RESEARCHERS REVEAL A HIDDEN WORLD UNDER ANTARCTICA

RESEARCHERS REVEAL A HIDDEN WORLD UNDER ANTARCTICA There is a hidden mysterious world hidden away under Antarctica and researchers have revealed the giant wetlands that are 800 meters beneath the ice. The Whillans Ice Stream Subglacial Access Research Drilling, or WISSARD for short, a project that was financed by National Science Foundation, has taken researchers that step nearer to discovering just what lies underneath the ice that covers the majority of Antarctica. LAKE WHILLANS IS UNDER 800 METERS OF ICE IN WESTERN ANTARCTICA Reports have indicated that Lake Whillans, which was first located in 2007 and which covers more than 20 square miles, is under the 800 meters of ice that is found in Western Antarctica and researchers have said that this is very similar to the wetland. The researchers are hoping that more studies will mean they can understand better how the level of the sea rises and how the ice is behaving in response to the global warming. RESEARCHERS ARE EXCITED ABOUT RICH DATASET OF LAKES RELATED ARTICLES Researchers Reveal: The Egyptian Civilization Is Thousands Of Years Older Than ThoughtRussian Researchers Reveal A Mummified Alien Helen Amanda Fricker from Scripps Institute said that it was amazing to think that people did not know that the lake was in existence until just a decade ago.

It was Fricker that had first found sub-glacial Lake Whillans from satellite data back in 2007. She went on to say that it was exciting to be able to see the lakes rich dataset and that the new data is helping them to understand the function of the lakes as a part of the ice-sheet system. The sub-glacial Lake is fed by ice which has a small amount of seawater in it from the ancient marine sediments that are on the lakes seabed. The lake's water drains periodically into the ocean through channels that are connected to the lake, but they do not have energy enough to carry much of the sediment. NEW DATA WILL LEAD TO BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF MECHANICS OF LAKE WHILLANS Researchers have said that the new data should give them a much better understanding of the mechanics and biogeochemistry of Lake Whillans. It was also said that the data is going to help them to improve the current models and tell them more about how the sub-glacial lake systems in Antarctica interact with any ice that is underneath the surface along with the sediments that are found under it. In January 2013 three different papers analyzed the studies following the WISSARD project having managed to drill successfully down into the sheet of ice to reach subglacial Lake Whillans, to get some samples of sediment along with water samples that had been isolated from any direct contact with the atmosphere of the Earth for many thousands of years.

The Geology and Earth and Planetary Science Letters journal published two of the more interesting of the papers. Alexander Michaud from the Montana State University and the lead author said that data had come from the 15-inch long core lake sediment so that the water chemistry along with the sediment could be characterized. LAKE WATER MOSTLY COMES FROM MELTING ICE AT BASE COVERING LAKE Researchers found that the water in the lake originates mostly from the melting ice at the base of the sheet that covers the sub-glacial lake and that there had been very little contribution from any seawater, trapped under the ice in the sediment during the last inter-glacial period. A second paper had been published by lead author Timothy Hodson from the Northern Illinois University in which he along with colleagues took a look at the core sediment that had been retrieved from the lake with the hope of trying to find out more about the ice sheet and the relationship with the sediments under it and the subglacial hydrology.

Their discovery found that many floods had passed through the lake but that the floods flow was lacking in energy when it came to eroding the extensive drainage channels. The researchers came to the conclusion that the environment underneath Antarctica is similar to that of wetlands in the coastal plain that is found in other parts on the planet. Antarctica of course, broke away from Gondwana around 25 million years ago; around 170 million years ago it had been part of the Gondwana supercontinent before breaking away. Research shows that Antarctica has not always been the very dry and cold region that we know to be covered in sheets of ice. Throughout its long history, it was further to the north and this meant that it experienced a climate that was either tropical or temperate, which would have meant that it had been covered in forest, along with being home to many ancient life forms.

.

Climate Change: Hasn’t Warming Happened Before?

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay, coming to you from Baltimore. We’ve been unfolding a series of interviews and discussions about climate change and the whole issue of the sense of urgency. And there’s–a conference has just taken place in Portland about just this. And now joining us from Portland is Valérie Masson-Delmotte. Valerie is based just outside of Paris at the Université de Versailles. And thanks very much for joining us, Valérie. VALÉRIE MASSON-DELMOTTE: Thank you for your invitation. JAY: So, first of all, just give us a little sense of what area you work in and a bit of a sense of your background, your credentials, your expertise. MASSON-DELMOTTE: So I’m a physicist. I first qualified in a PhD thesis on climate modeling, and over the last 20 years I’ve been working on past climate dynamics. I’m using data from ice cores from Greenland or Antarctica, and also from tree rings, and I’m using these data to test the ability of climate models to represent these past changes.

And I’m also trying to place the current changes and the projections of risks in a longer perspective. So I’ve been active in the scientific community. I’ve published more than 100 papers in the peer-reviewed literature. JAY: Okay. And you’re also–I know you’re speaking on your own behalf here, but you’re also–is it you’re going to be a coauthor, is it, of the next IPCC report? MASSON-DELMOTTE: So I was a coauthor of the 2007 IPCC report, on the paleo climate chapter, and I’m coordinating the next one for 2013. JAY: Before we get into sort of the meat of all this, let me remind our viewers that part of the series is about you. So we’re interviewing climate scientists, and then we’re asking you to send questions, comments, challenges, arguments.

And we will go back to Valerie, who will answer some of your questions. And we’ll keep going back and forth until we work our way through some of the scientific questions. And we will be organizing some debates as well. So, moving ahead, before we get into some of the scientific issues, let me just ask you: you know, the IPCC, under the auspices of the UN, has issued, you know, reports that represent the majority scientific opinion in the world. The reports get increasingly urgent and dire. And it’s almost like the more dire or urgent the reports get, the less traction it seems to be getting in terms of political action, political debate in United States, but not only United States: in Canada, and even in Europe. I mean, one of the things that accounts for it, I guess, is the economic crisis. But do you think that’s the only issue? Like, why isn’t there more sense of urgency here? MASSON-DELMOTTE: I think there is a clear link with the economical crisis, which drives policymakers to urgent and short-term issues rather than mid-term issues and changes required by mitigating climate change.

I also believe that for a number of people, climate change remains something that is sort of an intellectual construction, and I do not think that they are [incompr.] concerned. So there is, I think, a huge effort to be done by climate scientists, by the media, by educators in explaining what are our methods, what are the findings, and what are the risks, and how we can act to prevent climate change and to adapt to climate change. I think this is the major gap that we have, discussing with a lot of actors that are not that familiar with what is climate science. JAY: I guess part of the problem is when, you know, you’re losing your job or you might lose your house and economy’s so bad, and then you hear talk of possibilities of war, and there already are–there’s one war going on in Afghanistan, and there could be–there’s talk of war with Iran, and I guess it increasingly–climate change then seems to fade a bit in the background, ’cause it seems like, well, it’s so long-term before I might get affected that I’m going to worry about these other things first.

MASSON-DELMOTTE: So we have to be aware that the climate of the generation of our children–my daughters are 10 and 14–is already different from the climate we had when we were teenagers and the climate our parents had. So the change is real. We only see the beginning of these change, because we are continuing to inject greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So we are committing ourselves to growing climate change in the next decades. That’s one point. And the other point is what you mentioned, economical crisis, international tensions. What we would like is a stable environment, and climate change is acting against that ideal. Climate change would oblige us to adapt constantly to a different environment. So this is why I believe that we have to incorporate this challenge amongst all the others that we have to face. JAY: Right. Okay. Well, let’s work through just two or three of the issues to get started with, and then, as people mail in–and you can send your questions or comments or challenges to contact (at) therealnews (dot) com or you can write them in the comments section below the video player.

So we’re going to work our way through two or three of the main skeptic arguments, ’cause Valérie’s been dealing in writing about this as well. So, Valérie, take us through what you think is sort of the most persuasive or prevalent skeptic argument. And what’s your take on it? MASSON-DELMOTTE: So I would summarize that in the following points. Some people think that climate is not changing. Some people think that it’s recurrent, natural. Some people believe it’s linked to the sun, for instance, and that it’s not man-made. Some people have doubts about our ability to model the complexity of the climate system, and so that results from climate models for the future are too uncertain to take into account. These are a few of the arguments I’ve heard and I’ve tried to discuss with. JAY: Well, pick up the last one, ’cause that’s one of the–I think, one of the ones that has got a lot of influence, that this is too difficult to model, and that this has happened before, these sort of spikes in warming of the Earth, and that until we know more and the modeling is clearer, there shouldn’t be such dramatic changes in the way we do business and earn our livings.

MASSON-DELMOTTE: So, coming back to your point about our ability to anticipate climate change, from past climates we know that despite its chaotic character, climate is predictable. We understand a lot of the past changes–the way the climate responded to changes in the orbit of the Earth on glacial and interglacial timescales, the response of the climate to changes in solar activity, in volcanic activity over the last centuries, for instance. And over these different timescales, we have a huge amount of data, and we can simulate these changes with the same climate models as are used for the future. So we know that these climate models which are based on physics of the atmosphere, of the ocean, of the land surface, and their interactions, they capture properly the first order of the responses. And what I mean, first order, I mean at the continental scale, at the hemispheric global scale, for temperature, for aspects of large-scale changes in precipitation, for instance.

So this is a very important aspect that we can simulate correctly, some of the past changes, which is for me a prerequisite for any trust in climate projections. JAY: Okay. Well, I’m sure we’re going to get mail and questions on this point, ’cause it’s one of the issues that’s really in contention. The other issue that’s in–an argument that’s made is–and I think, from my reading of it, at any rate, the majority of people that are skeptics do acknowledge the fact that there’s been a warming, although some people dispute that. But the argument is this isn’t the first time this warming has happened, and you can’t attribute–there’s no evidence to attribute that this warming is any different than previous warmings and that it’s essentially natural.

So how do you respond to that? MASSON-DELMOTTE: Okay. So there are different types of warming events at the local scale or at the global scale and through time. So you can consider the geological timescales, time of dinosaurs, for instance. And we know climate was warmer at that time. And we think that it’s caused by, at that time, two changes in the atmospheric composition with more greenhouse gases. And we can also model this type of climate changes on the deep times. Now we can also look at more recent timescales. And, for instance, about 10,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago we know the Arctic, for instance, was warmer than today by a few degrees. And this change at the time was caused by the orbit of the Earth around the sun that was different. It changes regularly because there’s not only the sun and the Earth, but also other planets.

And this we can calculate very precisely. We can take this into account in the climate models. And when we do so, we are able to simulate the patterns of these Arctic warming about 10,000 to 6,000 years ago. And now I’m moving to the last example I would like to give. That’s the climate of the medieval time period. And during this interval we have a number of high-resolution climate records. We know some areas were warmer than today, for instance, areas around Scandinavia, Greenland, or the North Atlantic. We also know that this warming was not the same everywhere. It was not that well detected, for instance, in Antarctica; it was not reported in what we know for the tropics. So we know that the spatial structure of the change was different from today. And now there’s an effort to model the climate evolution over the last 1,000 years, including this anomaly. And we think that this anomaly is caused by a lack of volcanic eruptions, more active solar activity, and also a coincidence of some natural modes of variability in the tropics and in the North Atlantic area. JAY: Well, we’ll–in the next time we do this–and I know we’re going to get some email about this, ’cause the issue of the spike in temperature during the medieval times, I think, is the one that’s used most often to say that why would you think it’s any different now than it was then.

And in this interview we just intend to sort of just very–begin the conversation. And these are complicated scientific issues, and to dig into it you need the time. So we will do a digging in just on this issue of why you think this isn’t a repetition of the medieval warming. MASSON-DELMOTTE: On this point, what I’d like to mention, of course, is that, you know, climate research is based on new data, new simulation, new process studies. And for the last 2,000 years there’s a very huge international effort in building new estimates of hemispheric temperatures, but also regional temperature changes. And this is done in the auspices of a program called past global changes. So there will be a lot of new findings in the coming months on this specific topic. JAY: Okay. Well, before we conclude this first part of this back-and-forth–and again, viewers, we’re inviting you to get in on this and ask your questions and make your challenges.

But just how urgent is it, in your opinion, the climate-change crisis? As we’ve said earlier in the interview and some of the other interviews, you wouldn’t know there even was a climate-change crisis if you listen to the debate in the U.S. presidential elections, and, for that matter, in the European elections, too. Economic crisis has overwhelmed any other discussion. But how–in your mind, how urgent is it? MASSON-DELMOTTE: Yeah, I think the position of policy actors is a little different in Europe. I know it quite well from France. I think there is a general consensus that climate change is real, that it questions our use of energy, and that there is an urgent need for mitigating climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So I think there is a political consensus in Europe on this issue. And this is the reason why it was not key in the political debates in the last years in many countries in Europe.

So, now coming to your point–and here we come out of my expertise as a scientist, and you ask me my opinion as a citizen, in a way, and I do believe that it is urgent to address this question, due to the fact that it is demonstrated that greenhouse gases act on climates. Today we are emitting, year after year, more and more greenhouse gases. So, so far the United Nations have been unable to control their emissions. So we are committing ourselves, our children, our grandchildren to climate change, because we keep changing the composition of the atmosphere, and the more we wait, the more the magnitude of the change or the need for action will be large. JAY: Okay. Well, so now join us for this discussion, the debate. Send in your questions, your challenges. You can do it at contact (at) therealnews (dot) com, or you can just do it below the video player here–there’s a comment box. And Valérie will join us again and again and again. We’re going to keep working our way through these issues one by one, and there will be debates.

So thanks very much for joining us. MASSON-DELMOTTE: Thank you. JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network..

Global Warming Theory Based on Evidence, Not a Belief – Alan Robock on RAI (1/5)

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore. One of the stories we promised to be on top of–and it's one of the stories we have been least on top of, at least compared to its relative importance–is the whole issue of climate change. We've been wanting for a long time to have a full-time climate change environmental journalist. And we don't yet, but this year we're really going to try to. But we're going to up our game in terms of doing climate change stories and try to unfold the debate about just how urgent is it and a debate about what to do about it. And when you look at the issue of climate change debate and discussion in the society as a whole, it's gone from, in the 2008 period of being on the front page of every newspaper and on the front page or as the main story on most television news shows for weeks, to practically not being in the public discourse at all.

And it's one of the things we're going to explore why and see what we can do about it. One of the issues has been a concerted campaign to discredit climate change science. And one has to believe, if one thinks that the preponderance of scientists who believe that human industrious activity causes carbon emissions, which causes climate change crisis and global warming, if you believe that's all not true, you have to believe in one of the grandest conspiracies of our time. But a lot of people do believe that, and we want to try to unpack that as well. So in this episode or series of interviews we're going to do on Reality Asserts Itself, we're going to meet a real live climate scientist, because you have to believe that he's in on this conspiracy if you believe that climate science is hokum. So we're going to explore, through the life of our guest, how he came to a conclusion that in fact this is science as best he knows it, it is urgent; and we'll unpack all of this.

So now joining us in the studio is Alan Robock. Alan is a distinguished professor of meteorology in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University. He's an editor of Review of Geophysics, the most widely read journal in the field. He was also in the faculty at the University of Maryland, where he served as a professor and state climatologist of Maryland from '91 to '97. He was a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded a Nobel prize in 2007. His current research focuses on geoengineering, climatic effects of nuclear weapons, soil moisture variations, the effects of volcanic eruptions on climate, and the impacts of climate change on human activities.

Thanks very much for joining us. ALAN ROBOCK: Thanks for having me. JAY: So, as people that watch Reality Asserts Itself knows, we start with a personal biographical background of our guest, usually, and then we [incompr.] get into the issues. And we're going to do that now through exploring Alan's life. We're going to also get into some of the issues he's trying to deal with in his scientific work. So let's start from the beginning. Are you in on a grand conspiracy to delude the world to make money for corporate–green corporations? This is the kind of stuff we read on the internet every time we do a climate change story. And we get it–you can see it from a right-wing position and a left-wing position. So we are going to get into the more–biography of your life and get to know how you came to this conclusions through your own investigation. But just to set a kind of framing, what do you make of the extent of which this seems to have credibility in this society? ROBOCK: I guess I don't understand it.

I guess people like to believe in conspiracies. But if–my research supports the global warming science, that humans are putting greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere, it causes warming, it's real, it's caused by us. All the scientists agree it's bad. But I think there's hope. Now, so that's based on evidence. You asked me if I believe in global warming. It's not a question of belief. It's a question of looking at the evidence and weighing the evidence. And I'm really a skeptic. I try to be critical of anything that's told to me, and want to ask questions, and then I make conclusions based on the evidence. My motivation in my career would be to find a flaw in global warming, not another paper that supports it. JAY: Why? ROBOCK: If you found a flaw, you'd be famous. You'd prove that it was wrong.

That's what would give you fame, not another paper that supports the science. So there's a lot of motivation to be critical and find what's wrong with what people say, not another paper that supports it. JAY: That's interesting. There's certainly a lot of money from the fossil fuel industry that would encourage you if you could make such a discovery, as well. ROBOCK: Well, no, I don't get paid [crosstalk] my results. JAY: No, no. I'm not saying you do. I'm saying if one could find the flaw in climate science–. ROBOCK: So you're saying they're funding people to try and find the flaw. JAY: Well, yeah. ROBOCK: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. JAY: There's a lot of research going on to find the flaw. ROBOCK: Yeah. JAY: Okay. We're going to come back to how you came to these conclusions, but I just wanted to kind of set the framing. And now let's go back.

So you're born 1949. Tell us where and give us a sense of the household you grew up in. ROBOCK: I was born in Boston in 1949. A few months later, we moved to Knoxville, Tennessee, and my father was the chief economist for the Tennessee Valley Authority. And my brother and sister were born there. And when I was four years old, we moved to Brazil. I went to kindergarten in Rio de Janeiro and first grade in Fortaleza. My father worked for the United Nations there, helping to–the bank Banco do Nordeste in Fortaleza. Then we moved to Kansas City, Missouri, or /m?'z??/, where I went to third or fourth grade, and moved to Prairie Village, Kansas, for part of fourth grade. And then my mother said, "We're moving again." I said, "What? We just moved to this house." "Yeah, your father got a job in New York.

" So we moved to Rye, New York, where I went to fifth and sixth grade. And then my father got a job as a professor at Indiana University in Bloomington, and I went to junior high school and high school there. JAY: So talk a little bit about your father and mother's politics and sort of your own political evolution. But everybody kind of starts with their parents, 'cause that's where you first encounter these kinds of ideas. ROBOCK: Well, my parents were traditional liberal Democrats. They supported Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey. My mother supported Gene McCarthy. She was a little bit more left-wing than my father. But I didn't really rebel against them at all. That's what I learned and that's what I became, although I always thought the Democrats were a little bit too conservative for my taste. JAY: And when do you start to get a taste for science? As you're going through high school or even earlier, when do you feel like, boy, I'm good at this kind of stuff? ROBOCK: I was always good at math and science in school.

And so I had a little weather station out behind my house in Bloomington. And I went to the University of Wisconsin-Madison. When I was in ninth grade, I signed up for earth science, and the school counselor called me and said, you know, earth science is for the students who don't do well in science; you should be taking biology. Okay. So I took biology. I didn't really find it that interesting. But then I took chemistry and physics in high school. I did well at that. When I got to Wisconsin, there was a freshman course in earth science, which I signed up for, and it was taught by the chairman of the meteorological department, and about a third of it was meteorology. And I'm not a weather weenie. Some people grow up loving weather from when they're really little.

JAY: Well, you had a weather station. ROBOCK: Yeah, but I did other stuff, too. I wasn't a weather weenie like our students now. And some people find it later. So I was a freshman, and I was taking a course, and a third of it was meteorology. We were plotting weather maps in Science Hall at Madison. It was a teletype, and we were plotting the data. And I did an analysis, and there was a warm front on the map. I looked out the window and there was this wedge of clouds on the horizon, and I said, that's the warm front I'm studying–I can study something that's real, that's relevant to humans, not something I have to imagine in a test tube or in an accelerator. And I discovered I could major in meteorology–that was actually a subject, and they had a big department at Wisconsin. So that's when I became a meteorology major. JAY: This is when you're in college. ROBOCK: Yeah. JAY: So, while you're in college–this is in the '70s. ROBOCK: No, in the late '60s. JAY: Late '60s–even more.

This is at the height of the Vietnam War. ROBOCK: Yes. JAY: So what does this do to your outlook of the world? Because to a large extent this was a war led by the Democratic Party. ROBOCK: I guess you could say that, yeah. JAY: Well, Kennedy and Johnson. ROBOCK: Yeah, yeah. So I wasn't really political at all. I didn't understand politics. I wasn't interested. But then I had to register for the draft when I turned 18, and I realized–. JAY: What year is that? ROBOCK: In 1968. I started college when I was–I guess in '67, the end of '67. I started college when I was 17, so I went for a year before I turned 18. And in Madison, if you turned 18, that meant you could go drink beer. That was a big deal. But I also had to register for the draft, and I realized the government wanted me to go to Vietnam and kill people. And I didn't think that was a good idea at all. I didn't support the war and I didn't support killing and I didn't want to participate.

JAY: Now, when I said Democratic Party led, you did a bit of a double take. I mean, in '68, when the government is telling you, sign up to go to war to kill people, it's the Democratic Party telling you to do that. Now, you grew up in a household that was very pro-Democratic Party. ROBOCK: So in 1968 there was–you know, this was–Lyndon Johnson announced that he wasn't going to run for reelection because of the opposition to the Vietnam War. And so there was a campaign, and Gene McCarthy was running, Robert Kennedy was running. Richard Nixon came to Madison campaigning on the Republican Party, and I went out to the Dane County Memorial Coliseum to meet him. And I got–he was there with Tricia. And I shook his hand and I said to him, "Do you support the military draft?" He says, "Oh, I support the vice president's commission report, which says you should draft young people first." And I said, "Well, but what about graduate students? Are you going to support a deferment for graduate students?" And then this sort of big guy sort of picked me up and moved me along. Gene McCarthy campaigned there also, and the place was packed with 20,000 people.

When Nixon came, it was 2,000 people. So I was just–wanted to learn about their different positions. And I supported–I couldn't vote then. You couldn't vote till you were 21. So it wasn't an issue of who I was going to vote for. But all the politics came at us at the time. JAY: But the draft made it hit home. ROBOCK: Yes. JAY: And to what extent does that now start radicalizing the way you look at the world? ROBOCK: There were demonstrations against the War in Vietnam with teargas. Dow Chemical Company was recruiting people. They made napalm, which was this jellied gasoline that the American military was dumping on Vietnamese people. And there was a protest. So the people were sitting in in the building, and the campus police came in and said, move or we'll take you out; you have two minutes. And then, 30 seconds later, they came in and started beating people. And people outside started protesting, and they used tear gas.

And I walked by there a little bit later and my eyes started to water. That was the first time I had ever gotten teargassed. And I said, whoa. And then there were marches on the street against the war. So I got–experienced teargas three out of the four years that I was in Madison. JAY: But how involved did you get in the antiwar movement? ROBOCK: I didn't lead any protests, but I participated in them. And my main concern was: how do I avoid the draft? The draft was they would take you and require you to go in the army. My senior year, they had the first draft lottery to calculate what order they would take people in. And my draft board was in Bergen County, New Jersey, which was a pretty upscale middle-class place, and they needed bodies. And so I knew that–my draft board was actually attacked by the Berrigan Brothers spilling blood on it at one point. So they determined what order they would–. So I turn on the TV, and it wasn't on TV, so I turn on the radio, and they were doing the draft lottery.

And they got–they kept going on and on and on, and I didn't hear my birthday. But they had started at number ten. And they said–they got to 150. I said, well, that's great. "So for those of you who tuned in late, we're going to start over again from the beginning. Number one: September–." My birthday's September 7. "Number one: September 22." Phew. "Number six: September 6. Number eight: September 7." So I was number eight in the lottery. So I knew that no matter how far–they got to about 160–that I was going to get drafted. So then I had to figure out how to avoid that. JAY: And how did you avoid it? ROBOCK: I decided to join the Peace Corps, which was a two-year voluntary service. And there was a deferment for people that were doing things that were vital to the national interest, like being a graduate student, being a teacher, like being a Peace Corps volunteer. But then they did away with those deferments just before I graduated, so I couldn't go to graduate school and get a deferment.

I got admitted to graduate school. I said, "Will you write a letter to my draft board?" "Well, we'll write a letter, but they can still draft you." And so I said, well, if I go to Canada, then they can't draft me. There was no extradition treaty, so a lot of Americans went to Canada. It really helped Canada out at the time. I went through Canada. JAY: I met a lot of them. ROBOCK: I went to the Toronto anti-draft program to find out [crosstalk] JAY: So you did go to Canada? ROBOCK: I drove through there when I graduated from College. But I ended up flunking my physical. And so I got a I-Y. And I had joined the Peace Corps. And so I–. JAY: Well, how much for you was I don't want to go to war, and how much was it we shouldn't be fighting this war and I'm not going to be a part of it? ROBOCK: It was mainly I don't want to kill.

I could have joined the Navy, sat in Monterey, California, and forecast the weather, 'cause I was a meteorologist. And I thought that was the same as pulling the trigger. I didn't want to participate in it at all. JAY: So your involvement in science and meteorology and climate begins in college. So how does this start to become your passion? ROBOCK: Well, meteorology is a pretty small group of people doing it. It's, like, this fancy, this really nice club, and you get to know everybody in the club. And you're pretty special if you're a meteorologist: you can tell the future. Most people can't tell the future. I'm the director of the undergraduate program in meteorology at Rutgers now. You can tell the future if you become a meteorologist. And if you become a climatologist, you can change the future, because you can tell the world, this is what's going to happen if we behave this way, and this is what's going to happen if we, for example, put a lot more greenhouse gases in the–.

And that helps society–inform them to make decisions. JAY: And the issue of human-caused climate change, it goes right back into the '70s, if not before. When is the first research that makes this connection? ROBOCK: Arrhenius did research in the late 19th century and calculated that if we double the CO2, that the climate will warm by a few degrees. So it's really old research. In 1969, there was work by a Russian scientist, Budyko, and an American one, Bill Sellers, and they at the same time, without knowing it, published almost an identical paper showing what would happen if we–how sensitive the climate system was to a changing amount of energy. So we weren't sure then how much the climate would change. We knew that humans put in these gases which trap the energy, mainly carbon dioxide. But we also put in particles, we put in pollution which reflect sunlight and cause cooling. So there's a fight between the warming and the cooling. And at the time when I was a graduate student, we didn't understand–have a good feeling for which was the stronger thing. JAY: Okay.

In the next segment of the interview, we'll kind of trace the evolution of your thinking and what persuaded you that this was the evidence that humans do cause climate change. So please join us for the next segment of our interview on Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network..