ScienceDaily (Apr.2010) — Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, according to a "Perspectives" article in this week's issue of Science. Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) warn in the new study that satellite sensors, ocean floats, and other instruments are inadequate to track this "missing" heat, which may be building up in the deep oceans or elsewhere in the climate system.
"The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later," says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author. "The reprieve we've had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate."
The authors suggest that last year's rapid onset of El Niño, the periodic event in which upper ocean waters across much of the tropical Pacific Ocean become significantly warmer, may be one way in which the solar energy has reappeared.
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor, and by NASA. A Science Perspectives piece is not formally peer-reviewed, but it is extensively reviewed by editors of the journal. Science had invited Trenberth to submit the article after an editor heard him discuss the research at a scientific conference.
Trenberth and his co-author, NCAR scientist John Fasullo, focused on a central mystery of climate change. Whereas satellite instruments indicate that greenhouse gases are continuing to trap more solar energy, or heat, scientists since 2003 have been unable to determine where much of that heat is going.
Either the satellite observations are incorrect, says Trenberth, or, more likely, large amounts of heat are penetrating to regions that are not adequately measured, such as the deepest parts of the oceans. Compounding the problem, Earth's surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years. Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound effects on the planet.
In their Perspectives article, Trenberth and Fasullo explain that it is imperative to better measure the flow of energy through Earth's climate system. For example, any geoengineering plan to artificially alter the world's climate to counter global warming could have inadvertent consequences, which may be difficult to analyze unless scientists can track heat around the globe. Improved analysis of energy in the atmosphere and oceans can also help researchers better understand and possibly even anticipate unusual weather patterns, such as the cold outbreaks across much of the United States, Europe, and Asia over the past winter.
There's more to climate change than warmer air
As greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, satellite instruments show a growing imbalance between energy entering the atmosphere from the Sun and energy leaving from Earth's surface. This imbalance is the source of long-term global warming.
But tracking the growing amount of heat on Earth is far more complicated than measuring temperatures at the planet's surface. The oceans absorb about 90 percent of the solar energy that is trapped by greenhouse gases. Additional amounts of heat go toward melting glaciers and sea ice, as well as warming the land and parts of the atmosphere. Only a tiny fraction warms the air at the planet's surface.
Satellite measurements indicate that the amount of greenhouse-trapped solar energy has risen over recent years while the increase in heat measured in the top 3,000 feet of the ocean has stalled. Although it is difficult to quantify the amount of solar energy with precision, Trenberth and Fasullo estimate that, based on satellite data, the amount of energy build-up appears to be about 1.0 watts per square meter or higher, while ocean instruments indicate a build-up of about 0.5 watts per square meter. That means about half the total amount of heat is unaccounted for.
A percentage of the missing heat could be illusory, the result of imprecise measurements by satellites and surface sensors or incorrect processing of data from those sensors, the authors say. Until 2003, the measured heat increase was consistent with computer model expectations. But a new set of ocean monitors since then has shown a steady decrease in the rate of oceanic heating, even as the satellite-measured imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy continues to grow.
Some of the missing heat appears to be going into the observed melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, as well as Arctic sea ice, the authors say.
Much of the missing heat may be in the ocean. Some heat increase can be detected between depths of 3,000 and 6,500 feet (about 1,000 to 2,000 meters), but more heat may be deeper still beyond the reach of ocean sensors.
Trenberth and Fasullo call for additional ocean sensors, along with more systematic data analysis and new approaches to calibrating satellite instruments, to help resolve the mystery. The Argo profiling floats that researchers began deploying in 2000 to measure ocean temperatures, for example, are separated by about 185 miles (300 kilometers) and take readings only about once every 10 days from a depth of about 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) up to the surface. Plans are underway to have a subset of these floats go to greater depths.
"Global warming at its heart is driven by an imbalance of energy: more solar energy is entering the atmosphere than leaving it," Fasullo says. "Our concern is that we aren't able to entirely monitor or understand the imbalance. This reveals a glaring hole in our ability to observe the build-up of heat in our climate system."
*Numerous long-term changes in the climate have been observed, including extreme weather such as droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.
* Trends towards more powerful storms and hotter, longer dry periods have been observed and are assessed in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. Warmer temperatures mean greater evaporation, and a warmer atmosphere is able to hold more moisture -- hence there is more water aloft that can fall as precipitation. Similarly, dry regions are apt to lose still more moisture if the weather is hotter; this exacerbates droughts and desertification.
Extra-strength weather Droughts are becoming more severe as world temperatures increase.
* The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas. Significantly increased precipitation has been observed in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe and northern and central Asia. There is also observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970.
*Drying has also been observed over large regions, i.e. the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia.
* In Africa's large catchment basins of Niger, Lake Chad, and Senegal, total available water has decreased by 40 to 60 per cent, and desertification has been worsened by lower average annual rainfall, runoff, and soil moisture, especially in southern, northern, and western Africa.
* The Rhine floods of 1996 and 1997, the Chinese floods of 1998, the East European floods of 1998 and 2002, the Mozambique and European floods of 2000, and the monsoon-based flooding of 2004 in Bangladesh (which left 60 per cent of the country under water), are examples of more powerful storms.
The decline of winter
* Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global rate in the past 100 years. Temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer have generally increased since the 1980s by up to 3°C. In the Russian Arctic, buildings are collapsing because permafrost under their foundations has melted.
* Snow cover has declined by some 10 per cent in the mid- and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere since the late 1960s. Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined in both hemispheres and widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise. New data evaluated by the IPCC shows that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise from 1993 to 2003. The average global sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year between 1961 and 2003, but between 1993 and 2003 it rose by 3.1 mm per year.
* Almost all mountain glaciers in non-polar regions retreated during the 20th century. The overall volume of glaciers in Switzerland decreased by two-thirds.
Shifts in the natural world
* Scientists have observed climate-induced changes in at least 420 physical processes and biological species or communities.
* In the Alps, some plant species have been migrating upward by one to four meters per decade, and some plants previously found only on mountaintops have disappeared.
* In Europe, mating and egg-laying of some bird species has occurred earlier in the season -- in the United Kingdom, for example, egg-laying by 20 of 65 species, including long-distance migrants, advanced by an average of eight days between 1971 and 1995.
As computer models predict, severe storms are occurring more frequently. * Across Europe, the growing season in controlled, mixed-species gardens lengthened by 10.8 days from 1959 to 1993. Butterflies, dragnonflies, moths, beetles, and other insects are now living at higher latitudes and altitudes, where previously it was too cold to survive.
Climate change temperature refers to how hot or cold the atmosphere, ocean or landmass is as measured by a thermometer as indicator by Celsius (C), Fahrenheit (F), or Kelvin (K)references.
Air temperature can be measured with a thermometer, invented by Italian mathematician Galileo Galilei about 1592. The basic design - a fluid-filled hollow glass bulb attached to a stem with a thread-like bore - is still used today. A traditional thermometer consists of mercury, or spirit in a glass tube and operates on the principle that the liquid expands more that the glass does when heated.
Thermometers are placed in specially designed shelters such as the Stevenson screen, a white, louvered box positioned about a metre above the ground. In 1718 Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit (Germany) devised the Fahrenheit scale for measuring temperature. The Celsius temperature scale was formulated by Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius in 1742.
Digital electronic devices can also be used were the unit can record the max and min temperature reached and some units can store a series of data (a data logger) and others transmit an electronic signal measuring temperature back to a second temperature display on a PC or a base. These new probes can also be used to measure soil temperature.
The Electronic Maximum-Minimum Temperature Sensor (MMTS) have to a large extent replaced the old thermometer shown above. An electronic temperature sensor that replaces glass thermometers are housed in a white case to reflect sunlight and has vents all around so that the air flows freely over the temperature sensor inside. The idea is to measure the temperature in the shade, away from any direct effect of the sun. There are literally tens of thousands of devices like this measuring the temperature of air around the globe. Besides feeding into the bigger picture of climate change, these devices are important to our everyday life.
Upper Air Climate Change Temperature
The Radiosonde is a balloon-borne instrument platform with a battery powered device (new versions are little larger than a softdrink can) which relays information to a sensitive ground receiver at a tracking station near the launch site.
The radiosonde contains instruments capable of making direct in-situ measurements of air temperature, humidity and pressure with height, typically to altitudes of approximately 30 km. These observed data are transmitted immediately to the ground station by a radio transmitter located within the instrument package.
The ascent of a radiosonde provides an indirect measure of the wind speed and direction at various levels throughout the troposphere. Ground based radio direction finding antenna equipment track the motion of the radiosonde during its ascent through the air. The recorded elevation and azimuth information are converted to wind speed and direction at various levels by triangulation techniques.
Climate Change Temperature from Aircraft
NASA has for years maintained an orbiting fleet, a sensor web, of satellites that monitor the Earth's natural systems, inlcuding climate change temperature. As you can see in the movie below, the sensor web is in a constant state of motion, and each satellite is designed to look at a different aspect of the Earth.
NASA also maintains an airborne sciences division, which comprises a fleet of high altitude, high-tech scientific research aircraft. One of these is the DC-8. With aircraft such as this, scientists can get inside the clouds of a developing hurricane. Getting a good satellite overpass during the exact time and location of a developing hurricane is a matter of luck. But with an aircraft, you can pilot it or target it directly into the location where critical storm elements are coming together and you can stay there to study the atmospheric processes for hours.
Perhaps NASA's most unusual aircraft is the ER-2, a research version of the U-2 spy plane. Its long, narrow wings distinguish this aircraft. It flies at an altitude of 70,000 feet - so high that the single pilot must wear a pressurized spacesuit. From these great heights, the aircraft flies over the dome-like top of hurricanes, and measures amongst other things climate change temperature.
The Sea and Climate Change Temperature
Since the 1980s satellites have been increasingly utilised to measure sea surface temperature (SST) and have provided an enormous leap in our ability to view the spatial and temporal variation in SST. The satellite measurement is made by sensing the ocean radiation in two or more wavelengths in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum which can then be empirically related to SST.
Also and since 2002, new measurements have come from an international collaboration called Argo, a global array of 3,000 free-drifting floats that measure temperature and salinity of the ocean’s upper 2,000 meters.
At 10-day intervals, the floats pump fluid into an external bladder and rise from 2,000 meters to the surface over a six-hour period while taking measurements. Satellites determine the floats’ positions when they surface and receive their transmitted data. The bladder then deflates and the float sinks to drift until the cycle repeats.
An Argo profiling float cycling through the water column. Graphic courtesy of National Oceanographic Centre Southampton
The Argo Floating An Argo profiling float cycling through the water column. Graphic courtesy of National Oceanographic Centre Southampton
Climate change refers to the variation at a global or regional level over time. It describes the variability or average state of the atmosphere or average weather over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years. These variations may come from processes internal to the Earth, be driven by external forces (e.g. variations in sunlight intensity) or, most recently, be caused by human activities.
If you are not sure of the difference between 'climate' and 'weather', click on the link to find out: Climate-Weather.
No time to read all this? Visit Facts and Impacts for a one page summary, or listen to four scientists from Columbia University explain future climatic uncertainties. With Peter DeMenocal, Gavin Schmidt, Maxx Dilly and Klaus Lackner.
Just as weather patterns change from day to day, the climate changes too. This occurs naturally, driven by internal and external factors. However not all changes are due to natural processes, as we humans have also exerted our influence, which is called anthropogenic climate change. Through widespread use of land, use of fossil fuels and the building of cities, we have changed our climate. The major technological and socioeconomic shift of the industrial era with reduced reliance on organic fuel, the accelerated uptake of fossil fuels, and broad scale deforestation, means we have contributed to the natural greenhouse effect.
The key areas for concern are those related to variability and extremes, not simply changed average conditions. There is an accumulating body of evidence of observed impacts relating to regional changes, and that these are having fearful effects on the world around us.
There are already people who have become climate refugees, and millions more are expected in the future. Temperatures across the globe are most certainly rising; the 1990s was the warmest decade in the last thousand years. Sea surface temperatures have increased 0.4-0.8°C (0.7-1.4°F) since the late 19 Century, and over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C (0.18°F) from the surface to a depth of 700 m.
The world has warmed 0.74°C in the past hundred years and scientists are clear that the world will get warmer this century due to further increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. Global average temperature is forecast to rise 4°C (7.2°F) toward the end of the 21st century.
Warming of a few degrees seems inconsequential compared with day to day, or seasonal variations in temperature. However, in global terms it is much larger than any of the climatic changes experienced during the past 10,000 years, since the rise of agriculture and civilisations. Although the Earth has seen many climatic changes during its 4.6 billion year history, the current changes are spurred by the human burning of fossil fuels.
In addition to warming of the Earth’s surface, there has been an increase in heatwaves, warming of the lower atmosphere and deep oceans. There are fewer frosts, permafrost is melting, glaciers are retreating and sea ice is decreasing. Sea levels have risen 10–20 cm and there is increased heavy rainfall in some regions, and less in others.
Climatic changes over recent decades have already affected some health outcomes. The World Health Organisation estimated, in its "World Health Report 2002", that climate change was estimated to be responsible in 2000 for approximately 2.4% of worldwide diarrhoea, and 6% of malaria in some middle-income countries. Epidemics of weather and climate-sensitive infectious diseases such as malaria and meningitis will have a devastating effect on human health and socio-economic development and severely overburden health systems in many parts of the world.
The Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that “there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”. As seen below, The Report also shows why there is cause for deep concern:
Hydrology and Glaciers - Glaciers are retreating, and snow cover is decreasing (e.g. Davos in the Swiss Alps) with earlier snowmelt, and changing snow ecology. There is also reductions in the annual duration of lake and river ice.
Sea Ice - Declining sea-ice extent and thickness.
Animals - Poleward and elevational shifts in range, and alteration in species abundance (e.g. Sea Turtles ). Over a million species are predicted to become extinct by 2050 (e.g. Boyd's Forest Dragon, Cassowaries ). Changes in phenology (including earlier reproduction and migration), physiological and morphological adaptation.
Plants Change in abundance, diversity, and range, change in phenology (including earlier flowering), change in growth.
The previous Australian Government, whilst not signing the Kyoto Protocolhave acknowledged, “The projected global warming of a few degrees in the 21st century would occur at a time that is already one of the warmest for hundreds of thousands of years, with current levels of carbon dioxide not exceeded for the past 420,000 years, and not likely during the past 20 million years".
A few degrees of global warming will lead to more heat waves and fewer frosts. More wildfires and droughts are expected in some regions of the world with higher rainfalls and resultant flooding in other areas. Higher latitudes of the globe would receive more rainfall while middle latitudes, including parts of Australia, are likely to receive less. For these areas the changes will pose significant problems for water resource management.
Tropical hurricanes and cyclones may become stronger and sea levels will rise over the coming decades. Some low-lying coastal areas and islands are already feeling the effect, and will be more prone to inundation from storm surges.
Human induced climate change is another major stress in a world where natural and social systems are already experiencing pollution, increasing resource demands and unsustainable management practices.
Government's of the world are slowly responding, but is the response quick enough? At this stage the answer is, no. An international carbon price and developed carbon trading markets must be fast tracked. We must also move quickly to renewable energy as the source for our electricity and transport fuels.
There is no single instrument measuring climate change. Instead there are thousands of measuring devices spread across the globe, on land, under the sea and in the air.
The climate system is a complex, interactive system consisting of the atmosphere, land surface, snow and ice, oceans and other bodies of water, and living things. The atmospheric component of the climate system is what we generally refer to as climate: climate is often defined as ‘average weather’. Climate is usually described in terms of the mean and variability of temperature, precipitation and wind over a period of time, ranging from months to millions of years (the classical period is 30 years, see weather and climate for more information on the difference between these two).
Countless empirical tests of numerous different hypotheses have now built up a massive body of Earth science knowledge. This repeated testing has refined the understanding of many aspects of the climate system, from deep oceanic circulation to stratospheric chemistry. Sometimes a combination of observations and models can be used to test planetary-scale hypotheses. For example, the global cooling and drying of the atmosphere observed after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo provided key tests of particular aspects of climate models.
Climate science in recent decades has seen an increasing rate of advancement, particularly in field research and notably through the evolution of measuring climate change methodology and tools, including the models and observations that support and enable the research. During the last four decades, the rate at which scientists have added to the body of knowledge of atmospheric and oceanic processes has accelerated dramatically. As scientists incrementally increase the totality of knowledge, they publish their results in peer-reviewed journals.
There are a number of key factors in measuring climate change, and they are broadly categorised below. The range of instrumentation used to observe and measure climate is truly amazing. By following the links below you can see the types of instruments, and where they are used.
Temperature When measuring climate change this is a primary and can be measured or reconstructed for the Earth's surface, and sea surface temperature (SST).
Precipitation (rainfall, snowfall etc) offers another indicator of relative climate variation and may include humidity or water balance, and water quality.
Biomass and vegetation patterns may be discerned in a variety of ways and provide evidence of how ecosystems change to adapt to climate change.
Sea Level measurements reflect changes in shoreline and usually relate to the degree of ice coverage in high latitudes and elevations.
Solar Activity can influence climate, primarily through changes in the intensity of solar radiation.
Volcanic Eruptions, like solar radiation, can alter climate due to the aerosols that are emitted into the atmosphere and alter climate patterns.
Chemical composition of air or water can be measured by tracking levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, and measuring ratios of oxygen isotopes. Research indicates a strong correlation between the percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the Earth's mean temperature.
Combining Observation and Measurements
In understanding global climate changes it is necessary to combine many disciplines, including oceanography, meteorology, geomorphology, geology and paleoclimatology. As well as combining interdisciplinary studies, observations and measurements can be assembled over long time spans, using different measuring approaches. For example, the annual averages of the global mean sea level seen below are based on reconstructed sea level fields since 1870 (red), and the tide gauge measurements are since 1950 (blue) while the satellite altimetry is since 1992 (black). The units are in millimetres relative to the average for 1961 to 1990 and the error bars are at 90% confidence intervals.
By combining these three different approaches, scientists are able to build a clear picture of rising sea level that would not be possible if each was presented independently. You can also see with the introduction of accurate measuring, the confidence level for accuracy increases.
Sea levels
How Climate Knowledge Accumulates
Despite occasional major paradigm shifts, the majority of scientific insights, even unexpected insights, tend to emerge incrementally as a result of repeated attempts to test hypotheses as thoroughly as possible. Therefore, because almost every new advance is based on the research and understanding that has gone before, science is cumulative, with useful features retained and non-useful features abandoned. Active research scientists, throughout their careers, typically spend large fractions of their working time studying in depth what other scientists have done.
Superficial or amateurish acquaintance with the current state of a scientific research topic is an obstacle to a scientist’s progress. Working scientists know that a day in the library can save a year in the laboratory when measuring climate change.
Good science questions competing assertions about climate change. For example, can the statement under consideration, in principle, be proven false? Has it been rigorously tested? Did it appear in the peer-reviewed literature? Did it build on the existing research record where appropriate? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then less credence should be given to the assertion until it is tested and independently verified.
Uncertainties in Measuring Climate Change
The history of the centuries-long effort to document and understand climate change is often complex, marked by successes and failures, and has followed a very uneven pace. Testing scientific findings and openly discussing the test results have been the key to the remarkable progress that is now accelerating in all domains, in spite of inherent limitations to predictive capacity. Climate change science is now contributing to the foundation of a new interdisciplinary approach to understanding our environment. Consequently, much published research and many notable scientific advances have occurred in the last few decades, including advances in the understanding and treatment of uncertainty.
Uncertainties can be classified in several different ways according to their origin. Two primary types are ‘value uncertainties’ and ‘structural uncertainties’. Value uncertainties arise from the incomplete determination of particular values or results, for example, when data are inaccurate or not fully representative of the phenomenon of interest. Structural uncertainties arise from an incomplete understanding of the processes that control particular values or results, for example, when the conceptual framework or model used for analysis does not include all the relevant processes or relationships.
Uncertainties associated with ‘random errors’ have the characteristic of decreasing as additional measurements are accumulated, whereas those associated with ‘systematic errors’ do not. In dealing with climate records, scientists give considerable attention to the identification of systematic errors or unintended biases arising from data sampling issues and methods of analysing and combining data.
Fortunately, science is inherently self-correcting; incorrect or incomplete scientific concepts ultimately do not survive repeated testing against observations of nature.
Polar bears live only in the arctic and as the sea ice continues to melt due to global warming, the polar bears' primary habitat becomes more threatened. They are incredibly specialized hunters that have adapted to life in the Arctic environment. They depend on the sea ice for survival - it is their hunting grounds; it is their lifeblood. The polar bears featured in this movie are calling us to action as their habitat is threatened. Scientists are calling us to action as they study the current data and make concerning predictions for our future. Future generations are calling us to action as they hope to inherit a better world.
All of the images featured in this movie have been provided by Howard Ruby, Chairman of Oakwood Worldwide, the temporary housing specialist and a supporter of the Global Warming Crusade Fund, LLC. A passionate photographer, his adventures have taken him on numerous trips to the Arctic to photograph this dramatic area and the amazing polar bears and cubs that live there. After witnessing the effects of global warming first-hand and seeing the polar bears' plight, he was moved to assist Oakwood Worldwide in creating the Global Warming Crusade Fund to raise public awareness and to support various research programs and charitable organizations.
Although developed for a Thai commercial for Halls Lite drops, the following video has a hard hitting message presented in a hilarious manner. After laughing if you think a little while, you feel like saying like the famous villain Gabbar "Hamara Kya Hoga Kaaliya..."
The video shows a Polar bear shaving it's fur off to adapt to the increasing global warming. The Arctic grooming leaves polar quite embarassed and puts us to shame. Tears rolled up my eyes when i watched it the first time...
If you were a wildlife biologists, you may question, but polar bears have a black skin below their fur...!
Perhaps all the governments around the world have a similar view to global warming.
On 18.07.2008 former Vice President Al Gore challenged to reset the way America makes energy choices. It was a powerful, inspiring speech.
He spoke about amazing opportunities -- and how making the correct choices will benefit our environment, our national security, our economy and our energy bills.
Al Gore has issued a powerful challenge: producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. It's achievable, affordable and necessary. And we need to make this break from past habits and old ways of thinking. As he summarized so powerfully:
"We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change."
In the past months he's been hosting a series of solutions summits with engineers, scientists, CEOs, and financiers. This speech pulled together some of the best thinking from those talks -- and highlighted what we each can do to end our dangerous addiction to fossil fuels and solve the climate crisis.
Thousands were present to hear him speak and I know that we'll be hearing a lot about his challenge in the days ahead. Be among the first to take on this challenge.
Watch the speech below and/or read the essence of the speech given below.
Ladies and gentlemen: There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment. The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more - if more should be required - the future of human civilization is at stake.
I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.
The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse - much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.
Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world.
Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an "energy tsunami" that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.
And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.
Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that's been worrying me.
I'm convinced that one reason we've seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately - without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective - they almost always make the other crises even worse.
Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges - the economic, environmental and national security crises.
We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.
But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we're holding the answer to all of them right in our hand. The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.
In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of "solutions summits" with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.
What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?
We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.
And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.
The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.
But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nation's problems, we need a new start.
That's why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.
Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.
This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.
A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal - have radically changed the economics of energy.
When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.
And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.
You know, the same thing happened with computer chips - also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months - year after year, and that's what's happened for 40 years in a row.
To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.
To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.
When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.
Of course there are those who will tell us this can't be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo - the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, "The Stone Age didn't end because of a shortage of stones."
To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.
To those who say the challenge is not politically viable: I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo. Then bear witness to the people's appetite for change.
I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases. Our workers cannot stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil. And our soldiers and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies. What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years? Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system. But a political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that it's meaningless. Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.
When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon. To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.
We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid.
At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That's the best investment we can make.
America's transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry. Every single one of them.
Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.
In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world's agenda for solving the climate crisis.
Of course the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists today. In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness.
It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.
Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they're going to bring gasoline prices down. It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again. But the Congress may be poised to move in that direction anyway because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the American people.
If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.
However, there actually is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.
Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we've simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of special interests. And I've got to admit, that sure seems to be the way things have been going. But I've begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approach.
We are on the eve of a presidential election. We are in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president's term. It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.
So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge - for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.
This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I'm asking you - each of you - to join me and build this future. Please join the WE campaign at wecansolveit.org.We need you. And we need you now. We're committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership.
On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy's challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the United States Army three weeks later.
I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket's engines shook my entire body. As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.
We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.
Posts
