Climate Target Is Not Radical Enough - Study
One of the world’s leading climate scientists warns today that the EU and its international partners must urgently rethink targets for cutting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because of fears they have grossly underestimated the scale of the problem.
In a startling reappraisal of the threat, James Hansen, head of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, calls for a sharp reduction in C02 limits.
Hansen says the EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is needed if “humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed”. A final version of the paper Hansen co-authored with eight other climate scientists, is posted today on the Archive website. Instead of using theoretical models to estimate the sensitivity of the climate, his team turned to evidence from the Earth’s history, which they say gives a much more accurate picture.
The team studied core samples taken from the bottom of the ocean, which allow C02 levels to be tracked millions of years ago. They show that when the world began to glaciate at the start of the Ice age about 35m years ago, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere stood at about 450ppm.
“If you leave us at 450ppm for long enough it will probably melt all the ice - that’s a sea rise of 75 metres. What we have found is that the target we have all been aiming for is a disaster - a guaranteed disaster,” Hansen told the Guardian.
At levels as high as 550ppm, the world would warm by 6C, the paper finds. Previous estimates had suggested warming would be just 3C at that point.
Hansen has long been a prominent figure in climate change science. He was one of the first to bring the crisis to the world’s attention in testimony to Congress in the 1980s.
But his relationship with the Bush administration has been frosty. In 2005 he accused the White House and Nasa of trying to censor him. He has steadily revised his analysis of the scale of the global warming and was himself one of the architects of a 450ppm target. But he told the Guardian: “I realise that was too high.”
The fundamental reason for his reassessment was what he calls “slow feedback” mechanisms which are only now becoming fully understood. They amplify the rise in temperature caused by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases. Ice and snow reflect sunlight but when they melt, they leave exposed ground which absorbs more heat.
As ice sheets recede, the warming effect is compounded. Satellite technology available over the past three years has shown that the ice sheets are melting much faster than expected, with Greenland and west Antarctica both losing mass.
Hansen said that he now regards as “implausible” the view of many climate scientists that the shrinking of the ice sheets would take thousands of years. “If we follow business as usual I can’t see how west Antarctica could survive a century. We are talking about a sea-level rise of at least a couple of metres this century.”
The revised target is likely to prompt criticism that he is setting the bar unrealistically high. With the US administration still acting as a drag on international efforts, climate campaigners are struggling even to get a 450ppm target to stick.
Hansen said his findings were not a recipe for despair. The good news, he said, is that reserves of fossil fuels have been exaggerated, so an alternative source of energy will have to be rapidly put in place in any case. Other measure could include a moratorium on coal power stations which would bring the C02 levels to below 400ppm.
Hansen’s revised position will pile yet further pressure on Britain over plans to build a new generation of coal power stations. Last year he wrote to Gordon Brown urging him to block the first such power station; the Royal Society has made similar suggestions to the government.
© 2008 The Guardian
Ed Pilkington, your article is extremely confusing. It is stated that the atmosphere had 450 ppm when the ice age STARTED. The next sentence says that all our ice will melt when we again hit 450 ppm. Is there a mistake or where is the clarification?
“The revised target is likely to prompt criticism that he is setting the bar unrealistically high.” What’s unrealistic is the notion that we have the luxury of ignoring inconvenient facts, and that reality will oblige our political wishes.
James Hansen will go down in history–assuming we continue to have any history in the long run–as a true hero of science. Damn the Bush administration and its moronic ideology of denial.
The fact that 8 years will have been wasted under the Bu$hCo regime is simply appalling…the comfortable smuggness and arrogance of the likes of Bush and cheney is sickening..these bastards will be long dead when their congenitally ignorant children and grandchildren will be paddling canoes to work…while whole countries’children [eg bangledesh]will drown…
Greg R April 7th, 2008 11:12 am
I think the point is that CO2 ppm was trending down 35 million years ago, and as it crossed 450 ppm, glaciers could form. Meaning that as we come from the other direction (we are now at about 385 ppm), as we pass 450 ppm, glaciers will no longer be supported.
That’s what Dr. Hansen said: If you leave us at 450ppm for long enough it will probably melt all the ice - that’s a sea rise of 75 metres.
By the way, www.realclimate.org is a great site for ‘Global Warming’ information.
Wait, you mean to say that the carbon that was sequestered in the earth for millions of years should stay or go back there in order to not affect the climate? How profound!
The warm melting period/cold ice-forming period has flip-flopped about 25 times in the last 2.5 million years. It does so about every 100,000 years or so. (Several cycles contribute to this climate flip-flop. See William Calvin’s article in the Atlantic on the subject.)
The 450 ppm figure was at the end of a more distant warming period (just as we are now in a warming period) and so the correlation of all the ice melting then at 450 ppm and all the ice melting now as we approach 450 ppm and more is the point.
Here is a link to the actual paper:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/targetCO2_20080331.pdf
When the trapped Arctic methane gas releases into the atmosphere, as it did twice previously in Earth’s history, it will be history for mankind this time, not history for the dinasours. Here is a two minute read on the subject, penned by a highly regarded geologist.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
We are quickly approaching the limit, hundreds of non-political agenda scientists agree it will happen, they just argue over the time frames. Some say 10 to 20 years, some say 50 or a hundred. Some say less than five if we don’t act now.
Summary of Hansen’s article:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/targetCO2_20080331.pdf
Summary.
Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate. If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing appetite for energy-intensive life styles, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of human history. The eventual response to doubling pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet.
Humanity’s task of moderating human-caused global climate change is urgent. Ocean and ice sheet inertias provide a buffer delaying full response by centuries, but there is a danger that human-made forcings could drive the climate system beyond tipping points such that change proceeds out of our control. The time available to reduce the human-made forcing is uncertain, because models of the global system and critical components such as ice sheets are inadequate.
However, climate response time is surely less than the atmospheric lifetime of the human-caused perturbation of CO2. Thus remaining fossil fuel reserves should not be exploited without a plan for retrieval and disposal of resulting atmospheric CO2.
Paleoclimate evidence and ongoing global changes imply that today’s CO2, about 385 ppm, is already too high to maintain the climate to which humanity, wildlife, and the rest of the
biosphere are adapted. Realization that we must reduce the current CO2 amount has a bright side: effects that had begun to seem inevitable, including impacts of ocean acidification, loss of fresh water supplies, and shifting of climatic zones, may be averted by the necessity of finding an energy course beyond fossil fuels sooner than would otherwise have occurred.
We suggest an initial objective of reducing atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm, with the target to be adjusted as scientific understanding and empirical evidence of climate effects accumulate. Limited opportunities for reduction of non-CO2 human-caused forcings are important to pursue but do not alter the initial 350 ppm CO2 target. This target must be pursued on a timescale of decades, as paleoclimate and ongoing changes, and the ocean response time, suggest that it would be foolhardy to allow CO2 to stay in the dangerous zone for centuries.
A practical global strategy almost surely requires a rising global price on CO2 emissions and phase-out of coal use except for cases where the CO2 is captured and sequestered. The carbon price should eliminate use of unconventional fossil fuels, unless, as is unlikely, the CO2 can be
captured. A reward system for improved agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon could remove the current CO2 overshoot. With simultaneouspolicies to reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gases, it appears still feasible to avert catastrophic climate change.
Present policies, with continued construction of coal-fired power plants without CO2 capture, suggest that decision-makers do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. We must begin to move now toward the era beyond fossil fuels. Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions,
for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.
The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is
continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.
“your article is extremely confusing. It is stated that the atmosphere had 450 ppm when the ice age STARTED.”
“I think the point is that CO2 ppm was trending down 35 million years ago, and as it crossed 450 ppm, glaciers could form”
Actually neither is corect. I believe that the 450 ppm figure 35 my ago that Hansen was referring to represented estimated CO2 levels duing the Eocene thermal maximum - a very hot period where even the poles had a wet tropical climate and low latitudes were hot, dry and largely not habitabe. 50-60 percent of marine life died out and most big land mammals were replaced by small mammals that could tolerate the heat better, such as the cat-sized ancestor of the horse, and the tree-dwelling squirel-like primates from which humans would evolve.
So yes, this was was poorly written - The “ice age” (Pleistocene era) was still 32my in the future, and CO2 levels were much lower than present by then.
So instead of a soft landing at 450 ppm, we need to backtrack to 350! Wait ’til Fox News gets hold of this. Ecoterrorism! A vast liberal conspiracy!Hannity’s gonna have a field day.
The solar cycle should be ramping back up over the next couple years. Combine that with almost 390 ppm and an El Nino year, and one would think it will be hot enough to get everyone’s attention. It should be really hot. BUT, even if we all wake up one morning to see on the news that some village above the arctic circle was wiped out by Kem’s methane, I’d bet the deniers will still deny it!
Hanson makes sense. The glaciers and the polar ice sheets are already melting at 380. At almost 3 ppm/year, even 450 is well within my kids’ lifetimes, maybe even mine. I hope Obama gets it.
Earthian: industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate
Industry does not affect the climate until it reaches a certain scale. Public policy has to identify where to limit industry to protect the climate, then limit it. Industry is like a lot of things, its benefit peaks somewhere and tapers off in both directions. Find the benefits peak, and limit industry there. The thing that stops us from imposing these limits is Friedmanite “laissez-faire” capitalism. The beast has to be caged, which fixes the vast majority of problems on this planet.
In corporate land this is just another profit opportunity. Take some more from the poor and identify something the rich will pay for - like bulldozing the dead poor into shallow graves.
Actually it’s not MY methane gas we should worry about. It’s methane gas trapped in the frozen Arctic tundra perma-frost and which has been safely locked up there for about the past 50 million years. When it does release it won’t just wipe out a band of nomadic Eskimos or a small fishing village, it will esentially wipe out ALMOST all life on our water world. Read that link I offered and if any wish to disagree with the author, argue with HIS studied evaluations and why you don’t agree.
~EARTHIAN’S~ 2:39 post here is the best I have ever read on what the problem is, and what humanity must do and begin to do it quickly to avoid that coming disaster. We do need a MASSIVE “war-time” type program initiated to reduce the use of coal FIRST and we should do it with clean energy other than nuclear energy.
That will require tons of money, but it will also create several million needed jobs and the money won’t be wasted or hoarded, by a handful of already over rich Neo-Cons.
When WW-2 began with the United States involvement, we built the “Alcon Highway” in a year, built the largest and longest oil pipe-line, named the “BIG INCH”, which ran from Texas to New Jersey, It was finsihed in a year. During that same time period, we spent billions to have the Manhatten Project and even more money and manpower to produce the B-29 bomber. All were Massive and expensive projects, in addition we built or manufactured thousands of ships, aircraft, vehicles and other war materials.
We did it becaue our leaders felt we must do it and now our leaders better get their collective heads out of the mud and feel we must attack the global warming problem. ___ We must or else. That deadly methane gas problem is as real as the sun rise every morning and far, far, more dangerous than a sunburn.
The methane detectors that are on all the oil tankers to signal methane building up in an oil hold, have been going off a lot recently. When checked there is no methane in the boats.
Carbon is the one of the most common elements in the universe, and combine it with another common element of oxygen you get CO2. What is the big fuss about a re-distribution of these common elements through human intervention? Hey, a big fire in California releases it. A volcano in the med releases it. Plants release it, people release it. Hey, the sun isnt a 100watt bulb on a dimmer switch, it marches to its own drumbeat and gets hotter and colder. At the end of the day there is always going to be X tonnes of carbon on earth, there is always going to be Y tonnes of oxygen on earth. Maybe we should be more concerned about the creation of taxes that these climate do-gooders are starting to impose on us because we’ve forgotten our freshman chemistry lessons eh?
Indeed ~LOACHDUKE~ there is carbon on earth and Co2 in the atmosphere. Read that link I offered and see just how much Co2 in our atmosphere is safe for ALL life.
Argue with the writer of that article if you wish, come back and post intelligent arguments. I’m not smart enough to argue with him, perhaps you are. ___ I’d bet you aren’t.
Here it is again, in case you missed it. It takes about three full minutes to read. Perhaps if you do take the time to read it, you may learn something of importnace and not post any more denying comments here on this thread and display your incredible ignorance on our most important subject matter.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
We may already be too late to ameliorate massive climate change. We are at least forty years late in building a wind, wave, and solar infrastructure. Jimmy Carter started some work but it was all destroyed rather quickly under reagan. The cheap oil and the ability of the earth to absorb the damage of producing electricity from coal may be over. These two fuels should have been used to build a better infrastructure instead of being pissed away on waste and fraud.
Here in the you ass of aye we rarely even consider orienting our buildings to take advantage of the southern sun in the winter and shade the western side in summer. We won’t even consider producing a large percentage of our paper, clothing, and building materials from hemp instead we rely on chemicals, petroleum, cotton, and deforestation. Our ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity is deplorable. It’s also amazing what a bunch of dumb ass lemmings the right wing of amerika has created in a majority of the population. If we had more Dr. Hansens instead of dick cheneys we might stand a good chance but as KEM PATRICK worries for our survival as the rest of us march towards disaster, our chances aren’t good.
Oh yeah, and Dr. Hansen’s idea of “slashing” CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm may be too high. I’d go for 300 ppm if it were up to me.
loachduke said: “What is the big fuss about a re-distribution of [C, O, and CO2] through human intervention? ”
More CO2 near earths surface leads to anomalous heating of atmosphere, but more importantly, ocean and land. These release the heat as melted ice, vaporized water (which drives cloud/storm pattern) and overall temperature rise.
Its a mistake to think that the ‘issue’ with Global warming is warming. Who cares if the temperature goes up 1 C over 100 years? But whats happening is MORE than warming: its HEATING. And heating also occurs through phase change (not just warming). And phase change (ice to water, water to vapor) is what drives the climate, rainfall patterns, drought, sea level, and all the concerns of those worried about Global ‘Warming’. Much of the effect of Global Warming is thus unmeasureable by taking the planets ‘temperature’. That’s what confuses so many people. The ocean can store heat in an almost unperceptible rise in temperature, in expansion, and in phase change. The problem for GW deniers is this: once the ocean takes in this energy, it will also take forever to give it up again. Thus, once we enter a climate regime that we identify as ‘unacceptable’, we’re committed for 100-200 years. The ocean will allow no other timeline. It is THAT large a heat sink/source.
Hey Kem: Just having some fun as you are always first to bring up the methane problem.
Hey loachduke: Its actually sophomore chemistry. The O=C=O bonds in CO2 absorb certain wavelengths of infrared radiation (heat), which makes them stretch and bend. Oxygen and Nitrogen don’t do this. CO2 eventually releases this energy, but more CO2 in the atmosphere is like throwing on an extra blanket on a cool night. It holds the heat a little longer and makes the surface a little warmer. Don’t forget a little CO can kill you.
Hey ubrew: I agree. All the extra heat being absorbed by melting ice and expanding oceans has to leave the earth’s surface through the same atmosphere that holds heat from the sun. Maybe increased number and energy of tropical storms will help, but it will take a while even if we stop GHG emissions tomorrow.
We have truly wasted 8 years with Bush and Cheney. They were put there to get Iraq’s oil and add a war premium to the price of oil to make their oil friends richer.
It would be one thing to have “do nothing” people there, but these guys have been a disaster. They destroyed Iraq and the U.S. and have added $4 Trillion dollars to the national debt.
It is a pleasure to read so any decent and informative comments on this issue, with the exception of one. I see even Obama is talking a lot about it, but fear his clean energy solution may be nuclear power. Even that is better than burning fossil fuels and oil. What is needed is a massive (world wide) war effort and follow the lead of other contries such as Denmark.
I’m afraid the changes won’t come quickly enough. It’s just not changing industrial behavior, but individual behavior too. That will include land-use patterns, which take a very long time to really change. It may very well be that the die for human extinction may very well be cast.
“Global Warming” is such a weak term for a matter of such urgency. I think we should use Climate Catastrophe as the term to drive urgent change and put a far greater demand in place.
I do not however hold out much hope for humanity to get it right. The truth about the science is nobody knows what is going to happen when. The estimates keep changing and that just tells you: They don’t really know. Therefore we should operate on this basis: Climate catastrophe is real. We have no time. Change society and civilization, NOW.
“Actually it’s not MY methane gas we should worry about.”
You always come through with the good humor, Kem.
Hey folks, I just started reading a book (an impulse purchase while in a daze after a root canal procedure killing time before going to—ARGH!—work) that adds a very interesting perspective to not only Kem’s Methane (sorry, I couldn’t resist) Scenario (TM) but to the whole debate about global warming. It’s called The Black Swan: The Impact Of The Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I’m only 1/5th through the book (bought it yesterday, but I ride buses 2 hours a day) but I can honestly say this approaches the intrigue and fascination of dynamic systems analysis!!
Sorry…did that sound boring? Not at all. The computer revolution was a Black Swan. The 1987 stock market crash was a Black Swan. The internet bubble burst and the housing market collapse were Black Swans. 9/11 was a Black Swan. Google was a Black Swan.
A Black Swan is a rare, low-probability, high-impact event. By its very nature it is exceedingly difficult to predict in scale and scope–not to mention timing. Humans generally only deal with Black Swan events in retrospect, ascribing “causes” to the best of their ability. It’s part of our evolutionary wiring.
But times have changed. And preparing for Black Swans is the modern life-and-death equivalent of sleeping in trees to avoid being dinner for hungry lions. This book turns knowledge and statistics and predictions on their heads, and I highly recommend it to anyone searching for a better way to argue for what you believe in your bones to be true: the next Really Bad (TM) Black Swan event might flap its wings in your lifetime, and we all know a swan is much bigger than a butterfly.
Don’t let your friends be the turkey who enjoyed 1000 days of loving care and ample food when the fourth Wednesday of November rolls around.
(spoiler/teaser: Before the “discovery” of Australia by Europeans, all swans were thought to be white.)
Climate catastrophe is the way it will be and probably the way is starting to be even as I write this.
Our public library has several new books that are frightening. “Censoring Science” by Mark Bowen describes how this administration has tried to silence James Hansen. “With Speed and Violence” explains how suddenly everything can change.
Although many of us try to conserve what we can and recycle everything that is recyclable, this is not enough. We need a comprehensive government program. We also need to get rid of the nonsense instigated by the energy giants.
My dears:
As with past civilizations, our will come to an end too. As we are using oil made from the bodies of the dinosaurs, it is only fair to say that future dinosaurs will be using the fuel made from our bodies for their daily needs.
Dogface - the oil we love is mostly old peat bogs. But all this 02 we love even more, didn’t come included with our planet. It was manufactured, over a billion years, by blue-green algae, from CO2 and sunlight. O2 is volatile stuff, allows stuff to oxidize, or “burn”, and allows rootless nasty roving organisms to live here on earth. Not only that, most of the blue-green algae was eventually wiped out, partly due to O2 poisoning, partly due to the nastier things that started popping up with this new atmosphere.
Not that any of this is practical or philosophically useful. But it looks like the humans will not get to rule the world for anywhere near as long as the blue-green algae did. Unless we turn out to be smarter than they were.
most people in positions of power and responsibility today are too vested in the current system to effect change.this change in human behaviour may just happen if the young, who have a larger stake in the future, are made aware of the issue. if each reader here can make 3 kids aware, perhaps a few of those kids may actually effect behavioural change of a 100 kids change in their schools.
to facilitate this, could common dreams post a link to all well written climate articles. additionally,specific strategies to conserve energy, as posted and reviewed by readers, should be posted, so that individuals are empowered to conserve energy. after all, it does not help much to know that earth is melting, if we are unaware of our energy waste.a few well written sites could make awareness easier.
facts that i learned last year, for example, include :
that a car driven 1 mile gives of 1 pound CO2 as exhaust
flying is 15-20 times as energy intensive as driving
lowering and raising the thermostat in winter and summer respectively saves substantial energy
that inactive but always connected devices such as plugged in tv and computers and phones may consume 1/10th of home electricity
there are many such examples and by posting, we could learn from each other.
additionally, if some kids could shake the complacency of parents who are in positions of power,and can change energy use of corporations, it would really help.
needless, all this efforts while helpful, would not be enough without governments getting invested. but governments have kids too, and they are more likely to listen to theirkids than to us.
I just called the white house comment line: 202-456-1111 and advised them that Dr Hansen of NAS Goddard has now come out with saying he has made a mistakeL the problem is severe. We have 385ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and after 450ppm is reached, icebergs cannot be sustained
We need a powerful techno approach like getting to the moon was done by JFK: We need to conserve energy and we need to convert to solar energy -our sun converts 4 million tons of mass into energy that reaches our planet every day. We need to use wind energy, and also nuclear energy and by having a crash program, we will solve out Iraq War crisis because we will not need the oil in the future and can let go of that Iraq war- get with reality.
I need to correct my post about the sun energy:
here is the direct quote from “365 Starry Nights” by Chet Raymo :
” Every SECOND our sun converts 657 Million tons of hydrogen gas into 653 million tons of Helium gas in a process called nuclear fusion. There are 4 million tons of matter missing every second and this is the mass that is converted into energy and it is hurled into space as light and heat. The earth intercepts only 2 billionth of that energy or about 4 pounds of that vanishing mass every second. That is the difference between day and night and due to the earth being tipped that is the difference between summer and winter and that is also the cause of life itself: all those cholophyl leaves catch the sunlight and make it into sugar, food of various types and animals eat the plants and animals eat other animals.
All we need to do is have an industrial/scientific goal like JFK said to reach the moon to convert from oil to catching that sunlight as well as to conserve energy to make us energy free from oil resources by the near future which will solve our obsession with Iraq and we will solve global warming at the same time.
Not sure what good it does to “set a target” of 350ppm while CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are not only growing every year but are accelerating, and most serious analysts recognize that there is little chance that humans will reduce emissions enough, and fast enough, to hold CO2 concentrations below 550ppm.
Setting a “target” of some specific CO2 concentration isn’t helpful or meaningful as long as emissions continue to increase.
The target should be stated in terms of the year in which global CO2 emissions will be less than the prior year’s emissions, and going forward from that year will be reduced each and every year. As I understand it, Hansen and other mainstream climate scientists believe that we have as little as five years in which emissions must peak and then begin a rapid decline — which means a rapid phase-out of all fossil fuel use.
Does anyone expect that to happen?
The consequences of unmitigated global warming and climate change from the continued use of fossil fuels are unthinkable. This leads to two forms of denial.
The first form of denial is that of the misnamed “climate change skeptics” who try to “make the problem go away” by denying the scientific reality of anthropogenic global warming.
The second form of denial comes from those who accept the science, but embrace the implausible belief that humanity will — within a few years to at most a few decades — radically alter the entire energy infrastructure of human civilization and quickly replace fossil fuels with alternative sources of energy that will sustain both wealthy industrial civilizations and the material aspirations of billions of people in the so-called “developing world”.
Yes, it is technically possible to achieve this — solar and wind generated electricity, supplemented with sustainable organic biofuels can provide more than enough energy for people everywhere to live a comfortable, prosperous and healthy material existence (if not the profligately wasteful and greedy SUV-and-McMansion existence that many in the USA have become accustomed to). But to do so would require a global project orders of magnitude larger than the Apollo moon project or the Manhattan Project to develop nuclear energy, and the close cooperation of not only every government in the world but every corporation — including those governments and corporations that are currently raking in tens of billions of dollars every year in profits from fossil fuels.
It ain’t gonna happen.
Okay ~SECULAR~ then YOUR children and theirs and everyone elses children and theirs, are ALL gonna DIE and do so perhaps within twenty years or LESS, when the Arctic methane “burps” from the global warming.
Now, either ALL the world’s government leaders and CEOs of ALL major corporations believe that and act upon it, or you will be absolutly correct. ___ That’s how it is.
Now someone tell me, us. ___ What on Earth is more important for ALL life than this issue?
I can tell us what is more important. Some article that has the name of Bush, Cheney, Betrayus, Obama, McCain or Hillary. Or an article about eating meat, versus corn meal, spinach and squash.
This thread will be buried in the archives and long gone and forgotten by 2pm tomorrow.
He needs to read this:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21153&cid=39&cname=NBR+Comment
Am I the “HE” you are referring to ~GEO522~?
Glad you posted that link ~GEO522~, as I recall, you are a denyer of global warming, as is the author of that article in the link you posted, who primarily says ~Al Gore~ is all wrong.
Ya know, Al isn’t a scientist. He did however listen to the scientists who warn us that global warming is our greatest threat and he produced an excellent and informative film on the subject.
Now come the denyers, who claim global warming is not real and it is not a problem. The result of those denyers is a controversary that should not have happened. But it has and therefore nothing is being done to correct, ___our most serious problem. ___ One reason is, it’s human nature to not wish to hear bad news, therefore dire warnings are often ignored by the powers who are and sometimes the messenger is be-headed, or scoffed at and run out of town.
If global warming is NOT a fact, I lwould ask the author of that article and any OTHERS who have ANY doubts of ANY kind about it, to answer these following easy to answer questions.
1. Do you deny, that mountain ranges all over the globe, are rapidly losing their snow and ice packs at an alarming rate?
2. Do you deny, that Glacier National Park for jsut one example is almost now glcier free?
3. Do you deny, that the 50 million year old ice shelfs in Antarctica are melting at an alarming rate?
4. Do you deny, that Greenland will soon truely be “green”? That island too has been a land of MOSTLY ice covered land for the past 50 million years. I twas named “Greenland” by the Viking leaders, to entice settlement there.
5. Do you deny, the Arctic is thawing? Hundreds of lakes have dried up in the past three years and the perma-frost, which has been frozen for the past 50 million years is thawing, again at an alarming rate.
Answer those questions honestly and then tell us that global warmng is a myth.
There is one more point I’d like to make before this thread is forever buried in the deep and dark CD archives.
The huge southernmost ice shelf, which broke apart last month in Anarticia, and another is ready to break off and float off to sea, are most important for our climate. A mile or so beneath that huge ice shelf, is very, very cold ocean water. That very cold water flows in an under-water river to the Arctic, much like the warm water Gulf stream river flows to Europe from South America.
That cold water river is very, very critical for our normal climate and most importantly, keeps the ocean water temperature in the arctic region cold. Why is that critical?
Methane hydrates on the Arctic ocean sea beds are stable when under, (COLD– water– PRESSURE). The “water pressure and COLD temperatures” keep the billions of tons of trapped methane gas in the hydrates from billowing out into our atmosphere. That disaster, added to the 400 ‘gigatons’ of methane gas escaping from the Arctic’s perma-frost, will do us ALL in, if and when it does escape and enters our atmosphere. __DENY AND DIE.
Hey, Good bumper sticker.
GLOBAL WARMING = DENY AND DIE
This thread just died.