Blissful Sciolism and Climate Change

I had to look up the word, ‘sciolism.’ I think it fits.

As someone who has believed in the “evidence” produced by climate science, I was shocked to learn that climate science deniers have a completely alternate set of facts and questions. Who would have thunk it?
The deniers say that the climate is always changing, so what’s the big deal? Dang. We dummies didn’t know that. (Actually, scientists do appear to understand that the climate is always changing, but add that the current changes are caused by human activity, mostly the burning of fossil fuels. But that’s only based on evidence.)

The deniers tell us that past atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have reached thousands of parts per million, so when the current levels spike at 417 ppm, it’s nothing. Didn’t know that either. Boy, are those propeller-heads stupid. And me too, for believing them. But just to clarify, the scientists do say that levels above 1,000 ppm last occurred 40 million years ago, and the planet has not seen levels as high as they are now for 800,000 years. One last thing that they say about this is that current and historic global temperatures correlate with these atmospheric CO2 levels. But why quibble when the facts are inconvenient?

The deniers wonder why climate models aren’t compared with actual data. Good question! The silly scientists just never thought of such a thing. Oh, except maybe for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). But I’m sure that doesn’t count.
There are other things the climate science deniers say about the climate hoax. Like solar activity isn’t taken into account. Wow. If only the scientists had thought of that. (Except that they did when they built it into the models.)

I guess I just need to listen to my inner flat-earther self more.  Thank you, climate change deniers, for showing us that critical thinking and scientific literacy are mere inconveniences in the pursuit of blissful sciolism. It's a tough job, but someone has to stand up against the overwhelming evidence and expert consensus. Keep fighting the good fight, and may your blind faith in misinformation continue to shine like a beacon of willful (i-word).

17.18C, and what it means

17.18 degrees Celsius (62.92F) is the warmest daily global temperature recorded since such records have been kept. It occurred Tuesday, July 4, 2023. The previous record (17.01) was set the prior day, and the most recent record before that was 16.92 set in August 2016. You may think that 63 degrees Fahrenheit doesn’t sound so hot. You would be wrong; consider that this is the average global temperature for the entire planet, including the coldest parts.

The highest annual temperature ever recorded occurred in 2020 when it tied 2016. Annual values consider the global values for the entire calendar year. Given the El Nino event that is currently underway, it is widely believed that 2023 and/or 2024 will surpass those previous records. The past eight years have been the warmest on record globally since records have been kept. The heat is fueled by ever-rising greenhouse gas concentrations and accumulated heat, according to six leading international temperature datasets consolidated by the World Meteorological Organization.

Even Climate Science’s most fervent deniers are now forced to admit that global warming is happening. Even so, some may question the time period. The climate is always changing, they posit, and the planet has been this hot at times in the past. Although true, this statement is misleading. Earth has not since we modern humans have been around.

Records have been kept for data such as that summarized here since around 1880. But accurate readings to measure the warmest daily global temperature have only been kept since 1979. How can we compare today’s temperatures to older data? This requires the use of indirect measurements and proxies, since systematic temperature records are only available for this relatively short period. Some of the methods used include the following:

- Historical documents, such as diaries, ship logs, and weather journals.
- Proxy Data: indirect evidence of past climate conditions that can be used to estimate temperature variations. Various natural proxies can provide information about past temperatures, such as tree rings, ice cores, corals, lake sediments, and stalagmites. These proxies contain climate-sensitive information that can be analyzed to reconstruct temperature patterns.
- Instrumental Data Overlap, where modern temperature records overlap with historical records or early instrumental measurements. These methods can help with calibration.
- Climate models (mathematical representations of the Earth's climate system).

By combining these methods, scientists can reconstruct past temperature patterns and make comparisons with present-day data. These comparisons provide insights into long-term climate trends and help understand how current temperature changes fit within the context of historical climate variations.

Therefore, when we state that the warmest days or the warmest years on record are occurring in recent decades, we can say with certainty that this can be verified over the past 140 years or so. But after examining all of the various measurement data, we can also say with reasonable confidence that the planet has not been this warm for well over 100,000 years. The last time the Earth experienced similar warmth was likely during the Eemian interglacial period, approximately 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. During that period, global temperatures were somewhat higher than today, and sea levels were higher as well.

To summarize the comparison of current temperatures to past temperatures, scientists have found that:

- The Earth is experiencing a period of rapid warming, and the last few decades have been among the warmest in thousands of years.
- The current rate of temperature increase is unprecedented in geological records, far exceeding natural variations that occurred over much longer timescales.
- The warming trend has been associated with more frequent and intense heatwaves, as well as changes in precipitation patterns and extreme weather events.
- The increase in global temperatures is attributed to human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, into the atmosphere.

It's crucial to keep in mind that comparing the current rate of warming to historical geological periods is not an exact analogy, as human civilization has developed during a relatively stable and cooler period in Earth's history. The rapidity of the ongoing changes and their potential impacts on ecosystems and human societies make them of great concern and underscores the importance of addressing climate change and its causes.

Climate change is happening in a big way, and this is only the beginning. We have the power to prevent it from getting much worse. All it will take is the will to do so. We’ve no time to lose.

Balancing Wanderlust and Sustainability: Traveling with a Conscience

 Introduction:

I recently spoke to the Sierra Club Portage Trail Group about my efforts to visit all of the U.S. National Parks. I love to travel in general, but how can I reconcile this with my concern about the environment?

For those of us with a passion for exploration and a desire to experience the world's diverse cultures and breathtaking landscapes, it can be challenging to reconcile our love of travel with growing concerns about the environment, particularly climate change. As awareness of the planet's fragility increases, it becomes crucial to find ways to minimize our carbon footprint and travel in a more sustainable and responsible manner. Let us explore practical tips and strategies to help align one’s wanderlust with environmental consciousness.

Choose sustainable transportation:

One of the most significant contributors to carbon emissions is air travel. While it may be unrealistic to avoid flying altogether, consider opting for more sustainable alternatives when feasible. Embrace slower forms of travel like trains or buses for shorter distances, as they generally have lower emissions. For longer trips, consider carbon offset programs to compensate for the environmental impact of your flights. Carbon offsets are also discussed below.

Embrace eco-friendly accommodations:

Selecting environmentally responsible accommodations can make a significant difference in reducing your travel's carbon footprint. Look for hotels or lodges that prioritize energy efficiency, waste reduction, and sustainable practices. Additionally, consider eco-friendly alternatives such as eco-lodges, eco-villages, or homestays that promote local sustainability and contribute to the local economy.

Travel mindfully and responsibly:

Adopting a mindful and responsible approach to travel can greatly contribute to minimizing your environmental impact. Choose destinations that are actively engaged in sustainable practices and conservation efforts. Respect local cultures, traditions, and the environment by practicing responsible tourism, supporting local businesses, and avoiding activities that exploit wildlife or damage natural habitats.

Reduce, reuse, and recycle:

Carry eco-friendly essentials, such as reusable water bottles, cloth bags, and eco-friendly toiletries, to minimize waste generation during your travels. Be mindful of recycling opportunities and dispose of waste responsibly. Remember that the principle of "leave no trace" should extend beyond hiking and camping trips to every destination you visit.

Support local and sustainable initiatives:

Make an effort to support local communities and sustainable initiatives wherever you go. Choose locally-owned accommodations, restaurants, and shops to contribute to the local economy. Seek out tours and activities that promote cultural understanding, conservation, and community development. By supporting responsible businesses and initiatives, you can have a positive impact on the destinations you visit.

Offset your carbon footprint:

Recognizing that travel inevitably has an environmental impact, consider offsetting your carbon footprint. Carbon offset programs allow you to invest in projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as reforestation or renewable energy projects. By purchasing carbon offsets, you can neutralize the carbon emissions generated by your travel, effectively mitigating your environmental impact. Do your homework, however. While carbon offset schemes can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting sustainable projects, it is important to approach them with caution. Some offset projects have faced criticism or concerns regarding their legitimacy. By conducting due diligence, selecting reputable offset providers, and considering the potential concerns associated with carbon offset projects, individuals and organizations can make informed decisions to support legitimate and impactful initiatives aimed at addressing climate change.

Emphasize quality over quantity:

Instead of chasing an ever-growing list of destinations, focus on the quality of your travel experiences. Slow down, immerse yourself in the local culture, and spend more time exploring a single place. By reducing the number of trips and extending your stays, you can decrease your overall carbon emissions while gaining a deeper understanding of the destinations you visit.

Conclusion:

It is possible to pursue one’s love of travel while still being mindful of the environment and climate change. By adopting sustainable practices, making responsible choices, and supporting local communities, you can minimize your carbon footprint and leave a positive impact on the places you visit. Remember, the key lies in balance, mindful choices, and a genuine commitment to sustainability. Let your passion for travel coexist harmoniously with your concern for the planet, and embark on your journeys with an eco-friendly mindset. Together, we can explore and protect this beautiful world we call home. By being a witness to it, we can gain a greater appreciation for the importance of safeguarding our environment.

Ohio Senate Bill 83 controversial subjects

According to the Columbus Dispatch (‘Ohio's chilling new pro-ignorance bill,’ March 21), proposed Ohio Senate Bill 83 would be an attack on higher education in the state. “From prohibiting diversity, equity, and inclusion training for university employees and students, to prohibiting collective bargaining, Senate Bill 83 is an attempt to radically skew oversight of higher education, truncate the self-leadership of Ohio’s universities and colleges, and shortchange the university experience.”

Now, a new wrinkle has been added. According to the Ohio Capital Journal (‘Ohio higher-ed bill would require instructors to teach ‘both sides’ on climate change,’ March 27) “Ohio college and university instructors could be barred from teaching climate science without also including false or misleading counterpoints under the sprawling higher education bill.” That’s because climate science is considered by the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jerry Cirino, to be “controversial.” Public colleges and universities would need to guarantee that faculty and staff will “not seek to inculcate any social, political, or religious point of view.”

Yes, climate change certainly is controversial. And we can't have that inculcation going on! There are two sides to every story, so let’s consider the debate in question here. On one side, we have scientists from all over the world who have spent their entire lives studying climate systems, collecting data, and conducting experiments. They have concluded that climate change is real, it's caused by human activity, and it's already having devastating effects on our planet. On the other side, we have politicians, talk show hosts, and bloggers who think that climate change is a hoax because it fits their worldview and that of their fossil fuel donors. They ignore the mountains of evidence that support the scientific consensus and instead choose to believe in conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. But then, who needs evidence and logic when you can just stick your head in the sand and pretend that everything is fine? Who needs to listen to scientists when you can just listen to your favorite talk radio host who has never set foot in a university science classroom?

What other scientific subjects ought to be considered “controversial” by SB 83? Here are some suggestions.

The so-called ‘Spherical Earth Theory’ has two sides. On one side, we have the overwhelming scientific consensus that the earth is round, supported by centuries of evidence and experimentation. On the other side, we have a handful of conspiracy theorists who think that the earth is flat because they once saw a YouTube video that convinced them. Both points of view need to be taught so that students can form their own conclusions.

The Moon Landing Hoax that you knew would be coming. Some people believe that the United States government faked the Apollo moon landing in 1969. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they believe that the footage was staged and that the astronauts never actually set foot on the moon. Debate this!

Then there’s the Vaccination Debate. There is a small but vocal group of people who believe that vaccines are harmful and can cause autism, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. They often rely on anecdotal evidence and conspiracy theories to support their views, ignoring the overwhelming evidence that vaccines are safe and effective. Ignore for the moment that without public health, we’d still be in the Dark Ages. Ignore the fact that vaccines have saved millions, perhaps even billions of lives. There are two sides to the controversy, so both should be taught.

We shouldn’t be at all concerned about what our university students will be learning if SB 83 becomes law. We shouldn’t worry about our state colleges and universities falling (further) behind the rest of the world because they teach pseudo-science. Our Republican State Senators have Ohio’s best interests at heart.

Yes, we’re coming for your gas stove

This appeared as a Guest Column in the February 1, 2023 Brunswick Port.

Column Text A guy jumps out of an airplane whilst reading his instructions: Pull the yellow cord; if the parachute doesn’t open, pull the red cord. A truck will pick you up. He pulls the yellow cord and nothing happens. He pulls the red cord and nothing happens. He thinks, “I’ll bet the truck doesn’t show up, either.”

As he gets closer to the ground, he sees another man flying UP. He yells, “Do you know anything about  parachutes?” The other guy replies, “No. Do you know anything about gas stoves?”

Remember when we started the War on Christmas? Remember when we sent President Obama to your house to get your guns? Thanks to Fox News and its imitators (the Not-Main-Stream-Media, or NMSM), you are now also well aware of our plan to confiscate every gas stove in America. As the NMSM so wisely points out, we liberals are not just evil, we’re also not very smart.

Our evil is obvious. NMSM viewers know that we don’t truly care about the environment or Americans’ way of life. Our goal is simply to make everyone miserable. This starts with taking away things like guns and gas stoves. We won’t be satisfied until we’ve got them all.

Now, let’s talk about how dumb we libs really are. (Out of character side note: ‘Defund the Police’ truly was a dumb idea. It’s so dumb that NMSM didn’t even make it up like they made up the Mythical War on Christmas, Biden’s push to open our borders, and Obama coming for your guns. Okay, now back in character.)

If we only had a brain. If so, we’d consider modern efficient and convenient electric stoves in place of gas ones for new construction only. But no, we’re going to knock on everyone’s doors to confiscate them. We would understand that natural gas, also called methane, is a major cause of climate change. Yet, we’d be able to perceive and communicate the fact that the transition to truly green energy (not as defined by Mike DeWine and the Ohio Legislature), although necessary, is not going to happen overnight.

How, you may ask, can we possibly be so stupid? For example, we don’t know that although everyone will benefit from clean energy, less pollution, and fewer greenhouse gasses, the conversion needs to be done with great care. We’d be aware that despite what Mike DeWine tells you, methane is neither green nor clean. Saying that it’s green just because it’s cleaner than coal is like saying lead poisoning is good for you because it’s better than mercury poisoning.

If you accept Mike DeWine’s definition of green energy, if you believe what NMSM tells you about us coming for your gas stoves, then you are surely as smart as a fox (pun intended). Someday perhaps us libs could become as smart as you. Maybe it would help if we were ‘owned’ by some MAGA types.

Dan Horvath lives in Brunswick, where he's making room in his garage for several million gas stoves.