEANDER.
SO VERY HIGH C02 MEANDERS PAST THE ANALYZER INTAKE AND THEN,
KNOCKS AND THEN, THERE IT IS AGAIN.
AND THEN LOCKS.
SO IT IS VERY HIGH F VARIABILITY AND IT IS VERY EASY
TO PICK UP.
FURTHERMORE, WE ALSO MEASURE SULFUR DIOXIDE WHICH ALSO COMES
OUT OF VOLCANOS TO CONFIRM IF WHAT WE SEE MEANDERING DOWN THE
MOUNTAIN IS INDEED OF VOLCANIC ORIGIN.
SO WE CAN ACTUALLY D THIS QUITE EASILY BY WHAT WE
CALL BACKGROUND AIR.
OKAY, THEN, I WILL CONTINUE NOW.
NOW IS MY FIRST CERTAINTY T I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT.
WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE OBSERVATORY C02 INCREASES IS
DUE TO US.
THIS IS THE FULL ALMOST UP-TO-DATE AND THIS IS ABOUT A
YEAR OLD.
I CAN DATE THE F LOOKING AT HOW HIGH C02 IS
RIGHT UPPER RIGHT.
I KNOW WHEN THIS FIGURE WAS MADE.
THERE ARE TWO STRIKING T TO SEE.
FIRST IS THE SEASONAL CYCLE, CO GOING UP AND DOWN.
IN THE NORTHERN H EVERY LET'S SAY NEXT SPRING TO
EARLY FALL, C02 GOES BECAUSE PLANTS HAVE MORE
PHTOSYNTHETIC UPDATE THAN THEY HAVE RESPIRATION.
SO THE NET FACT IS TO REMOVE CO2 FROM THE ATMOSPHERE.
AND THEN, IN THE O COMES BACK AND IT CAUSES
REGULAR SEASONAL CYCLE.
THE SEASONAL CYCLE ESPECIALLY AT THE LOWER END,
AT SAY 2000 LONG AVERAGE ALTITUDE PEAK TO PEAK
IS ABOUT 7 PARTS PER MILLION.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE OF PRETTY MUCH
THE ENTIRE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.
AND THIS IS A NUMBER FOR TOTAL NET C02 REMOVED DURING THE
GROWING SEASON BY ALL TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS.
AND THIS EQUATES TO ABOUT 7 BILLION TONS OF CARBON.
SO ALL TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS TOGETHER MANAGE TO TAKE UP 7
BILLION TONS OF CARBON.
HOW MUCH DO WE EMIT C OF BURNING FOSSIL FUELS?
TEN.
I FIND THIS A STUNNING.
SO OUR DIRECT FUEL EMISSIONS OF BURNING FOSSIL FUELS IS LARGER
THAN THE TOTAL NET SEASONAL UPDATE BY ALL ECOSYSTEMS IN THE
NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.
AND THAT EXPLAINS W SHOULD TAKE AWAY THE SEASON
CYCLE WAS THIS UNDERLYING UPWARD TREND.
THIS OF COURSE IS D FUEL BURNING.
YOU CAN ALSO IT IN PERSPECTIVE.
THIS IS THE RISE OF C02 AT THE END IN THE 20TH CENTURY.
THE YEAR IS IN THE FAR UPPER RIGHT.
AND BEFORE THAT, THE MEASUREMENTS INFER AN ICE CORE
AROSE THE ANTARCTICA.
AND BEFORE THAT, DEEP ANTARTICA ICE CORE RECORD,
THREE DIFFERENT INVESTIGATING THIS WITH
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT METHODS AND TECHNIQUES GOING LIKE 80,
000 YEARS.
AND WHAT YOU SEE HERE, I CLEARLY IS HOW EXCEPTIONAL THIS
CURRENT AND LEFT CENTURY COMPARED TO EIGHTEEN THOUSAND
YEARS OF EARTH HISTORY.
LOOKING AT IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY,
I PUT IT ON DIFFERENT TIME SCALES.
SO THE RIGHT-HAND P THIS MAUNA LOA INCREASES THE X
EXPANDS ABOUT 70 YEARS.
IN THE MIDDLE PANEL, THE X SPENDS ABOUT 900 YEARS.
THAT WOULD MEASURING IN COASTAL AND ICE CORE.
THERE IS A LITTLE D STARTING MAYBE IN 1550, 1600.
C02 WAS A LITTLE BIT LOWER.
AND THEN, AFTER IT'S G UP.
AND IT IS CONNECTED TO WHAT'S CALLED THE LITTLE ICE AGE.
IT'S WELL-KNOWN F LITERATURE AND PAINTINGS FOR
EXAMPLE, THE RIVER FROZEN IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER
IN LONDON.
I'M FROM THE NETHERLANDS, SIMILAR PICTURES BY FAMOUS
DUTCH PAINTERS OF SKATING EVERYWHERE ON LAKES AND CANALS
IN THOSE DAYS.
IT WAS COLDER THAN TODAY.
AND THEN FINALLY ON THE LEFT, THE LEFT-HAND PANEL,
THE X SPANS 800,000 YEARS.
SO WE'RE GOING T THE LAST 12,000 YEARS OF THAT.
SO THE LAST THOUSAND YEARS, I'VE NOW STRETCHED OUT THE
LEFT-HAND SIDE., YOU SEE C02 MEASURED IN A HIGH RESOLUTION
ICE CORE.
I THINK THIS IS ALSO FROM ANTARCTICA.
AND I CLIMBED OUT O ICE AGE IN TWO STEPS .
CO2 WENT UP IN TWO STEPS.
BUT IT TOOK SIX THOUSAND YEARS OR SEVEN THOUSAND YEARS.
COMPARED WITH TODAY'S INCREASE, I HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN A LITTLE
SLICE THERE, 16,000 YEARS AGO AND 11 AND A HALF THOUSAND
YEARS AGO AND I HAVE WIDENED THE SLICE INTO THE MIDDLE PANEL
WHERE THE XXS SPANS 70 YEARS TO COMPARE WITH THE RIGHT-HAND
PANEL WITH MODERN INCREASE , SPANS EXPANDS 70 YEARS.
AND YOU SEE THAT EVEN WHEN THE EARTH WAS CLIMBING OUT OF THE
ICE AGE WHICH WAS QUITE A RAPID CHANGE IN GEOLOGIC PERSPECTIVE.
,YOU KNOW, THE ICE AGE SEEMED TO BE TURNED ON AND OFF FAIRLY
RAPIDLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT A 800 THOUSAND YEAR LONG RECORD.
BUT YOU SEE H HAPPENED TODAY IS 200 TIMES
FASTER THAN WHAT WE IN THE LAST 8 TO A THOUSAND
YEARS.
SO NOT ONLY ARE W ABOVE ANYTHING THAT THE EARTH
HAS EXPERIENCED IN THE 18,000 YEARS,
THINGS ARE EXTREMELY RAPIDLY.
ALL RIGHT, A LITTLE BIT MORE EVIDENCE.
I'M NOT GOING TO SHOW Y THE EVIDENCE.
BUT YOU ALREADY KNOW HUMAN BEINGS,
THAT THIS IS NOT A PIECE OF IT.
SO THE CURVE -- THE BLACK CURVE SPANS,
IT GIVES YOU THE HISTORY OF CO2.
SEE, THE CURSER DISAPPEARS REGULARLY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING.
WHAT IS THE C EMISSIONS OF C02 FROM BURNING
OF FOSSIL FUELS, MEANING AT THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE
HERE, THIS IS THIS IS IN 2010.
ALL FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS SINCE INDUSTRIAL TIMES UNTIL 2010,
355 BILLION TONS OF CARBON.
THAT'S HOW THIS COMPARISON TO THE ATMOSPHERIC INCREASE.
AND YOU S ATMOSPHERIC INCREASE IS LESS
THAN TOTAL EMISSIONS CO2, SO A SIGNIFICANT FRACTION OF C02 HAS
GROWN SOMEWHERE ELSE.
BUT FIRST ANOTHER LOOK AT THE MAGNITUDE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING.
SO HERE WE HAVE THESE -- SO THE 350 BILLION TONS OF CARBON.
HOW MUCH IS THAT?
SO WHEN I COULD R VALUE.
SO WE BURN OIL TO MOSTLY FUEL CARS AND TRUCKS AND ALL
TRANSPORTATION.
AND IF YOU COULD GLOBAL DAILY USE OF OIL,
IF YOU PUT THAT IN ONE HUGE BARREL,
THIS IS THE SIZE OF THE BARREL WILL HAVE COMPARED TO SAY
EIFFEL TOWER, TOWER, OR THE ONE IN DUBAI.
IT'S AGGRESSIVE.
OF COURSE WE CONSUME SUCH A BARREL EVERY DAY,
THERE ARE 65 SUCH BA HAVE CONSUMED.
AN OIL CONSUMPTION IS ABOUT 30 PERCENT OR ONE THIRD OF TOTAL
FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION.
SO THE OTHER TWO THIRDS ARE COAL AND NATURAL GAS.
NOW, WE LOOK AT W TO THE REMAINDER THAT HAS GONE
THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE.
HERE, WE USE AN O WHICH IS DEPICTED IN BLUE.
IT'S A VERY SIMPLE MODEL.
AND IT TAKES THE OBSERVED C02 INCREASE AND MODELS HOW PART OF
AN INCREASE WILL GO INTO THE OCEAN AND HOW LONG IT TAKES.
THERE ARE TWO VERY IMPORTANT CONSTRAINTS ON THIS SIMPLE
MODEL.
ONE IS THAT THIS MODEL H GO THROUGH THIS BLUE POINT HERE
WITH THE AIR BRUSH.
THIS IS MEASURED TOTAL CO2 INCREASE IN THE OCEANS CENTERED
ON 94.
THIS MODEL HAS TO GO TH THIS POINT.
AND ALSO, THE RATES OF INCREASE IN THE OCEANS HAS TO CORRESPOND
WITH ABSORBED ATMOSPHERE MEASUREMENTS.
THEN, THERE IS A REMAINDER.
SO YOU SEE NOW FROM TH IN 2010,
TOTAL CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS ARE ALMOST THE SAME AS THE TOTAL
MEASURED INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE,
PLUS THE TOTAL MEASURED INCREASE IN THE OCEANS.
SO WE KNOW WHERE THIS HAS GONE.
THE REMAINDER IS T WHICH BY DIFFERENCE,
INFER MUST HAVE G YOU CAN SEE IN THE EARLY DAYS
BETWEEN 1850 AND TERRESTRIAL BIOSPHERE WAS
DECREASING.
IN OTHER WORDS, DEFORESTATION FIRST IN TEMPERED REGIONS IN
EUROPE AND IN THE U.S, EASTERN EUROPE AND LATIN AMERICA,
DEFORESTATION TO MAKE WAY FOR CROPS DESTROYED A PORTION OF
THE TERRESTRIAL BIOSPHERE SO THAT IT WAS BURNT BASICALLY.
AND SO TH BIOSPHERE WAS DONE.
BUT THE AMAZING THING IS S ABOUT 19850,
THE TERRESTRIAL BIOSPHERE IS ACTUALLY INCREASING.
OKAY, I CAN ANSWER ONE OR TWO QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.
I'M GOING TO STOP TALKING ABOUT WHY WE KNOW WE ARE THE CAUSE OF
THE OBSERVED INCREASES.
>> BRUCE: SURE, I'M GOING TO MAKE AN APPEAL IF ANYONE HAS
PARTICULAR QUESTIONS ABOUT ANYTHING THAT DR. TANS IS
PRESENTING TO PLEASE WRITE IT INTO THE QUESTION BOX.
DR. TANS, THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAST SERIES
OF SLIDES THAT YOU HAD ABOUT THE DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES WHICH
WERE THE FLASKS THAT YOU USE TO COLLECT YOUR SAMPLES.
FIRST OF ALL, ARE THEY MADE OF ANY SPECIAL MATERIAL OR CODED
IN ANY WAY, OR ARE THEY JUST GLASS OR PLASTIC?
>> DR. TANS: PLASTIC IS HORRIBLE.
SO YOU DO DISSOLVE IN PLASTIC.
SO PLASTIC IS NOT U US.
GLASS.
YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH HOW WE CLOSE WITH THE
VALUE.
IN THE EARLY DAYS, WE HAD GREASE,
GLASS STUCAR (PHN) WHICH WAS OKAY FOR C02 BUT WHEN WE
STARTED TO MEASURE OTHER GASES, SUCH AS CARBON MONOXIDE,
IF YOU EXPOSE VIOLENT LIGHT,
C0CO IS BEING GENERATED.
AND SO WE DECIDED WE CAN'T USE THOSE ANY MORE.
SO NOW WE HAVE GLASS P TEFLON, SO AS POSSIBLE,
ALL THESE THINGS.
>> BRUCE: THANK YOU.
AND JUST ONE FINAL QUESTION: THE LAST MAP THAT YOU SHOWED
FROM THE -- CARBON TRACKER SITE WHERE YOU
WERE SHOWING, THE WERE BLUE THERE ON THAT MAP,
WAS THAT CONSIDERED TO SINK OR A SOURCE OF C02?
>> DR. TANS: SINKS ARE IN BLUE AND SOURCES ARE IN RED AND
ALSO, LOW C02 IS IN BLUE AND HIGHER C02 IS IN RED.
SO THAT THESE C CORRESPOND.
>> BRUCE: ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
SO WHY DON'T WE C YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> DR. TANS: OKAY, SO A LITTL BIT ABOUT THE PHYSICS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE.
FIRST INFRARED R THE LEFT,
YOU SEE AN APARTMENT BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT IN THE 1950'S IN
FRANKFURST , GERMANY.
AND IF Y BUILDING THROUGH AN INFRARED
SENSITIVE CAMERA, AN INFRARED SENSITIVE CAMERA GETS A HIGHER
-- GETS MORE SIGNAL FROM AREAS THAT ARE WARM AND LESS SIGNAL
FROM AREAS THAT ARE COLD.
AND WHEN YOU T LIKE THAT,
YOU SEE THAT THE BUILDING IS LOSING A LOT OF HEAT THROUGH
WINDOWS, AND DOORS AND EVEN THROUGH THE WALLS.
WELL, THIS BUILDING WAS ACTUALLY REFURBISHED IN THE 19,
EARLY 2000'S AND THIS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE SO THE LOWER RIGHT
HAND SIDE OF THIS -- OOPS.
AND THEN, A INFRARED CAMERA TOOK PICTURES OF THE SAME
BUILDING AFTER REFURBISHMENT AND YOU SEE HOW MUCH BETTER IT
BECAME.
SO ENERGY, THE ENERGY THAT WAS WASTED IN THIS BUILDING IS
ENERGY BY MOSTLY HEATING.
THE ENERGY WASTE WAS CUT BY 90 % WITH KNOWN TECHNOLOGY.
SO WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT.
HERE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, INFRARED PICTURE OF HANDS.
THE PARTIAL FEW HANDS THAT ARE WARMER ARE RED,
AND THE FINGERS ARE COLDER BLUE.
AND ONE PERSON HAS W THAN ANOTHER PERSON.
SO THIS IS ILLUSTRATION O WELL-KNOWN FACT IN PHYSICS.
EVERY OBJECTIVE UNIVERSE INCLUDING OUR BODIES,
WE EMIT RADIATION.
AND THE AMOUNT THAT E DEPEND VERY MUCH ON OUR
TEMPERATURE.
AND HERE IS A SLIDE OF THAT.
YOU SEE THE AMOUNT OF INTENSITY OF INFRARED LIGHT EMITTED BY A
BODY THAT HAS A TEMPERATURE OF 50 DEGREES,
MAYBE LESS THAN 105, 110.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE, FAHRENHEIT OR OR MINUS 70, VERY COLD.
THE AMOUNT OF INFRARED RADIATION EMITTED IS VERY,
VERY DIFFERENT.
AND THE WAVE LENGTH IS ALSO DIFFERENT.
SO DIFFERENT AMOUNTS O RADIATION AND DIFFERENT WAVE
LENGTHS.
ALL RIGHT.
NOW, THE PRINCIPLE OF HOW TO GREENHOUSE AFFECT WORKS.
HERE IS A VERY S OF THE EARTH.
AND IT'S FROM THE RIGHT FROM ONE DIRECTION ONLY BY SUNLIGHT
AND IS INDICATED AS FOUR BLACK ARROWS.
THE EARTH HAS A CERTAIN TEMPERATURE AND LIKE EVERYBODY
IN THE UNIVERSE, IT WILL EMIT INFRARED RADIATION IN ALL
DIRECTIONS IN SPACE AND INDICATED BY THE WAVY RED
LINES.
EACH LINE REPRESENTS SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY.
THE EARTH EMITS THE S SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT WE
SEE OR ABSORBS FROM THE SUN.
CAN YOU SEE IT?
THE ATMOSPHERE AROUND THE EARTH.
NOW, THE ATMOSPHERE, YOU CAN BARELY SEE IT.
THE ATMOSPHERE E OF KILOMETERS TO SPACE BUT IT
GETS -- THE FURTHER YOU GO FROM EARTH,
THE THINNER AND THINNER IT GETS.
IF WE COULD SOMEHOW COMPRESS THE ATMOSPHERE TO THE SAME
DENSITY OF THE PAST UPPER SURFACE,
IT WOULD BE NO MORE THAN 8 KILOMETERS THICK.
AND SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS EIGHT KILOMETER STICK
LAYER AND PUT IT FURTHER AWAY FROM EARTH AND
WE'RE GOING TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.
HERE, WE HAVE N SIMPLIFIED MODEL OF THE EARTH'S
ATMOSPHERE AND THE RECEIVES LIGHT FROM THE SUN.
AND SO THE EARTH R FROM THE SUN.
THE ATMOSPHERE LETS THROUGH ALL THE VISIBLE LIGHT.
IT DOES NOT ABSORB ANYTHING.
IT GOES RIGHT T SURFACE.
AND THAT'S TRUE FOR PHYSICAL LIGHT.
AND THE INFRARED LIGHTS, WE ASSUME THAT THE ATMOSPHERE
BLUFFS ALL OF THE INFRARED LIGHT,
SO IT CANNOT LET THAT TH ROUGH THE SPACE.
BUT THIS OBJECT, IT SETS AROUND THE EARTH ITSELF,
EMITS RADIATION IN ALL DIRECTIONS.
AND WELL, ONCE IT HAS ACHIEVED STUDY STATES, WILL EMIT,
DISPLACE AS MUCH AS THE EARTH DID BEFORE THERE WAS AN
ATMOSPHERE.
SO ONCE WE HAVE T MODEL ATMOSPHERE THAT LETS NO
INFRARED LIGHT THROUGH, IT WILL BE EMITTING DISPLACED SAME
AMOUNT, OTHERWISE THE WHOLE SYSTEM EITHER GO UP OR DOWN IN
TEMPERATURE.
WE ASSUME THIS IS STEADY STATE.
NOW, IT EMITS E DIRECTIONS SO IT ALSO EMITS
ENERGY BACK TO EARTH.
NOW THE EARTH'S SURFACE IS NOT IN STEADY STATE BECAUSE THE
EARTH'S SURFACE APPARENTLY RECEIVES 8 UNITS OF ENERGY,
4 FROM THE SUN AND 4 UNITS OF INFRARED COMING BACK FROM THIS
ATMOSPHERE.
SO THE EARTH'S S TO SPEED UP UNTIL IT EMITS ALSO
8 UNITS.
AND NOW WE HAVE STEADY STATES: NOW,
THE EARTH RESURFACE UNITS AND EMITS 8 UNITS.
THE ARTIFICIAL ATMOSPHERE ABSORBS 8 UNITS AND EMITS 8
UNITS.
SO WE HAVE A NEW STEADY S NOW.
BUT THE EARTH IS AT A TEMPERATURE.
AND IN FACT, THE AVERAGE EQUILIBRIUM OF THE TEMPERATURE
OF THE EARTH'S 30 DEGREES C OR 86 FAHRENHEIT
WITH THIS ATMOSPHERE.
I'LL GO BACK HERE.
BEFORE WITHOUT AN A WITH AN ATMOSPHERE THAT DOES
NOT ABSORB ANY ALL,
THE EQUILIBRIUM SURFACE TEMPERATURE WAS MINUS 18 C OR
MINUS 1-F.
SO BRINGING IN THIS ATMOSPHERE AS HEATED WILL SURFACE BY
ALMOST 90 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT.
THERE WAS A SIMPLIFIED MODEL.
NOW, THE A DEPOSIT OF THE ATMOSPHERE,
WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS EMISSION AS MEASURED BY
SATELLITE FROM SPACE OVER A PIECE OF THE SAHARA CROSSING
THE SAHARA IN MID-DAY.
YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A FORCE IN THE SPECTRUM,
IT'S ALSO CALLED W LEGIONS,
WHERE THROUGH THE SATELLITE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE ATMOSPHERE -- OR
NO.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE OBJECT THAT IS EMITTING THE RADIATION INTO
SPACE HAS A FIFTY DEGREES CENTIGRADE.
THAT IS THE STAND A ON THE SURFACE OF THE SAHARA IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY.
SO THIS RADIATION EMITTED B THE EARTH SURFACES MAKES ITS
WAY ALL THE WAY UP TO SPACE.
IT'S NOT BEEN RETAINED BY THE ATMOSPHERE.
AND IT'S VERY EFFECTIVE.
YOU SEE THIS WINDOW I EFFECTIVE IN KEEPING THE EARTH
COOL.
BUT NOW, WE LOOK AT T THE SPECTRUM WHERE CO2 ABSORBS
RADIATION.
TO THE SATELLITE, NOW, IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS LOOKING AT A BODY
THAT IS AT A TEMPERATURE OF MINUS 50 CENTIGRADES.
THAT IS THE SAME T WHEN YOU ARE IN A AIRPLANE AND
IT IS FLYING IN THE STRATOSPHERE AT AN ALTITUDE OF
MAYBE YOU KNOW, 30,000 FEET, 35,000 FEET.
IT'S THE OUTSIDE T FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE
STRATOSPHERE.
SO THERE IS SO MUCH C02 IN THE ATMOSPHERE THAT IF THE ONLY
RADIATION IN THAT PART OF THE SPECTRUM WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO
ESCAPE THE SPECTRUM IS NOT BEING ABSORBED AGAIN ALONG THE
WAY, THE SPACE LITTLE ENOUGH ATMOSPHERE ENOUGH
OF IT LEFT SO THAT THE C02 LETS THROUGH MOST OF IT.
AND THAT IS IN THE A IN THIS CASE, MIGHT BE 14,
15 KILOMETERS IN SO IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
ABSORPTION SPECTRUM .
AND THIS ALSO GOES FOR WATER VAPOR AND METHANE AND OZONE AND
THIS IS WHAT ALL GREENHOUSE GASES DO BUT IN DIFFERENT
PORTIONS OF THE INFRARED ON THE SPECTRUM.
NOW, THE UPSHOT OF THAT IS THAT IF YOU COMPARE THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF HEAT RETAINED TODAY BY GREENHOUSE GASES ONLY,
ASSUMING EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME,
WE CAN ACTUALLY CALCULATE QUITE ACCURATELY HOW MUCH HEAT IS
RETAINED COMPARED TO PRE-INDUSTRIAL L TIMES.
AND CURRENTLY C02 ALONE COMPARED TO PRE-INDUSTRIAL
TIMES, WE CHANGE SQUARE METER AVERAGED OVER THE
ENTIRE EARTH, YOU ADD ALL THE OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES AND IT
IS 2.9 ROCKS PER SQUARE METER.
YOU SAY ,WELL, H THAT?
WELL, YOU CAN C WHAT PERCENTAGE OF ALL THE
ENERGY THAT FUELS THE CLIMATE SYSTEM WHICH HAPPENS TO
BE ON AVERAGE ,240 SQUARE METER.
SO TODAY, ABSORPTION BY GREENHOUSE GASES HAS ENHANCED
THE PRODUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GASES COMPARED TO
PRE-COMMERCIAL TIMES RETAINING 1.2 PERCENT OF ALL
THE ENERGY THAT FUELS THE EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM.
ANYBODY SAYING THAT WILL NOT CHANGE CLIMATE IS AN IDIOT OR
HAS A STAKE IN IT OR OTHERWISE.
SO THAT'S THE SECOND WELL-KNOWN FEATURE.
WE KNOW HOW GREENHOUSE GASES ABSORB RADIATION AND HOW MUCH.
IF YOU CALCULATE THE TWO OF MAYBE 5 OR 10 PERCENT,
YOU WILL SEE A PREDICTION OF ATMOSPHERE IN CO2 FOR ONE
PARTICULAR EMISSIONS .
THE TIME COURSE OF EMISSIONS IS ACTUALLY -THE EMISSIONS IN THIS
CASE TAKE PLACE MOSTLY IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 21ST CENTURY.
AND CO2 GOES UP AND T EMISSIONS STOP BY ABOUT
2,60.00, 2,70.00 CO2 STARTS TO GO DOWN AS THE OCEANS ARE STILL
GOING UP.
THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS N CHANGING.
WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS THAT WHAT LEAVES THE ATMOSPHERE ENDS UP
IN THE OCEANS, BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THE RISK ADVICE FOR
YOU DOES NOT PARTICULAR PREDICTION.
AND THIS IS VERY W BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND
CARBONATED CHEMISTRY OF THE OCEANS.
SO WE KNOW HOW THE O WITH CO2 AND WE KNOW FOR
EXAMPLE THAT FOR THE CO2 TO REMOVED OR NEUTRALIZED,
THE CO2 IS AN ASSET BY ALKALINE ELEMENTS TAKES THOUSANDS OF
YEARS.
NOW, I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THIS MEANS FOR CLIMATE FORCING.
SO HERE IS DEPICTED, THE CLIMATE FORCING WATTS PER
SQUARE METER AS A FUNCTION OF TIME FOR THE CO2 CURVE THAT I
SHOWED YOU IN GRAPH.
AND THE RECORD ADDS TO GET THE GREENHOUSE GASES IS ONLY
PREDICTED THROUGH THE END OF 2100.
THE EMISSIONS SCENARIO THAT I TOOK THESE IS ACTUALLY A FAIRLY
LOW ONE WHERE WE HUMAN, WE MANAGE TO STOP EMISSIONS BY
AROUND 2050 OR 60.
YOU COULD C OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO.
SO THIS IS C02 C LIKE THIS OR MORE.
HOW MUCH IS THIS?
WELL, YOU COULD INTEGRATE THIS OVER TIME.
HOW MUCH ENERGY IS THIS?
WELL, IT'S ENOUGH ENERGY TO RAISE THE UPPER THOUSAND METERS
OF THE OCEAN TEMPERATURE BY 12-DEGREES CENTIGRADE OR ABOUT
20-DEGREES FAHRENHEITS TO DO THAT.
OR BY C02 LONG.
IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 1752 TO
THE YEAR 2100, TEMPERATURES IN THE UPPER THOUSAND METERS OF
THE OCEAN COULD BE RAISED FROM FIVE DEGREES.
NOW, THIS IS NOT GOING T HAPPEN BUT TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA
OF THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY BEING RETAINED DURING THE
ACTIVITIES.
BUT I HAVE NOT C THE NEGATIVE CLIMATE FORCING,
MOSTLY DUE TO THE ACTIVITIES.
WE EMIT SMALL PARTICLES AND YOU CAN SEE THEM IN HERE.
>> AND THEY TEND TO -- THEY BOTH WARM AND COOL THE CLIMATE
ON AVERAGE, THEY TEND TO COOL.
DON'T FORGET, ALSO, DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY.
THE EARTH AS E MURPHY FROM OUR LAB.
SO OF THIS RETAINED HEAT, O 12 PERCENT APPROXIMATELY LEAD
TO THE OCEAN AND CAUSE TEMPERATURES TO RISE.
SO 91 PERCENT OF THIS WENT OUT OF SPACE IS THE EARTH'S
SURFACE.
DID GET WARMER AND THEN, ESPECIALLY IN THE WINTER
REGIONS OF THE INFRARED SPECTRUM,
THAT INCREASED RADIATION HELPED TO COOL THE PLANET.
AND THEN, THE RE IS AEROSOLS, HIGH DIFFERENCE.
IT IS QUITE A PROBLEM.
I THINK I HAVE TO SKIP THIS ONE.
THIS IS SOMETHING ABOUT -- I'M TRYING TO NOT RUN OVER TIME.
THIS IS S IMPORTANT IN THIS FEEDBACK.
SO WE KNOW THAT G GASES WILL CHANGE IN CLIMATE
FORCING.
THEY HAVE TO CHANGE IN CLIMATE FORCING.
AND THIS EXTRA HEAT, PART OF IT WILL BE USED TO WARM THE
SURFACE.
ONCE YOU WARM THE S PERCENT OF WHICH IS OCEAN
WATER, THERE WILL BE MORE VAPOR IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
THIS IS BASICALLY EXPECTED, PHYSICAL GROUNDS BUT ACTUALLY
HAS BEEN OBSERVED.
SO WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE WATER VAPOR IN THE ATMOSPHERE HAS
INCREASED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES,
IT IS A GREENHOUSE GASES AND WE CALL THAT FEEDBACK BECAUSE NOW,
THE FORCING HAS CHANGED EVEN MORE BY ADDING THE WATER VAPOR
WHICH CAUSES MORE HEATING.
AND THIS OF COURSE, WATER VAPOR INCREASES THE FORCE ENOUGH THAT
IT ALL BY ITSELF WILL CAUSE THE HEAT TO INCREASE BY 50 PERCENT.
WELL, IF 50 % ALSO GOES AROUND THIS LOOP,
AND ADDS ANOTHER 25 PERCENT.
AND THAT 25 GOES T SAME LOOP AND ADD ANOTHER 12
AND A HALF PERCENT, THEM ALL UP AND THE WATER VAPOR
IN THE EXAMPLE IS TO TRUTH,
INCREASE TEMPERATURE BY TRACKER 2 COMPARED TO THAT CAUSED BY
GREENHOUSE GASES.
NOW, THE HIGHER TEMPERATURE ALSO CAUSES SNOW AND ICE TO
MELT BUT THAT'S EFFECT.
THE WATER VAPOR IS AN IMMEDIATE EFFECT.
SNOW AND ICE, ESPECIALLY ICE, THAT TAKES LONGER TO MELT.
PERHAPS THOUSANDS WERE ICE CAPS PERHAPS.
ANOTHER LONG TROPHY B PERMAFROST IN ARTIC REGIONS
WHICH HAS AN ENORMOUS REDUCED CARBON AND IT IS IN A
DEEP FREEZE AND WE RAISE OUR ACTIONS TEMPERATURE OF THE
ARTIC GOES UP OR TAKING OF THE FREEZER YOU SHOULD SAY.
AND MICRO ORGANISMS WILL BASICALLY CONSUME THAT CAUSING
EITHER OR BOTH C02 OR METHANE DEPENDING ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
NOW, THOSE ITSELF OF COURSE ARE THIS IS ALSO POSITIVE FEEDBACK
THE WARM CAUSES MORE GREENHOUSE GASES EMITTED AND THESE ARE
SLOW FEEDBACKS, AND VERY DIFFICULT TO QUANTIFY IT AT
THAT POINT.
WHICH BRINGS ME TO OTHER IMPORTANT CONCEPTS SO WE HAVE
THESE FEEDBACKS AND MODELS TRY TO PREDICT MODEL TRY TO
INCORPORATE FEEDBACKS TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY.
BUT WE HAVE SEEN RELATIVELY LITTLE OF THEM SO FAR.
AND SO THESE FEEDBACKS THAT WAS CALLED PERIMETER RISE,
WE CALL OFFICIALS FOR SPECIFIC PROCESSES THAT ARE POSTULATED
TO BE WORKING.
AND SO THIS MODEL HAS D FEEDBACKS INCORPORATED IN THEM
AND YOU CAN RUN PREDICTIONS FOR SAY DOUBLE CO2 WHICH IN THIS
CASE OR FOR THIS DIFFERENT MODELS AND FOR
DISTRIBUTION.
IT'S CALLED C PROBABILITY.
SO IF YOU GO TO THIS POINT IN THE GRAPH,
ALL MODELS PREDICT SOME WARMING.
A HUNDRED PERCENT, ALL M PREDICT SOME WARMING.
SO AT LEAST PREDICTING A WARMING OF SAY 5 DEGREES
FAHRENHEIT OR MORE.
THEN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT T POINT OF THE CURVE,
HALF OF THE MODELS PREDICT A WARMING OVER THE CONTINENT OF
8-DEGREES FAHRENHEIT OR MORE.
AND THEN GO TOWARD 16 PERCENT OF THE MODELS PREDICT WARMING
OF 20-DEGREES FAHRENHEIT ON AVERAGE OR MORE.
AND IT'S LIKE RUSSIAN ROULETTE.
YOU KNOW YOU H PLACES FOR WOOD,
ONE IN 5 IS EMPTY AND ARE YOU GOING TO PULL THE TRIGGER.
AFTER ALL, THERE IS FIVE IN SIX CHANCES YOU WILL BE DEAD.
BUT CHANCES ARE IT'S HIT YOU.
WELL, THIS WHAT ARE YOU DOING EXCEPT OUR OWN HEADS PUT THAT
OVER OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.
SO THIS IS ALL VERY GLOOM.
I MEAN, CANNOT BE O ABOUT IT WHEN I LOOK AT THESE
CLIMATE CHANGE.
IF WE ARE THE CAUSE, WE KNOW WHAT GREENHOUSE GASES DO.
WE KNOW THE LONGEVITY WHICH MAKES THE CLIMATE SEASON A LOT
OF TIME FOR ITS SLOW FEEDBACKS VERY WELL.
SLOW FEEDBACK.
SO THE GOOD NE WILL,
THAT AS WE -- IF WE MANAGE TO MAINTAIN OUR ORGANIZED SOCIETY,
AND WE ARE ABLE TO CAREFULLY OBSERVE HOW THE CLIMATE CHANGE
UNFOLDS, WE CAN PROBABLY FIGURE OUT HOW THE FEEDBACKS WORK.
BUT I'M PESSIMISTIC THAT WE CAN PREDICT HOW THESE FEEDBACKS
WORK.
SO I THINK WE HAVE TO OBSERVE THEM FIRST AND THEN,
WE WILL FIGURE WORKS.
SO PESSIMISTIC.
SO BASICALLY WHAT I ME,
IT SAYS THAT WE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HEAT AND
THE THE OVERWHELMING HUMAN INFLUENCE OTHER THAN THE
EARTH'S NATURAL EARTH SYSTEMS.
I THINK ONE OF OUR REAL MAIN PROBLEMS IS THAT WE HAVE AN
ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT DEMANDS GROWTH.
IF THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM D GROW, PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS.
A LOT OF THINGS ARE H THAT AFFECT PEOPLE.
AND WE HAD A PERIOD OF VERY STRONG WAR SPES,
AFFIDAVIT THE SECOND WORLD WAR, I'M AFRAID WE'RE AT THE END OF
IT.
SO WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT IN SYSTEM,
IT CAN STILL FUNCTION AND PROVIDE BENEFITS AND GOOD LIFE
TO ALL OF US WITHOUT HAVING TO GROW.
I THINK THAT'S THE CORE O PROBLEM.
AND NOBODY K FASHION THIS.
OKAY, NOW, I WANT TO SWITCH GEARS A LITTLE BIT AND POINT
OUT THAT THIS IS ALSO A GROUP OF US,
AND I THINK THAT -- FIRST OF ALL,
THE PREDICAMENT IS THAT IN THE RICH COUNTRIES HAVE
CAUSED THIS PROBLEM, MOST IT.
AND I'M NOT GROWING SO M MORE.
NOW, MOST GROWTH I DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
THEY IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE OR MAYBE ALREADY NOW,
MORE EMISSIONS ARE COMING FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
OF COURSE WE DON'T WANT TO DENY PEOPLE THE POOR IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES.
THEY HAVE THE RIGHTS OF COURSE TO DEVELOP JUST AS MUCH AS WE
DO.
AND THE RIGHT TO PURSUE G AND RESOURCES AS MUCH AS WE DO.
SO IF WE DON'T SHOW THE WA WE DON'T GO FIRST,
IT'S NOT LIKELY THE OTHER COUNTRIES ARE GOING TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT TOO.
WE NEED TO SHOW, WE N DEMONSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENTS
WHILE STILL LOWERING EMISSIONS.
NOW, THIS THIS IS A GRAPH OF CO2 EMISSIONS FROM DIFFERENT
COUNTRIES.
YOU SEE U.S.
HAS FAIRLY STEADY WITH SLIGHT DECLINE SINCE 2008.
IT HELD BACK UP SINCE THEN.
OF COURSE, YOU MAY DEMONSTRATE THAT IN THE U.S.
YOU ONLY BEEN ABLE TO DE EMISSIONS THROUGH ECONOMIC
PAIN.
SO THIS IS WHAT I NOT THE BEST WAY TO DO IT.
GERMANY ON THE OTHER H STEADILY BEEN DECREASING RISKS
FOR SEVERAL EMISSIONS FOR SEVERAL DECADES.
HAS THE G COLLAPSED?
NO.
IT'S DOING FINE.
NEXT, WE HAVE BE BETTER THAN THE U.S.
ECONOMY.
LOOK AT SWEDEN.
THEY HAVE STRONG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND THEY STARTED
ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT IT AND WE IN 1980'S.
THE SWEDS WANTED T THEIR DEPENDENCE ON IMPORTED
FUELS AND STARTED DOING THINGS.
THEY BUILT A LOT O ELECTRIC FACILITIES.
THEY BUILT NUCLEAR REACTORS AND THEY GREATLY IMPROVED
EFFICIENCY OF ENERGY USE.
AND BASICALLY WITH TECHNOLOGY THAT EXISTED IN THE 1970'S,
THEY CUT THEIR EMISSIONS IN HALF.
CHINA ON THE OTHER HAND, IS PICKING UP AND IS THE AVERAGE
PER CAPITA EMISSIONS IN CHINA IS ALREADY HIGHER THAN THOSE IN
SWEDEN.
NOW, SWEDEN IS A ROCK REACHES ARE FOR AND HIGHER STANDARD OF
LIVING ON AVERAGE THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON IN CHINA.
IT THUS DEMONSTRATE THAT IT CAN BE DONE.
AND THESE ARE THINGS THAT W CAN ALL DO OURSELVES.
WE CAN CONSERVE.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY H DIFFERENT GADGETS WHILE STILL
PROVIDING SAME SURFACE.
AND IN TERMS OF CAR, WE WOULD DRIVE A FUEL EFFICIENT CARS OR
THINGS LIKE THAT BECAUSE THE VISION WE CHANGE OUR BEHAVIOR.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS A LITTLE PROBLEM WHAT'S CALLED STAND BY
POWER.
YOU KNOW WHAT USING S BUT IT'S ALL POLLEN.
THIS CONSUMES POWER FOR NO REASON.
IT IS THE WASTE.
WELL, WE COULD TEACH OURSELVES A FEW THINGS OFF.
WE COULD COME OUT B SO IF YOU HEARD.
IT ALSO REQUIRES INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES.
IN GENERAL, THE G THAT WE NEED TO JUST USE OUR
FOOTPRINT, NO MORE WAYS.
WE RECYCLE AND AS MUCH AS W CAN.
IT'S ALL INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGE.
I SAY INFRASTRUCTURE C THAT IS A GOOD THING.
SOME PEOPLE SAY IT COST MORE MONEY.
I SAY GREAT, WE NEED J LET'S DO THAT.
AS LEAST POWER COMPANIES, ELECTRICITY FROM, WE CAN BUY.
WE ARE BUYING ACTUALLY WITH POWER FROM OUR ENERGY COMPANY
POLITICAL CANDIDATES AND IF THEY DON'T, THEN,
IT'S YOUR POLITICIANS.
SO THIS IS VERY I YOU HAVE TO STOP VOTING FOR
POLITICAL CANDIDATES NOT ON BOARD.
UNFORTUNATELY THE MAJORITY IS NOT ON BOARD.
ONE VERY OBVIOUS T THE U.S.
AND EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD, EITHER, ALMOST ANYWHERE,
EITHER ENERGY PRODUCTION OR ENERGY CONSUMPTION IS BEING
SUBSIDIZED.
AND ACCORDING TO THE MONETARY FUND,
WORLDWIDE SUBSIDIES IS TWO TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.
NOW OF COURSE, THAT IS RIDICULOUS.
WE COULD USE THAT TWO TRILLION DOLLAR PER YEAR TO BASICALLY
REBUILD ENERGY IS THAT EVENTUALLY GO INTO EMISSIONS
AND INITIALLY INCREASE EMISSIONS.
STARTS TO USE MORE AND MORE RENEWABLES.
IN FACT, I AM RATHER OPTIMISTIC NOW.
CHINA IS ONE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THAT WILL SPEND AS MUCH
AS ALL OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED IN BUILDING SOLAR AND WIND
POWER.
SO THEY ARE ACTUALLY INVESTING TEN TIMES OF THE U.S.'S
INVESTMENT.
YOU COULD SAY AND ACTUALLY PAY WORLD.
MAKE IT BETTER.
I CALLED FOR EXAMPLE SAYING HEAVY PART OF AIR POLLUTION IN
THE ATMOSPHERE R YOU WOULD THINK THAT ANY WAY.
IN THE MEANTIME, Y RETRY TO GO TO THE NEXT.
I WANT TO END ON THIS.
YOU MAY HAVE THE IMPRESSION FROM THE PRESS THERE IS SOME
KIND OF DEBATE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.
THIS IS JUST NOT TRUE.
SCIENTISTS ARE REALLY DEBATING CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED BY YOU
WANT PARTICULAR -- THIS WHAT IS SORT OF APPROACH IF YOU WILL IN
THE SOCIAL DEBATE, NOT IN THE SCIENTIFIC DEBATE ARE BETTER
THAN WE ARE IN MANY RESPECTS THEIR SPECIALTY IS THEY ATTEMPT
TO BE MEMBERS OF THINK TANKS.
I SAY THINK TANKS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK MUCH THINKING GOES
ON.
THEY ARE MORE PROPAGANDA.
YOU KNOW, THEY CULTIVATE LINKS WITH THE PRESS AND THEY GET
THEIR VIEWS OUT THERE.
IT'S WELL ESTABLISHED SCIENCE AND WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS IF YOU
ARE BASICALLY COUNT OVER AND OVER AGAIN,
HAVING REBUTTAL, MATTER.
IT KEEPS COMING BACK, FALSE ON THIS.
THEN OF COURSE, THEY TRIED TO ATTACK OUR CREDIBILITY BY
SAYING THAT IT'S JUST A BATTLE OF SCIENTISTS AND WE ARE
WORRIED FOR OR JOBS.
AND SO, WE CRY W FUND IT AND INVESTIGATE THIS
PROBLEM.
SO I IT DOES NOT WORK THAT OKAY.
THIS IS ACTUALLY A NICE THING ABOUT SCIENCE.
THIS IS ALSO THE REASON I'M IN SCIENCE,
THERE IS ACTUALLY TRUTH OUT THERE AND SCIENCE IS A VERY
EFFECTIVE WAY TO FIND WHAT IS TRULY HAPPENINGS ESPECIALLY IN
THE PHYSICAL WORLD.
IT'S EASIER TO DO IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD PSYCHOLOGY OR
SOCIOLOGY.
I'M NOT SAYING THIS A SCIENCE BUT THIS IS MUCH HARDER
THAN PHYSICAL SCIENCE.
WE CAN REALLY FIGURE THINGS OUT.
LIKE WE HAVE FIGURED OUT THIS CLIMATE CHANGE.
WE WILL KNOW W DEPRESSED THOUGH,
YOU NEVER KNOW THIS.
I DON'T KNOW EVEN WHAT THIS SCIENTIST ARE IF YOU CANNOT
HAVE A HOAX PERPETRATED BY A COLLECTION OF IDENTIFY THEN
THOUSAND SCIENTISTS.
IT'S NOT POSSIBLE T IF I COULD BE GONE AND
SCIENTIFICALLY VERBAL WE, I WOULD CHANGE THE COURSE LIKE
YOUR MODEL.
I WOULD HAVE RUSHED TO PRESS.
I WOULD NOT HAVE G PUBLISHED.
I'M A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE.
AND IT'S WORTH A NOBEL PRIZE.
AND THERE ARE MANY SCIENTISTS WHO WOULD JUST LOVE DOING IT.
BUT IT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
HERE IS ANOTHER E CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS LIKE TO
DO.
THIS IS A FIGURE I PUBLISHED OF TWO PAPERS THAT I WROTE, 2009,
I READ IT TO MYSELF.
THE TECHNIQUES THAT THEY USE.
THE STUDIOUS THIS OF POTENTIAL IN THE FUTURE
DEPICTED IN RED BY ENFORCING CO2.
ONE IS FOR AN EMISSIONS SCENARIO WHERE YOU END UP
EMITTING A TOTAL OF A THOUSAND BILLION TIMES CARBON AND THE
ONE THAT IS RED TOTALED 50, 100 BILLION TIMES THE CHARMS THAT
TOLD HIM, SO GIRL ME, WE'RE AROUND WILLING IN ABOUT URGED
SO THIS IS THIS ANOTHER OF 600 OR ANOTHER 1100.
AND THIS IS PREDICTIVE OF WHAT CLIMATE FORCING WOULD LOOK LIKE
IN THESE SCENARIOS.
AND THEN WHAT IT WOULD MEAN FOR THE THE TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS
AND FOR THE OCEANS.
IN BLACK, THEY LESSONS.
NOW, THIS FIGURE WAS ACTUALLY REPRODUCED BY TWO CLIMATE
CHANGE WERE WEB THEY DO.
THEY TAKE ONLY ONE SCENARIO, THE LOWER ONE GLOBAL EMISSIONS
ONE AND ASCRIBE THIS TO ME.
SAY SEE, HERE'S CLIMATE SCIENTIST, PIETER TANS.
NO WORRIES, FORGET PROBLEM.
PH DROP IN OCEAN IS NOT GOING TO BE THAT MUCH.
WELL, IT'S CLEAR IN THE IT'S BASICALLY BY ACTUALLY
USING LOW EMISSIONS THAT THEY MAYBE IT'S NOT LIKELY
TO ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
AND FURTHERMORE, THIS LOW EMISSION SCENARIO IS ALREADY
BAD ENOUGH TO CAUSE VERY DRASTIC CLIMATING.
THEY ARE GOING TO TO.
THIS IS VERY MUCH BAD.
OKAY, I GUESS I'LL AND WE HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS.
AND HERE ARE SOME BOOKS YOU CAN READ -- OOPS.
BRUCE IF YOU CAN R ANOTHER QUESTION.
THIS IS A BOOK BY ORESKES.
I FORGOT TO MENTION THE OTHER PROBLEM THERE WAS.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT GUY MAY LOOK LIKE.
HOW DOES CLIMATE DENIAL HOW IT CAME INTO EXISTENCE AND HOW
THEY LEARN THE ROPES?
THEY LEARN THE R DEBECA WARS OF 1907 MAYBE,
PARTIALLY.
THERE ARE SOME WEB SITES.
SO I'M TRYING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
>> BERUCE: WELL, THANK YOU PETER.
THAT WAS REALLY QUITE INFORMATIVE AND WE HAVE QUITE A
FEW QUESTIONS TO COME YOUR WAY DEPENDING ON TIME THAT YOU
HAVE.
ONE QUESTION THAT WE HAVE FROM PAUL ASKS --ARE CLOUDS IN THESE
MODELS NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE FEEDBACKS?
>> PIETER: CLOUDS TEND TO WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT CLOUDS
WILL BE BECOME BRIGHTER.
SO BECOME MORE EFFECTIVE REFLECTIVE OF SUNLIGHT.
WHAT I I DO KNOW IT'S SIMPLE BALANCE CLOUDS ARE EXPECTED TO
COOL CLIMATE ON BALANCE.
THE QUESTION IS, THERE BE MORE CLOUDS?
THAT'S NOT POWER.
AND THERE BE MORE CLOUDS AT HIGH ALTITUDES OR LOW
ALTITUDES.
THAT'S NO PROBLEM.
IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN RESTRICTING AT AN ALTITUDE OF
SAY TEN KILOMETERS OR ACROSS THE SURFACE.
BECAUSE CLIMATE ALSO ABSORB INFRARED AND EMISSIONS
INFRARED.
SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.
MOST MODELS DO SAY THAT THAT CLOUDS ARE EXPECTED TO COUNTER
BALANCE THE WATER BY SEVERAL POINT PERCENTAGE.
BUT THIS IS T THOUGHT IN YOUR PREDICTIONS.
ALL THEY EVER T COOLING FOR CLOUD.
ANOTHER THING OF CLOUDS THROUGH AEROSOL WITH CLOUDS.
ANOTHER EXPECTATION IS THERE ARE MORE AEROSOL TO THE
ATMOSPHERE ESPECIALLY SMALL ARTICLES AND STAY IN THE
ATMOSPHERE DON'T FALL OUT VERY RAPIDLY: AEROSOL PARTICLES FALL
ALL THE TIME.
BUT THE SMALLER THEY ARE, THE SLOWER THEY FALL.
AND SO ON AVERAGE, YOUR CHAIN GETS BETWEEN A DAY
OR WEEK.
WHAT AEROSOLS DO T COULD BRIGHTEN CLOUDS BY
CREATING MORE DROPLETS SMALLER DROPLETS INSTEAD OF
FEWER AND BIGGER.
AND MORE AND S BRIGHTER CLOUD.
SO THAT THIS ONE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK THAT WOULD
MAKE THE WARMING LESS DIRE.
HOWEVER, THERE IS ALSO PARTICLES THAT INCREASE THE
ABSORPTION BLACK CARBON WHICH ANOTHER WORD IS MAYBE SOOT.
IT COMES ON AUTOMOBILE AND GENERALLY BURNING FOSSILS,
ALSO FOREST FIRES CREATE SOOT.
THEY MAKE CLOUDS BROWN INSTEAD OF WHITE.
THEY ABSORB LIGHT.
THEY ARE VISIBLE LIGHT.
SO IT'S VERY COMPLICATED.
THIS IS FAIRLY RECENT.
NOW, PERHAPS THE NOW DEVELOPING THAT WHEN YOU
ADD, YOU START WITH A ATMOSPHERE,
LET'S SAY IN THE 17TH CENTURY AND THE HUMAN IMPACT WAS A LOT
SMALLER THAN IT IS TODAY.
THE ATMOSPHERE PRISTINE.
WE START WITH SMALL AMOUNTS OF AEROSOLS AND IT LOOKS LIKE
AEROSOLS MADE THEM HAVE A BIG EFFECT WHEN YOU GO FROM VERY
LITTLE AEROSOLS TO AMOUNT,
TO THIS RELATIVELY LARGE EFFECT.
BUT IF IT'S ALREADY POLLUTED AND YOU MAKE IT TEN TIMES AS
POLLUTED, IT HAS NO EFFECT ANY MORE.
IT SORT OF SATURATES.
I HAVE SEEN SOME GOOD ARTICLES ABOUT THAT SO MAYBE THAT'S A
CONSENSUS IS FORMING AROUND THAT.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT W MEAN THAT IN THE NORTHERN
HEMISPHERE, THERE IS A HUMAN EFFECT FOR ALL AEROSOLS MAYBE
HAS ALREADY SATURATED .
BUT MAYBE IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE YOU CAN STILL AT
WORST PROVIDE WAY.
OKAY.
I HOPE I HAVE ANSWERED IT SOMEWHAT.
>> BRUCE: I THINK SO.
YOU KNOW, ONE QUESTION THAT WE'VE GOTTEN HERE JUST TO MAYBE
YOU CAN ELABORATE SOME, IS THAT YOU MENTIONED MASS
SUBTILIZATION OF USE.
COULD YOU PROVIDE A FEW BRIEF EXAMPLES OF THIS?
>> PIETER: YES.
THERE ARE FOSSIL FUELS USE THIS
SUBSIDIZED HEAVILY LIKE INDONESIA, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND THE GOVERNMENT REALIZE HOW INDONESIA WAS A BIG OIL
EXPORTER IN THE '80'S.
NOW IT'S AN BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES USE
MORE OIL THAN THEY ARE BRINGING TO THE SURFACE.
AND PART OF IT IS THAT GOVERNMENT KEEPS THE PRICE OF
GASOLINE VERY LOW BY ACTUALLY SUBSIDIZING IT.
AND THEY SORT O BECAUSE EVERYBODY WILL BE UP IN
ARMS.
PEOPLE GET SUBSIDIES.
AND IN THIS CASE, IF THE INDONESIA GOVERNMENT STOPPED
IT, YOU MIGHT HAVE A REVOLUTION ON THEIR HANDS.
SO WE'RE HESITATE TO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
SAUDI ARABIA MAY BE THE MOST EXTREME EXAMPLE.
GASOLINE COSTS ALMOST IN SAUDIA ARABIA.
AND YOU CAN LOOK AT PER CAPITA EMISSIONS IN COUNTRIES LIKE
SAUDI ARABIA, LIKE KUTAR, KWAIT,
THEY HAVE THE HIGHEST CAPITA EMISSIONS IN THE WORLD
BY FAR, MORE THAN THE STATES PER CAPITA EMISSION.
WELL, THE UNITED CAPITA EMISSIONS ARE TWICE AS
LARGE AS THEY ARE IN EUROPE BY THE WAY.
>> BRUCE: WELL, LET'S ASK THIS THEN FROM ELIZABETH.
WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT ZERO OR NEGATIVE C02 EMISSIONS WOULD
LOOK LIKE IN KEEPING IN MIND THAT
INDIVIDUALS STILL REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION AND THAT
MANUFACTURING WILL STILL TAKE PLACE?
>> WELL, YES, LET ME PUT A LITTLE BIT OF ORBITER IN ALL
THESE THINGS THAT I MENTIONED OF THINGS YOU CAN DO.
WELL, THE PROBLEM WE HAVE ON OUR HANDS IS HUMONGOUS.
AND I TRIED TO SAY A BEGINNING THAT TOTAL EMISSIONS
OF FOSSIL FUELS BY TEN BILLION TONS OF CARBON PER
YEAR.
THE OLD NET SEASONAL SYNTHETIC UPTAKE BY THE ENTIRE NORTHERN
HEMISPHERE.
THINK ABOUT THAT.
THE SCALE ABOUT THEM IS SO HUMONGOUS.
IT ALREADY TELLS YOU THAT IT'S GOING BE HARD TO MAKE A DENT
WITH CARVING INTO THE SOIL.
I'M NOT AGAINST IT BY THE WAY, OR TRYING TO DECREASE
DEFORESTATION.
THAT'S A GOOD THING MANY WAYS.
THE SCALES OF COMPARED TO WHAT WE ARE
EMITTING.
SO THE FIRST THING FOR US TO DO IS REALLY WORK HARD ON FISH AND
SEA CONSERVATION, SO THAT WE COULD WITH EXISTING TECHNOLOGY
LIKE IN SWEDEN BUT ALSO OTHER COUNTRIES,
AND WE COULD DECREASE OUR PER CAPITA EMISSIONS IN HALF WHILE
CREATING JOBS.
THAT DIMINISHES.
SO NOW IF YOU DO CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN SOILS,
IT HAS DOUBLED THE EFFECT, LIKE TEN BILLION TONS OF CREDIT PER
YEAR AND WE MANAGED TO SEQUESTER HALF A BILLION TONS.
THAT'S FIVE PERCENT.
IF WE HAVE ENERGY C AND WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THE
SWEDS DID IN THE AND 80'S.
>> YOU CAN DO MORE THAN DECREASE THEM.
AND YOU KNOW, THE EFFECT I 5 % CONTRIBUTION OF
DEFORESTATION OR SEQUESTRATION OF OILS BUT IT'S NOW TEN
PERCENT AND WE COULD DO THAT SEQUESTRATION IN SOILS AND
DEFORESTATION AND WE HAVE PERCENT OF THE PROBLEM.
SO WE HAVE TO FIRST DECREASE THE SCALE.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE CAN COURSE GO TO RENEWABLES.
SO IN ENERGY FUTURE, WHAT I SEE IS A SYSTEM COMPLETELY RUN BY
RENEWABLES.
ONE OF THE THINGS T HAPPEN SINCE RENEWABLES ARE
INTERMITTENT AND BLOWS IN A CERTAIN REGION AND
NOT IN ANOTHER.
AND THE SUN SHINES IN LET'S SAY IN NEW ORLEANS AND DETROIT AND
IT'S SNOWING, WHATEVER, THAT YOU NEED TO TRANSPORT THIS TO A
RENEWABLE REMEDY.
DON'T TAKE A CHANCE ON I AN AREA THAT IS ALARM ENOUGH TO
HAVE ALWAYS ENOUGH SOMEWHERE AND YOU HAVE WIND
SOMEWHERE.
THIS CAN BE ACTUALLY REQUIRES INVESTMENT IN
WHICH I'M DOWN A COULD BE ACCELERATED IF YOU
WERE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS.
AND THEN PERSONALLY, I'M IN FAVOR OF CHANGING OFF TO
NUCLEAR ENERGY.
NOW THIS NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT PROBLEM FREE.
IT HAS CREATED POLLUTION IN SEVERAL CASES.
BUT I THINK THE PROBLEM O NUCLEAR WASTE IS LESS,
MUCH LESS A DEAL THAN CLIMATE CHANGE.
SO I I SEE THAT ALSO AS PART OF THE MIX.
THEN OF COURSE, WHAT IS STRICTLY IS OIL IS A BEAUTIFUL
FUEL BECAUSE IT ENERGY.
SO WE CAN, YOU KNOW, REFILL OUR TANKS AND WE CAN DRIVE
400-MILES.
I MEAN WOW.
WE CAN'T MATCH THAT WITH BATTERIES AT THE MOMENT.
AND BATTERIES ALSO HAVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS BY THE WAY.
THEY ARE NOT POLLUTION FREE, THE MINDING OF METALS CAN MAKE
BATTERIES H AND THEY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T RECYCLE
THEM.
BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T.
AND NOW, I'M GOING TO LOSE MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT.
OH, OKAY, OIL.
WE NEED TO HAVE A WAY TO STORE ,
ENERGY VERY EFFECTIVELY SO THAT WE CAN USE IT IN
TRANSPORTATION, EFFECTIVELY AND SAFELY.
SO THERE ARE NO BEDROOM CONCEPTS BEING TESTED RIGHT
INSTEAD OF HAVING SOLID-STATE BATTERY AND THAT GETS UP TO ET
CETERA.
ALL KINDS OF RESEARCH IS HAPPENING.
SO I EXPECT IF WE STAY WITH IT, COMPLETING NEW BATTERY SYSTEMS
SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY ALSO FUEL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
WITHOUT LOSING OIL.
THESE ARE SOME THOUGHTS.
>> BRUCE: THANK YOU PIETER.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THE END OF OUR TIME HERE.
AND IF YOU COULD JUST VERY BRIEFLY ANSWER THIS ONE LAST
QUESTION.
I'M SORRY THAT WE COULD NOT TAKE EVERYONE'S QUESTIONS ONE
QUESTION THAT WE HAVE, WHICH IS IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THE
AMOUNTS OF JUST VERY BRIEFLY, THE AMOUNTS OF METHANE BEING
RELEASED FROM HYDRO FRACKING WHICH IS AS WE KNOW HAS BECOME
A MUCH MORE INTENSE PROCESS FOR TRYING TO EXTRACT NATURAL GAS
FROM AREAS?
IF YOU COULD SPEAK T AMOUNT OF METHANE BEING
RELEASED FROM FRACKING AND THIS IMPACT ON GLOBAL WARMING AND
ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THIS MIX.
>> YES.
BASICALLY WE HAVE A MEASUREMENTS IN FRACKING PLAYS
IT'S CALLED, AN ARE GETTING OIL AND GAS OUT OUT
OF THE GROUND AND THE NEW ONES THESE DAYS ARE FRACKING.
YOU ARE GETTING SOIL AND GAS OUT TOP GROUND CALL PLAY.
AND NOW, OVER WARMS THESE HEARINGS ARE TRACKING.
SO WE ACTUALLY MADE OF MET THAN COMING OUT OF THESE.
AND THE GENERAL T HAS BEEN FOR US TO FIND MORE
MET THAN THAT THAN INVENTORY STORIES.
SO THE EPA COLLECTS INVENTORIES THAT BASICALLY ADD UP ALL
ESTIMATED LEAKS BY VARIOUS TECHNIQUES.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE L PARTICULAR TYPE OF VALUE AND
MADE MEASURES, CAREFUL HOW MUCH THIS THING LEAKS.
AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF ET CETERA,
ALL THE EQUIPMENT USED IN THE FIELD.
AND THEN YOU HAVE A LONG LIST OF HOW MANY VALUES OF THIS TYPE
AND HOW COMPRESSES OF THIS TYPE DO I HAVE, ET CETERA.
AND YOU ASSIGN A LEAKAGE FACTOR TO THEM AND YOU BOTH ACQUIRE A
NUMBER OF LEAKING FACTOR,
YOU GET AN ESTIMATE AND THEN INITIALLY THE TRACKING ROUND
HAS BEEN COMPLETED, OR IS BEING COMPLETED.
YOU DECREASE THE INITIALLY WATER COMES OUT WITH
A LITTLE BIT OF AND QUICKLY AGAIN,
MORE GAS COMES OUT AND LESS WATER.
AND AT SOME POINT, MOST GAS AND VERY LITTLE WATER.
AT SOME POINT, YOU NEED CAPTURE THAT GAS INSTEAD OF
LETTING IT GO.
TOO MUCH WATER TO DEAL WITH.
SO THERE ARE DOING THAT THAT ARE BETTER OR
WORSE BUT SOME FRACTION OF GAS TYPICALLY DOES ESCAPE DURING
THE COMPLETION.
FOR EXAMPLE, MAKE AN ESTIMATE AND YOU ADD IT UP AND SO YOU
GET THESE INVENTORIES BUT MOST OF THEM ARE WHAT I WOULD CALL
SELF REPORTERS.
SO WHAT WE TRIED TO M THE ATMOSPHERE IS WE TRIED TO
MEASURE BY FLYING AN UPWIND AND DOWN WIND OF
TRACKING PLAY AND MEASURE THE INCREASE THAT HAPPENS ALONG THE
WAY.
SO DOWNWIND ENHANCEMENT METHANE MINUS THE T BACKGROUND
CONCENTRATION.
AND WE BOTH APPLIED THAT BY THE SPEED AND THE MIXING TO THE
ATMOSPHERE AND WE HAVE APPROXIMATING.
THE LEAKS FROM THE FIELD.
AND I THINK THESE A GOOD NUMBERS ACTUALLY THAT WE
HAVE PRODUCED .
AND THEY TEND TO SHOW THAT THERE'S MORE LEAKING OUT THAN
WHAT'S IN IN THE INVENTORY TIP CAME ADMITS MATCHES 50 PERCENT
TOO LITTLE IN THE INVENTORIES.
THEN, WE MEASURE METHANE AND WE MEASURE A WHO WILL HOST OF
SPECIES.
YOU MEASURE ME DISMAN PRO MAIN AND BY TAKEN AND A WHOLE BUNCH
OF PROBLEMS BENZINE ET CETERA.
IT'S LEAD TO AIR POLLUTION.
ONCE WE HAVE A NUMBER FOR ME.
WE ALSO HAVE NUMBERS FOR THESE CHEMICALS.
HOW MUCH IS COMING OUT.
AND ALSO, THE TENDENCY OF T THAT THERE IS MORE COMING OUT
THAN WHAT'S IN THE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IN SOME
PLACES.
NOW, IT CAUSES AND THEREFORE,
HEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED, CERTAINLY WITH PERCENTAGES LIKE
BENZINE AND THE EMISSIONS.
AND THERE'S AN EFFECT -- SO THERE IS A HEALTH EFFECT AND
THERE IS A EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
SO IF WE SUBSTITUTE BURNING METHANE FOR BURNING COAL,
WE GAIN A LITTLE BIT IN TERMS OF CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSE THE
ENERGY WE GET FROM METHANE PER CARBON OXIDIZED AND IN THE
ATMOSPHERE IS ALMOST LARGE FOR METHANE AS IT IS FOR
COAL.
SO THE EFFECT ON CLIMATE CHANGE IS LESS IF WE
SUBSTITUTE METHANE FOR CO2.
IT IS NOT LESS IF A FRACTION IS LOST.
SO PART OF THAT CLIMATE BENEFIT IS LOST BY HAVING A SIGNIFICANT
LEAKING OUT MORE THAN WHAT IS DESIRABLE.
IN FACT, DESIRABLE LEAKS.
MAYBE IT'S A LONG ANSWER.
>> BRUCE: THANK YOU DR. TANS.
THAT WAS ACTUALLY, REAL INFORMATIVE AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR GREAT LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE ON THIS.
>> PIETER: BY THE WAY, I HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT FRACKING IS
OVER POLLUTION.
BECAUSE YOU K WATER AS IT COMES BACK UP IS
CALLED THE PRODUCE SURFACE AND NOT JUST THE STUFF
THAT IS PUT IN FLUID AS IT IS INITIALLY
PRESSED INTO THE ALSO WHAT WAS LEAKING FROM THE
ROCK AND STUFF THAT IS KNOW,
ABSORBED OR MAYBE FROM ROCKS THAT COMES BACK IN
PRODUCED WATER THAT WE DEAL WITH.
AND ALSO, T ASSOCIATED THAT IS NOT PER THE
DATA.
>> BRUCE: I AGREE AND AS WELL YOU KNOW,
THOSE OF US WHO ARE TO KEEP UP WITH THE NEWS,
WE KNOW THAT -- MORE THING.
TO ME, I ALSO LOOK AT FRACKING IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
THE FACT THAT WE I LOOK AT THAT AS DESPERATION.
TO ME, IT ILLUSTRATES THAT WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF FOSSIL
FUELS.
FRACKING AND METHANE AND ALLL THAT L COMES FROM FRACKING IS
FUNDAMENTALLY MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OIL AND GAS IS
PRODUCED IN SAUDI ARABIA.
WHAT IS PRODUCED IN SAUDI ARABIA NOW IS ALREADY MUCH MORE
EXPENSIVE THAN IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING.
THIS IS A FEATURE OF FOSSIL FUEL EXPORTATION, YOU KNOW.
THERE IS ALWAYS A TENDENCY TO TAKE THE BEST PLACES FIRST.
AND ONCE RUN OUT AND MOVE ON TO PLACES THAT HAVE LESS
CONCENTRATED RESOURCES.
AND FRACKING IS SORT LIMIT OF THAT.
ANYWAY, FINALLY, OIL AND GAS, MICRO SCALES LOCKED UP IN ROCK
YOU HAVE TO BREAK OUT.
I SEE THAT A DESPERATION.
>> BRUCE: WELL, PERHAPS SOONER THAN LATER,
WE WILL BEGIN TO CHOICES FOR OUR LONG-TERM
INTERESTS AND WILL BE ABLE TO GET THE WORD
OUT AND BE ABLE TO STUDENTS IN OUR SCHOOLS AND OUR
PUBLIC TO BEGIN SMART CHOICES.
AND I REALLY DO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON BOTH THE
SCIENCE SOCIOLOGY OF THIS ISSUE THIS
EVENING.
BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE OUT OF TIME.
I JUST HAVE ONE A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS SO THANK YOU
DR. TANS.
THANK YOU PIETER A FORWARD TO BEING IN TOUCH WITH
YOU SOON.
>> PIETER: YOU ARE OFF THE CAMERA NOW?
>> BRUCE: YES, THANK YOU.
>>PIETER: THANK YOU SO MUCH.
HAVE A GOODNIGHT.
>> BRUCE: JUST A FEW MINOR ITEMS BEFORE WE END THIS
EVENING, IS THAT ALL OF YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED AN E-MAIL
WITH A LINK TO THE POST-WEBINAR POLL.
I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE Y TAKING THE TIME TO FILL IT OUT.
IT WILL ONLY TAKE YOU A FIVE MINUTES.
IN ADDITION, VERY SOON, YOU SHOULD RECEIVE A LINK TO THE
WEBINAR ARCHIVES FOR 2015, FOR THIS EVENING AND WE ALREADY
HAVE THE MAIN PRESENTATION SLIDES AS WELL AS BRIEF BUY JOE
THE AND CONTACT INFORMATION FOR PIETER AS WELL AS MY
INFORMATION SLIDES WHICH ARE FREE TO DOWNLOAD AND USE.
OF COURSE IF YOU DO DECIDE USE DR. TANS' SLIDES,
WE REQUEST THAT YOU PROVIDE PROPER DURATION FOR THEM --
EXCUSE ME, ATTRIBUTION FOR THEM.
AS WE MENTIONED BEFORE, GO TO THE CLIMATE STEWARDS EDUCATION
PROJECT WEBSITE, CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW AND YOU CAN APPLY TO
PARTICIPATE AS PART OF THE STEWARDSHIP PROJECT.
FINALLY, ONE NOTE: IF YOU DO GO TO MY SLIDES,
YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE WHOLE SERIES OF ADDITIONAL
BACKGROUND EDUCATION RESOURCES THAT I HAVE PROVIDED.
SO WAIT FOR THOSE AND CHECK THEM OUT.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO JOIN US ON THE LINE FOR AN OPEN
DISCUSSION, PLEASE CHIME IN TO THE TOLL-FREE NUMBER,
866-662-7513.
THE PASS CODE IS 117-0791 WITH THE POUND SIGN.
THANKS FOR JOINING US NOAA CLIMATE STEWARDS WEBINAR.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO B TOUCH WITH YOU SOON.
HAVE A GOOD EVENING.
THIS CONCLUDES TONIGHT'S BROADCAST.