How stupid we are about climate change
CNN:
We heard for years and years that global warming would mean the temperature of the Earth would increase about a few degrees or so over the next hundred years. Now it appears we are doomed in the next couple of months.
We can't even get the ten day forecast right. We are idiots when it comes to predicting this stuff. How can you know what to do?
Might be time to figure out the adaptation angle.
Update: The other thing that's being widely reported recently is that Greenland is returning to temperatures last seen 130,000 years ago.
CS Monitor:
What steps shall we take and what are the odds of success? And if this was a naturally occurring phenomenon 130,000 years ago, how sure are we about what we should do now?
The stuff I've seen about Kyoto says that if fully implemented, it would reduce the effects of warming by one half degree or so over the next one hundred years. Well, if we're in crisis mode what good will that do?
Guardian:
Update II: I changed my first sentence from one degree to a few degrees. The consensus seems to be global warming increases average temperatures 2 to 10 degrees.
Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.
We heard for years and years that global warming would mean the temperature of the Earth would increase about a few degrees or so over the next hundred years. Now it appears we are doomed in the next couple of months.
We can't even get the ten day forecast right. We are idiots when it comes to predicting this stuff. How can you know what to do?
Might be time to figure out the adaptation angle.
Update: The other thing that's being widely reported recently is that Greenland is returning to temperatures last seen 130,000 years ago.
CS Monitor:
Global warming appears to be pushing vast reservoirs of ice on Greenland and Antarctica toward a significant, long-term meltdown. The world may have as little as a decade to take the steps to avoid this scenario.
Already, temperatures in the Arctic are close to those that thawed much of Greenland's ice cap some 130,000 years ago, when the planet last enjoyed a balmy respite from continent-covering glaciers...
What steps shall we take and what are the odds of success? And if this was a naturally occurring phenomenon 130,000 years ago, how sure are we about what we should do now?
...the team's assumption that the amount of carbon dioxide would triple by 2100, although moderate among climate forecasts, is not a done deal. It depends on how quickly industrial and developing countries adopt low-emission technologies and take long-term steps to reduce greenhouse gases.
The stuff I've seen about Kyoto says that if fully implemented, it would reduce the effects of warming by one half degree or so over the next one hundred years. Well, if we're in crisis mode what good will that do?
Guardian:
All models agree that the effect of the Kyoto protocol on the climate will be minuscule (even more so after the negotiations in Bonn). One model, by a leading author of the 1996 IPCC report, shows us how an expected temperature increase of 2.1C by 2100 will be diminished by the protocol to an increase of 1.9C. To put it more clearly, the temperature that we would have experienced in 2094 has been postponed to 2100. In essence, the Kyoto protocol does not negate global warming, but merely buys the world six years.
Update II: I changed my first sentence from one degree to a few degrees. The consensus seems to be global warming increases average temperatures 2 to 10 degrees.
Posted by David on
March 26, 2006
This should be our number one priority, and sadly no one in Washington gives a shit. May a F5 tornado level them all, in the winter time.
The point I'm trying to get across is that we're clueless on this stuff. Even if implemented, the projections are that Kyoto does no one any good as far as temperature change goes. It was a feel good policy where the stakes were only really high for the US. If it wrecks the economy without solving the problem where does that get us?
The Senate is equally responsible. Solely because both Republicans and Democrats are slaves to the lobbyist who enflate their salaries. Until we get rid of the lobby groups and the soft money, nothing, I repeat nothing, will change. Government reform is a necessity for our planet's survival. If we fail to adapt and adjust, then we don't deserve this beautiful planet.
If we're not clueless, PS, how do we go from a hundred year time frame of gradually increasing temperature to an immediate crisis? And if Greenland was this warm 130,000 years ago, presumably not from man-made causes, how do we know how much of what is going on now is man-made?
I don't advocate throwing up our hands. I advocate first that we do no harm or as little harm as possible to the economy by going off on half-baked strategies. Strategies that do no harm and have other benefits like nuclear power, we ought to move quickly forward on.
Republicans are not anti-science. That's foolish. In the case of Kyoto, Republicans (and Democrats) don't want to give away economic power for little benefit.
And about those six years, what if we damage the economy by signing Kyoto? Less money will be available in the future for funding studies, no?
With low interest rates, anyone who wants one can buy a $100,000 house at 7% for 30 years for about $700 a month. It's hard to rent for much less around here.
I'm against illegal immigration, by the way.
More data, better models, I would suppose. It's not like they suddenly discovered the earth was cooling instead of warming or something. They merely refined the timeframe. Besides, geologically speaking, 100 years already is an "immediate" crisis.
"And if Greenland was this warm 130,000 years ago, presumably not from man-made causes, how do we know how much of what is going on now is man-made?"
From reading the CSM article you linked to, it sounds like they know the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. I would think that measuring the amount of CO2 we produce, along with measuring trends of CO2 levels and temperatures, would probably give them a pretty good idea of the magnitude of our contribution.
"I advocate first that we do no harm or as little harm as possible to the economy"
How much harm will be caused to the economy when we have to relocate the population of our entire coastline further inland? Or even when you consider more mild scenarios, such as having to regularly evacuate and rebuild costal cities from Katrina-like events? There are potential costs associated with inaction as well as with action.
"Republicans are not anti-science."
Certainly not all Republicans are, and it's not exactly part of their official party platform, but when I see that its mainly Republicans waving away talk about global warming and trying to introduce Intelligent Design into our schools (just to name a couple of things off the top of my head), I don't get the feeling that they have many warm feelings towards science these days.
Yeah, it's been since the 1970s. Don't forgot the ice age that was on the way.
By immediate crisis I mean in terms of how the mainstream press defines the issue. They're talking about our being affected right now instead of some imperceptible change that we thought was coming and would be felt a hundred years from now. From the Time article:
As for the coastline and the economic costs there, before doing anything, you'd have to be sure of what was occurring and you'd have to be sure of your solution. What level of confidence are you going to get from scientists on those two things? You know how science is. We're talking in terms of probabilities complicated by new variables and better models being introduced all the time. It's just a tough thing to turn these theories into actions that will have any meaningful impact. If it was a matter of banning SUVs, so be it, but it's a lot tougher than that. We've got trillions of dollars of debt on the way with Medicare and Social Security, what are you willing to reduce economic growth by on the possibility of reducing warming by a couple of tenths of a degree as with Kyoto?
Additionally, when you look out 100 years, you've got to bring China and India along or else whatever we do is going to be pointless. Maybe even more than pointless since their economic growth will not be hindered by whatever restrictions we place on ourselves.