Sometimes the Valley’s science-deniers get to be too much for Dr. Richard Anderson, a retired Professor of Biology formerly at Modesto Junior College. With a PhD in plant cell structure and a master’s degree in in marine biology, along with decades of further study, Anderson offers clear explanations of climate change basics. Like all great teachers, he has a special gift for making complex issues clear. Here’s his response to those who deny or don’t understand the science behind climate change.
A dominant problem blocking many people from recognizing that human CO2 emissions are overheating the Earth is that they know Earth’s climate has drastically changed in the past. They then reason that present-day warming is just another natural swing of the thermometer.
A couple days ago, a friend asked me, “How do I know this global warming thing isn’t just another cycle that has happened for thousands of years?”
In 2009, a CSU Stanislaus professor presented a Science Colloquium talk at MJC, “Climate Has Changed for 3 ½ Billion Years; Why Should it Stop Now?” Check out: https://vimeo.com/647014371.
Just this November, an MJC philosophy professor railed at me in an email,
“I am AMAZED that you can swallow this “Climate Change” garbage you are selling, after reviewing just a bit of the Geological history of earth. Of COURSE the climate changes back and forth.
“There have been VAST swings in temperature and CO2 levels over the past 4 and a half billion years on earth. The “burning” question here is whether or not the CO2 levels are the main driver of Climate change, and whether present CO2 levels threaten to burn us all up. The answer to these questions appears to be a resounding NO.”
In 2013, Dr. John Holdren, Barack Obama’s science advisor, was grilled by Rep. Wayne Stockman of Texas during a Republican-led inquiry to find the truth about current global warming. Check this out: https://youtu.be/nVqKZqgx3W4.
Holdren points out that current science shows that the ~100,000 year Milankovitch cycles start and end the recent ice ages. The temperature of Earth starts rising at the end of an ice age, causing the release of CO2. This comes from the warming oceans and the release of coastal methane hydrates, release of methane from soils like tundra and peat bogs, and more. The CO2 rise is a positive feedback mechanism result, not the first cause of the warming. All of these are operating right now.
Orbital cycles as the cause of ice ages is not a new idea.
Check out this graph showing the extra warming of our Earth that was predicted by earth/climate scientists as early as 1979, by J. and K. Imbrie, authors of, Ice Ages, Solving the Mystery.
Spend a few moments pondering this graph. It shows that we presently are in an expected cooling period, leading into the next ice age.
But Earth has NOT started to cool down. Why? It’s not a secret: Anthropogenic global warming. The Imbries say we are now in a “Super-Interglacial.”
Climate scientists don’t just make this stuff up. Here is a graph of data from the Russian ice core drilled above Vostok Lake. Note in the upper right, the CO2 is now 414.57 parts per million on 11/15/21, and rising.)
Readers may be familiar with this graph. Temperature is the red line; the CO2 concentration is the blue line. There are people who discount CO2’s importance because at the start of a glacial period, the temperature may rise a bit BEFORE the CO2 rises. Some erroneously conclude, “Therefore CO2 isn’t the cause of ice age temperature swings.”
The reality is that CO2 is not the primary cause of the warming. It is an amplifier of the orbital cycle effects. Until we can distinguish between these two forces — causes versus amplifiers — we’ll continue to misunderstand climate change. Even worse, we’ll continue failing to address one of the greatest natural calamities humankind has ever faced.
That is, as we humans add over 30 billion tons of CO2 annually to our air, this warms the Earth, makes our oceans more acidic, causes the oceans’ volume to expand and sea levels to rise, and exacerbates so many climate and ecosystem disruptions that we are enduring a growing assault on the future security of people everywhere.
Thanks Richard, this is one of the most straightforward presentations I’ve seen to dispel deniers’ claims that we are in a natural warming cycle, hence, humans need not disrupt current economies and behaviors to reduce release of greenhouse gasses.
I think that the short timeline, the enormity of changes required to reduce global warming, the need for rival nations to cooperate, and hyper-partisanship in many of the most polluting countries make this the single largest problem we face now, and for decades to follow.
Thanks for your contributions.
Neil:
Thanks for the positive feedback.
I now realize that I should have clarified the next to last paragraph, to state how what was an amplifyer during the natural cyclces is now a primary cause of our warming:
“Indeed, during recent ice ages, CO2 was not the primary cause of the warming. It was an amplifier of the orbital cycle effects. Since the Industrial Revolution, human CO2 emissions have become the primary cause of our current warming.”
Just keep feeding these people the kool aid. Yes, you can show a few graphs and data that support whatever you want it to show. THis is not Science, it is Political Science. Real Scientists will inform you, that to measure the earth’s temperature is not a likely occurrence. I have seen ‘other scientists’ who state the opposite of what is stated above. But, leave it to the Democrats to find a few scientists, when paid huge sums of dough, to show data and graphs that support their ideology. One wonders- why would someone want to push the climate change ideology- what would they want to accomplish? Aha- that is the question you all should be asking- so that you will swallow $20.00 per gallon gasoline (ever wonder if the people pushing this are benefitting from higher gas prices (duh?- the profits of oil companies are through the roof and the donations to the DNC are also ‘through the roof). If the USA switched to a 100% electric car for all Americans tomorrow- what would happen to Climate Change- nothing….it would still be what it is. Of course, the electric grid could not handle that sudden change, so my suggestion- get used to riding your bicycle….
I would like for Mr. Woods to explain specifically what is wrong with the graphs and conclusions that Dr. Anderson has given us. If indeed this information is flawed, then I would ask Mr. Woods to give us that information. Is there any evidence that the CO2 in the air is not vastly greater now than it has been for hundreds of thousands of years? If such data exists, it would be good to know. That is the way science works. Vague references to “other scientists” doesn’t really help get us on the same page.
Steven Koonin’s book “Unsettled” is a good read. It supports the conclusions of anthropogenic climate change while it puts future probabilities and risks into context. He walks through the science carefully and accessibly.
Climate policy will impact many poor and vulnerable people. Climate priorities such as green energy mandates and subsidies are benefiting already wealthy elites.
We should have a careful and thorough debate based on fact. If we choose dramatic policy it should be for well reasoned priorities with all affected parties taken into account.
John:
Thanks for the Koonin suggestion. I just ordered a used copy at your suggestion. I have about 45 books on both sides of the Climate Causes Chasm.
Anthropogenic climate change has a huge literature. It is clear to me that there is overwhelming science that says our carbon emissions are creating most of the RECENT climate warming. And I have heard or read most of the reasons given by folks who deny humans are culpable. I would love to help create a discussion here in Modesto with a few people on both sides of Chasms who want to really understand the reasons other folks disagree with them.
I am a retired micro teacher from MJC and have very much appreciated your approving Dr. Javier Castillon to present for us at the Science Colloquium.
Dave Froba, who responded above to Mr. Woods, is a leader at MJC’s MICL group, (Modesto Institute for Continued Learning). He is considering establishing a session for MICL where several of us locals can gather and respectfully learn why others are on the other side of Chasms. A discussion on anthropogenic climate change would be a perfect topic. Is this something in which you might want to partake? – Richard Anderson
Just checked back in.
Sure. A respectful discussion would be great.
I believe that it is superstition, folklore and myth that prevent people from accepting the facts that science has discovered. Many people still cling to beliefs that sprang up two thousand, three thousand and even five thousand years ago.
We are the only sentient beings in the universe as far as we know today. I understand that I am approximately 6.9 billion, billion, billion atoms and that my body is approximately 60% water.
Our species evolved on the African continent some 150 thousand to 300 thousand years ago and migrated over the planet. As humans migrated we adapted to the different areas and climates we occupied. Our DNA is 99.9% the same as all other people.
We need to shed our superstitious beliefs based on myth, folklore and anecdotal information and enjoy the reality and facts that science has discovered.
Turlock Citizen:
I agree with your comments that it is important to move past myth and folklore as we seek to understand reality. Makes me recall Senator James Inhofe explaining in his 2012 book, “The Greatest Hoax” about how God would never let humans do such a terrible thing as human-caused global warming.
On p. 175 Inhofe writes, “…what global warming alarmists have forgotten is that God is still up there, and as Genesis 8:22 reminds us: ‘As long as the earth remains, there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’” To him, that says that God would never let humankind cause damaging global warming.
– Richard Anderson
Hi Richard,
I’m wondering what are your thoughts on pole shift. Is it real? And what is the significance of ice mass growth in the arctic as decrease in ice mass continues in Antarctica. Is there a correlation? And what is the relationship to climate change? Why do they never talk about the growth of ice mass in the arctic? So many unknowns!
An old nurse friend from Sonora wants to know.
02/24/2022
Dear Dr. Anderson,
Regarding the zoom meeting this evening, I have written Dana asking for a peek at his Federal list of climate change tasks in the hope that he has something new and interesting. Other than that, fixing the problem would be 100% conversion to solar, wind, tide, currents, hydro, and geothermal, stop eating meat, paint white or reflecting everything that is dark, and hold more zoom meetings since they reduce emissions. If Dana answers, I will forward his comments, and probably place them on my platform page.
Considering your background I suspect you also have a list in which case I would be grateful if you would share it.
Best wishes,
–mike barkley, 167 N. Sheridan Ave., Manteca, CA 95336 209/823-4817 [email protected] , Candidate CD-05 , mjbarkl.com/run.htm
Once again I am late to the table, I missed reading this Richard Anderson post and comments hailing from different places on the continuum. All I am willing to add to the Convo at this late time in our crises is, currently, I am reading Chris Smaje’s 2020 book, A Small Farm Future: Making the Case for a Society Built Around Local Economies, Self Provisioning, Agricultural Diversity, and a Shared Earth
Smaje makes a just case for his “current” thought by addressing Ten Crises: Population, Climate, Energy, Soil, Stuff, Water, Land, Health and Nutrition, Political Economy, Culture. He goes on to address Wicked Problems: Of Progress and Other Utopias.
Part III: Small Farm Ecology. Part III Small Farm Society. Part IV: Towards a Small Farm Future. Smaje does not approach these topics as a know it all, but as someone who has put much thought, his and others, into why he “currently” thinks as he does, and freely shares such.
Smaje seems very much open to hear other people’s viewpoints, as we ALL must be. Someone has to start the Convo and open discussion unfolds. It is best that we DO NOT sling mud at one another’s brainstorming activities that do not coincide with our own. We NEED to dismantle our defense mechanisms and TRULY WANT TO HEAR one another, OR suffer the consequences of NOT HEARING ALL VIABLE SOLUTIONS and APPLYING those that CAN WORK.
Considering all the crises here and coming, we DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY of CLAIMING right or wrong. Smaje, for one, reasons out loud to describe a future that MAY very likely be nearer than we want to imagine, YET does not have to be viewed as bleak, BUT, instead, could SAVE our shared planet Earth, and our lives.
At this point, having researched much to seek out ANSWERS, I offer you Smaje. To be honest, I am done with the MYTHS and am READY for TRUTH. Growth has NOT worked, BUT responsible for our WOES.
I, also, HIGHLY SUGGEST: THE ENTIRE BIBLE: HEBREW, ARAMAIC, and GREEK. DO NOT LEAVE A JOT OR TITTLE OUT. LET IT RENEW OUR MINDS and CHANGE OUR LIFESTYLES. SHABBAT SHALOM!