Editor's note: Adam Markham, director of climate impacts for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy Program and a co-author of the report “National Landmarks at Risk," has written the following rebuttal to Dr. Daniel B. Botkin's column on climate change and his thoughts on what is, and isn't, driving it.
My colleagues and I wanted to respond to a recent column by Dr. Daniel Botkin that criticized a report we wrote regarding the threats climate change poses to historic places and landmarks in the United States.
Dr. Botkin challenged the basic science on which we based our report, yet in February 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society released a joint publication in which they stated: “Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the basic patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.”
While Dr. Botkin rightly notes that sea level rise has been a problem for a long time, he doesn’t acknowledge that the rate of sea level rise is increasing as the ocean expands and glaciers and ice sheets melt due to global warming. Sea level is projected to continue increasing, threatening nearly all coastal areas. The future rate of change depends on how much heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere.
Dr. Botkin also points to hurricane landfall statistics to dismiss our conclusions about flooding at historic sites. But all storms, not just hurricanes, are made more destructive by higher seas. Some of the sites we examined, in fact, are at risk of flooding, or already experiencing it, during regular high tides because sea levels are rising. Downtown Annapolis, for instance, is expected to see 200 tidal floods a year by 2030.
In the report, we also point to the problem of coastal erosion, which can be exacerbated by higher water levels even if storm frequencies remain the same. For instance, in Alaska warming has caused the loss of the seasonal sea ice that used to protect the coast from erosion in winter storms. As a consequence, native villages such as Kivalina and Shishmaref will have to relocate to protect their residents, and archaeological sites that are more than 4,000 years old are being washed away.
Dr. Botkin also cited national fire statistics in his critique. While wildfires occur all over the United States, they are most prevalent in the U.S. West, where they have been increasing as the climate has warmed. While the Western wildfire season lasted about 5 months in the 1970s, it has now expanded to 7 months. Hotter and drier conditions in the U.S. West, along with shorter winters and lowered snowpack, are helping create the conditions that lead to larger fires. The scientific evidence is clear that climatic conditions are the primary factor driving changes in fire activity in the region. In our report, we focused on Western sites that face substantial risks from large and intense wildfires.
Archaeologists at globally important sites including Bandelier National Monument and Mesa Verde National Park have expressed deep concern about the impacts of larger fires and extreme rainfall events on thousands of ancient Pueblo sites.
Let’s also clear up how we wrote our report. The report was drafted by UCS staff, including a scientist who has been studying climate change for years. We carried out extensive literature reviews for each of the sites highlighted, drawing on the latest peer-reviewed publications and technical reports. In the process, we also interviewed many site managers and field scientists familiar with the sites about which we wrote. The final text and case studies were then reviewed by more climate scientists, archaeologists, historians and, indeed, many of the men and women who manage and preserve the historic sites we highlighted as vulnerable to the effects of climate change. (As an aside, Dr. Botkin erroneously described my colleague Kate Cell, a senior outreach coordinator at UCS as a fundraiser. In addition to other excellent work she did on the report, Ms. Cell also helped organize this exhaustive review process.)
The people in charge of these sites are, in many cases, already dealing with climate change. To cite one example, NASA is contemplating a ‘planned retreat’ from sea-level rise and land subsidence at Wallops Island in Virginia, where some of the nation’s early experiments in rocketry took place. Major efforts are also underway to protect the shoreline at the original colonial settlement site at Jamestown, Virginia due to erosion and flooding exacerbated by rising water levels.
Further, the National Park Service runs a climate change response program and has adopted an ambitious climate change action plan. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell who has traveled widely in the national parks since she was appointed has said “everywhere I’ve gone the impact of climate change has been very evident” With regard to historic sites, a recent policy memo from National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis stated “Climate change poses an especially acute problem for managing cultural resources because they are unique and irreplaceable -- once lost they are lost forever”.
The parks themselves are also a rich source of information about our changing climate. As one study by National Park Service climate scientist, Patrick Gonzalez noted, “Field measurements in national parks have detected glacial melt, decreased snowfall and snowpack, earlier spring warmth and streamflow, sea-level rise, increased conifer mortality, and shifts of vegetation biomes, small-mammal ranges, and winter bird ranges. Analyses attribute these impacts to climate change.”
Ultimately, Dr. Botkin’s column was less about our report and more of a criticism of the science used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one of the authoritative climate science assessments upon which we relied.
The IPCC is the largest scientific assessment body in the world. Its reports are commissioned by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation, written by scientists, scrutinized through an exhaustive public comment process, and approved by member countries.
We used many other sources in addition to the IPCC, including the National Climate Assessment. Published in May 2014, it is the most comprehensive review of climate science ever carried out for the United States. It concluded that “global climate is changing and this change is apparent across a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities.”
The National Climate Assessment is produced by an independent advisory committee and finalized by more than a dozen federal science agencies, including the Department of the Interior, which houses the National Park Service. Its reports are authorized by Congress, open to public comment, and are considered the definitive guide to climate change in the United States.
Dr. Botkin is right to assert that climate change is not the only concern at the parks or sites we wrote about in our report. But it is happening and it makes many of the problems parks are already dealing with – including wildfires and flooding – worse than they would be otherwise.
Thankfully, the people in charge of these sites are paying close attention to the science. They are seeking to reduce climate risk and planning for long-term resilience because these sites are part of our heritage. These men and women are stewards, and they want to enable our children and grandchildren to enjoy these sites, even as the climate changes rapidly around us.
Comments
Paul - I also expect businesses to defend themselves. I also expected the grizzly bear that has been terrorizing our town the past few weeks to flip over dumpsters. That doesn't mean that I welcomed it or wanted it to continue. Last night that particular bear was permanently encouraged to cease flipping dumpsters. The petro industry will be a much more difficult change.
My congratulations to Dr. Markham for such a fair and reasoned response. Here remains the problem I have as a historian. In the first place, I remember my history, too. Growing up in Binghamton, New York, in the 1950s, I remember the terrible hurricanes and thunderstorms before anyone talked of global warming and, in 1972, Hurricane Agnes, which ripped apart the Northeast long before “Super Storm Sandy.” Agnes was in fact the most damaging hurricane to date in American history, arriving as she did in the month of June, before the pundits could catch their breath and warn us that June hurricanes are generally rare. The flooding up and down the Susquehanna River Valley was worse than the greatest previous flood in 1936.
I also remember teaching at UC Santa Barbara from a wonderful film, "Where Did the Colorado River Go?," that in 1973. In the early 1990s, Marc Reisner's book, Cadillac Desert, picked up where the film left off, repeating the theme of western water policy run amok. Apparently, all of the government’s stream flow estimates for the Colorado—and other major western rivers—were based on abnormal decades of excess flow. Scientists in the 1920s measured the excess flow and not the historical flow, which was on average 4 million acre feet per year less than what was observable in 1920.
Is it global warming emptying the Colorado River now—and causing all of those western wildfires—or in fact a return to “normal” average stream flows and precipitation going back hundreds of years? As Marc Reisner repeatedly reminded us, it’s a desert, after all. “Water flows uphill toward money” was how he interpreted science’s reliance on erroneous data.
When we say that scientists “know” this or that, the question is what do they really know? What do any of us “know,” for that matter, except the experience we are living now. In the end, that is all Dan Botkin is saying. We need to be cautious in our assumptions, even when we think we “know.” Again, sea levels have been generally “rising” for the past 10,000 years. They had to “rise” or there would be no New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, and all the rest. I live but two blocks from a major erratic dumped by the retreating glaciers in Seattle, which 10,000 years ago was covered with several thousand feet of ice. No global warming, no Seattle, or for that matter, Binghamton, New York.
Running for mayor of Seattle in 2005, I warned the city not to build the waterfront tunnel based on glacial science and seismology. But no, “their” scientists knew better than “my” scientists, and now the $100 million drill—Big Bertha—is hopelessly stuck in the muck. “Their” engineers “promise” to have her up and running by next March, at which time the 7.5 earthquake will probably hit (the tunnel runs directly across the fault) and we won’t have to worry about Big Bertha’s progress anymore.
Scientists are not infallible just because they call themselves scientists. But don’t get comfortable just yet. It is the public’s wish list of make-money projects driving so much of this mess, as I found in running for mayor. What a scold I was! So the Seattle fault ruptures every 1,000 years, and it’s been 1,100 since the last rupture. Get over it, Al. We want the tunnel. After all, it will create jobs, and jobs, and jobs! “Free the Waterfront!” screamed the developers, as if the Waterfront were a slave in chains. “It’s a thing,” I reminded them, “and yes, it has a highway, but should we replace that just on a whim?” The highway is ugly but it won’t cost $6 billion, and now what will the tunnel cost?
I love this debate; it’s timely and necessary. Hats off to Kurt for making it possible for every reader of the Traveler to think. Then think. If the issue is global warming, then why does every alleged solution come with an enormous price tag instead of simply learning to live within our means?
Indeed, God is not dead. His storms will continue to blow and his earth will continue to shake. That’s our lot on Mother Earth—and always has been. Just ask the last group of immigrants struggling to reach North America from Asia, who instead drowned on the Bering Land Bridge. At least, God made it up to Moses. I only hope he will save Seattle.
Al, being neither a historian nor a scientist, and being a few years now from having been a professional wordsmith, I look for simple answers. I'm also a fairly pagan man, and will leave it to others to take it upon themselves to declare what their various deities do or don't do.
I see one thing agreed upon - stuff is happening. Worldwide climate is changing. Seems that most all folks on all sides agree upon that.
Given that, I then ask - are we making it worse, and if so, what can we do to mitigate it.
"Simplistic" is a term of derision I'm used to hearing from the Usual Suspects; I'm quite content, however, in living simply and looking to simple answers to the challenges of life.
Alfred - Thanks for your continued contribution of thoughtful, and thought-provoking, comments.
1998 was an exceptional year. All scientists admit that and know that. However, if you compare 1997 to today, the earth is warmer. If you compare 1999 to today, the earth is warmer. In fact, nine of the top ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2000 (the exception was 1998). If 2014 continues as it has, 2014 will become the hottest year ever.
Climate deniers like to use 1998 as a 'starting' point for their 'science.' It was one exceptional year. However, 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998. So no, the temperature has not been "flat the last 18 years." It has been steadily getting hotter.
If you do a least squares regression analysis ( the proper way to measure trends) you will see the trend is flat. Least squares regression equalizes the impact of any given year whether it is the first year, middle year or last year. Looks like you are the denier not those that know how to measure trends.
The IPCC models have been horribly wrong. Time to fix the alarm, not tear down the house.
Good question. Are "we" making it worse? The simple answer is yes, and for that matter, we have been making things worse for the past 3 million years. Humans are conquerors, first learning to use fire and spears, until their weapons and tools mowed everything down. I remember lecturing about the theory of Pleistocene overkill, this to remind my students that natives were the first conquerors in North America. Columbus didn't upset the balance of nature. It had started 10,000 years before. What he upset was THAT balance of nature--the one he found and everyone dubbed as stable, when indeed it was nothing of the kind. Oh, Dr. Runte, my students would scream in horrified disbelief. But Indians were ecologists. I read it in a book!
What book, I would ask? What is the author's motive? Do you think that Native Americans did not change their world to suit themselves? Well, you think that because you have it easy. Your next meal will be served in the dorm. They had to go out and find it--kill it--clean it--carry it--cook it over an open fire. Indians ecologists? Yes, for themselves, using the best tools available at the time.
American univesities don't teach like that anymore. Nor do presidents. And that's why global warming "exists." It exists in the minds of those people who see advantage in peddling the fear. "Rain will follow the plow! God speed the plow!" Remember that boosterism from the 19th century, arguing why settlers should plow the plains? And they did, only to find that God wasn't about to make it rain only because the boosters said it would rain. Then came the Dust Bowl and it all blew away. Global warming? No, the history of the planet, which no one bothered to read because they were so busy speculating in LAND!
What are they speculating in now? Renewal energy. Big combines, big corporations, have much at stake on the public lands. They need our fear to convince us that we should give up our inheritance for their bottom line. For the record, Dr. Botkin believes in renewal energy--as I do--but not these sprawling, land-gobbling projects that will destroy more than they will possibly save.
There is money in peddling fear, just as there is money in peddling hope. "God speed the plow! Rain will follow the plow!" Many people got rich over that, just as many are getting rich now. The historian remembers that--remembers the great hurricances of a century ago and asks what is REALLY different. What is different? The American coastlines had not been developed. There were fewer people, homes, mini-malls, and all the rest of it that those great hurricances could blow away. There were fewer people around to scream: "Storms will follow the plow!" Now that millions of people have built their homes on sandspits, you bet, Super Storm Sandy knew how to blow them away. Fade in. Governor Cristie and Barack Obama are walking arm in arm down the beach. Elect us and we will save you! We will hold back the seas! It is nonsense, and they know it. They can only hope you won't know.
All that Dr. Botkin is saying is that the science has been abused--made to say more than it really says by people who have an agenda. No historian is surprised at that. Human beings have always had agendas. Saving American rivers from perpetual flooding (and rivers always "flood") the United States built more than 3,000 large dams, and the dam-builders got very rich. Nature didn't lie, did she? Here is my flood plain. This is where I go when the spring rains come. If you build there, I will "flood." Now every spring along America's rivers, developers are screaming flood! Global warming? No, stupidty, and some Americans got very rich.
As I have said, I will believe fervently in global warming when the price tag lowers just a bit--and when Seattle, which wrings its hands about rising seas, abandons the Waterfront Tunnel. Which is it? Will the tunnel flood or won't it? The answer lies not in global warming. Rather, the answer lies in who is getting rich.
Not all humans have the conquest the Earth mentality, Dr Runte. Some of us actually wish to see some aspects of the planet not gobbled up by temporary economic play things only to deplete the landscape for hundreds, if not thousands of years. If we can reverse the acidification of the oceans to stop the bleaching of coral reefs, then maybe we SHOULD think about doing that. Maybe creating areas where commercial fishing is barred should be considered so that we don't entirely deplete the oceans fish stock. If we can halt how much sulfur dioxide is tossed into the atmosphere by installing scrubbers on coal plants, then that should be done to stop the acidification of forests and ecosystems. Science has already proven that this works and can lesson the impact on burning fossil fuels. But, the problem always is the battle between conservation and extractionists. Scientific thought and processes should EVOLVE over time. Perhaps, this country should be putting those solar plants on old industrial sites instead of in BLM and NF lands. That's kicked around a lot by preservationists, but of course, it's just EASIER to gobble up land that just has "disposable" rabbits and turtles.
I personally don't want to be a part of a human race that looks like a mere parasite or virus when we don't have to if we use that brain in our head to better facilitate not only our survival but other species. I also don't have a self-defeating "ohh screw it" mentality, either. And seriously, at least this side of the hemisphere had bison, elk, deer, beavers, and other creatures. The european side of the planet wiped out and completely depleted those species to where it will take many centuries to restore populations of these creatures.. I realize that yes, the ground sloth and other creatures were eliminated on this side of the planet from human expansion, but to use a few examples as a "norm" is not exactly fair. And some of those same forces that depleted the resources (like a nice little virus) look to do the same to this side now that they are here. I'd love to have barred witness to more than just a few acres of the giant old growth forests found in the eastern us during the 1700s before the onslaught of industrialization, but one just has to use their imagination to guess how it must have been, because that is all we have left other than a few fractured acres. Soon, the next generation or maybe a generation after that will just have some videos or pictures of what a coral reef looked like. Something that we could have prevented, if human ingeniuity didn't spend too much time just catering to the underachievers of our plane.t Self-awareness is a beautiful thing, unfortunately many on this planet don't have it, or fail to achieve a heightened level of awareness, thats why I feel it's necessary for those with some level of self-awareness to always shock those that choose to not utilize it..