Letters to the Editor
-
We need more information
What is the coming catastrophe? Are we talking about the end of humanity as we know it, or the death of millions, or simply forced migration from low lying area. What is the disaster, when will it happen? What needs to be done? When? If they can pinpoint 2o12 as "too late", then they should be able to tell us what it is too late for. There just isn't enough known to panic over. A lot of people accept that global warming is real, but are unsure of what is happening and when it will happen. Before I panic, I need to know exactly what I'm panicking over. Warnings that "it may be too late" are simply not enough.
-
20 miles a day
on a bike, is not very much. Bike lanes, and a slight dress code accommodation, and it's easy. You would be SO fit too. I don't know about doing it in Atlanta, but then Atlanta doesn't seem like a good place for anything.
-
Yawn
More global alarmism ... which does not inform, impress, or persuade.
-
It is worse than you think
In the article "Desperate times, desperate scientists:"
"To avoid devastating sea level rise, drought and species loss, the world must, as the more than 200 scientists said in their Bali statement, "limit global warming to no more than 2°C above the pre-industrial temperature," which means "greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilized at a level well below 450 parts per million." Yet we are at 381 ppm and rising 2 ppm a year."
I beg your pardon, the CO2 (carbon dioxide) level is at 381 ppm, and rising over 2 ppm a year (last year it rose 2.6 ppm), but counting all greenhouse gas in the air and converting it to carbon dioxide equivilent (e), the greenhouse gas concentration in the air is 455 ppm, over the 450 parts per million threshold.
Also, there is good reason to believe that the climate is more sensitive to greenhouse gas concentrations in the air than previously thought.
The Charney 3C is a good gold standard: if the CO2(e) level in the air is doubled from pre-industrial levels, Dr Charney predicted a 3C rise in temperature. On the other hand, Dr Hansen of NASA says that the 3C from a doubling of CO2(e) level is in the short run, and if positive feedbacks are considered the temperature rise in the long run from a doubling of the CO2(e) level is 6C!
To reiterate, not only is the climate probably more sensitive to greenhouse gas levels in the air, but we are already over the 450 ppm threshold for dangerous warming using the previous less sensitive scale.
It is tragic that the only prescription that most people have for addressing global warming is cutting our emissions. In other words, since nature is now removing about half of our emissions, we would have to cut our emissions more than half, then wait while nature removed the excess greenhouse gas from the air.
Unfortunately, by 2030 it is estimated that nature will be able to only remove about 2/3rds of the amount it now removes because of heat damage. Furthemore, as the Earth warms, carbon sinks will become carbon emitters, and those natural emissions could completely overwhelm any cuts we make.
It ought to be obvious that we have to employ a method of removing the excess CO2 from the air-I suggest the low cost method of biosequestration (seed a GMO into the ocean).
It is very unlikely that mankind will cut their emissions so fast and drastically that either runaway global warming or abrupt climate change is avoided. Drastically cutting our emissions and waiting for a damaged Earth to remove the excess CO2(e) is a weak mitigation strategy that is bound to fail.
Either we remove the excess CO2(e) from the air, or we will return to the hothouse climate of 55 million years ago when most life died:
"We now have evidence from the Earth's history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds. As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored. We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die." (The Revenge of Gaia)
-
Anonymous at 4:25AM
Yes, please yawn and complain about "global alarmism."
It was to counter people like you, that Al Gore entitled his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." For the jaded and nihilistic, it must be very inconvenient to have to face the fact of catastrophic climate change. The facts demand a response, but these folks can only yawn and feign indifference. How pathetic.
-
There's a step missing
The biggest obstacle to getting widespread support for your climate disaster theory is the lack of a convincing "step #2" in the scientific method, "determine the cause of the problem". Al's movie does an excellent job of stating the problem, then glosses over step #2 and hints at step #3 (formulate solution hypotheses) just before the credits, and it's this widespread lack of connecting the dots that makes people skeptical that we are, in fact, the problem.
Instead of computer models, it's possible to set up actual experiments that could show people whether or not increased CO2 in the air causes ice to melt faster. Show people actual numbers that indicate how much C02 that Company X is pumping into the atmosphere, where that C02 is going, and how it's causing ice to melt.
And while you're at it, explain to me how warmer temperatures will cause ice to melt and warm oceans to rise, but won't lead to an increase in evaporation, which would result in an increase in drought-stopping rain around the globe. I'm curious about that one, hehe.
In summary, if you want to get through to the masses, show them something that's real and tangible. In my town (Wichita, KS), we had our coolest summer on record in 81 years in 2007. That's tangible evidence that I can point to that industry, specifically the manufacture of most of the world's aircraft (which is Wichita's primary industry), may not be the cause of global warming. I've seen Al's map, and I'm wondering how the temperatures can be increasing in Africa, a continent with practically zero industry, if global warming is caused by man. So, show me how that happens. Show me a map that tracks the movement of CO2 from smokestacks in Indiana to the skies of Kenya. Then I'll jump on board.
And for God's sake, pick a spokesman who actually practices what he preaches. It's difficult to listen to a man who's basic message seems to be, "I'm not going to buy a smaller house, drive a more efficient vehicle, or quit zipping around on my jet, but you should, or we'll all die." That kind of hypocrisy makes it difficult to focus on the message.