EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near on Global Warming
[Monday] I testified to Congress about global warming, 20 years after my June 23, 1988 testimony, which alerted the public that global warming was underway. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.
Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.
The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next president and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation.
Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control.
Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington and other capitals.
I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year.
On June 23, 1988 I testified to a hearing, organized by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend and that human-made greenhouse gases almost surely were responsible. I noted that global warming enhanced both extremes of the water cycle, meaning stronger droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and floods.
My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism. But while skepticism is the lifeblood of science, it can confuse the public. As scientists examine a topic from all perspectives, it may appear that nothing is known with confidence. But from such broad open-minded study of all data, valid conclusions can be drawn.
My conclusions in 1988 were built on a wide range of inputs from basic physics, planetary studies, observations of on-going changes, and climate models. The evidence was strong enough that I could say it was time to "stop waffling." I was sure that time would bring the scientific community to a similar consensus, as it has.
While international recognition of global warming was swift, actions have faltered. The U.S. refused to place limits on its emissions, and developing countries such as China and India rapidly increased their emissions.
What is at stake? Warming so far, about two degrees Fahrenheit over land areas, seems almost innocuous, being less than day-to-day weather fluctuations. But more warming is already "in the pipeline," delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean. And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a "perfect storm," a global cataclysm, are assembled.
Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.
More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well under way, it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely within a century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees, and no stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.
Animal and plant species are already being stressed by climate change. Species can migrate in response to movement of their climatic zone, but some species in polar and alpine regions will be pushed off the planet. As climate zones move farther and faster, climate change will become the primary cause of species extinction. The tipping point for life on the planet will occur when so many interdependent species are lost that ecosystems collapse.
The shocking conclusion, documented in a paper2 I have written with several of the world's leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million), and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year. Shocking corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.
These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how the world is responding to today's carbon dioxide amount. The consequences of continued increase of greenhouse gases extend far beyond extermination of species and future sea level rise.
Arid subtropical climate zones are expanding poleward. Already an average expansion of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, Australia and southern Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further unless carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.
Mountain glaciers are the source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people. These glaciers are receding world-wide, in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains. They will disappear, leaving their rivers as trickles in late summer and fall, unless the growth of carbon dioxide is reversed.
Coral reefs, the rainforest of the ocean, are home to one-third of the species in the sea. Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons, including warming of the ocean, but especially because of ocean acidification, a direct effect of added carbon dioxide. Ocean life dependent on carbonate shells and skeletons is threatened by dissolution as the ocean becomes more acid.
Such phenomena, including the instability of Arctic sea ice and the great ice sheets at today's carbon dioxide amount, show that we have already gone too far. We must draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide to preserve the planet we know. A level of no more than 350 ppm is still feasible, with the help of reforestation and improved agricultural practices, but just barely -- time is running out.
The steps needed to halt carbon dioxide growth follow from the size of fossil carbon reservoirs. Coal towers over oil and gas. Phase out of coal use except where the carbon is captured and stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving global warming.
Oil is used in vehicles, where it is impractical to capture the carbon. But oil is running out. To preserve our planet we must also ensure that the next mobile energy source is not obtained by squeezing oil from coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels.
Fossil fuel reservoirs are finite, which is the main reason that prices are rising. We must move beyond fossil fuels eventually. Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free energy promptly.
Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including disguised funding to shape school textbook discussions.
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. If their campaigns continue and "succeed" in confusing the public, I anticipate testifying against relevant CEOs in future public trials.
Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species would leave a more desolate planet.
If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead. We must demand a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. We must block fossil fuel interests who aim to squeeze every last drop of oil from public lands, off-shore, and wilderness areas. Those last drops are no solution. They provide continued exorbitant profits for a short-sighted self-serving industry, but no alleviation of our addiction or long-term energy solution.
Moving from fossil fuels to clean energy is challenging, yet transformative in ways that will be welcomed. Cheap, subsidized fossil fuels engendered bad habits. We import food from halfway around the world, for example, even with healthier products available from nearby fields. Local produce would be competitive if not for fossil fuel subsidies and the fact that climate change damages and costs, due to fossil fuels, are also borne by the public.
A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a carbon tax. Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is needed to wean us off fossil fuel addiction. Tax and dividend allows the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.
Carbon tax on coal, oil and gas is simple, applied at the first point of sale or port of entry. The entire tax must be returned to the public, an equal amount to each adult, a half-share for children. This dividend can be deposited monthly in an individual's bank account.
Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is non-regressive. On the contrary, you can bet that low and middle income people will find ways to limit their carbon tax and come out ahead. Profligate energy users will have to pay for their excesses.
Demand for low-carbon high-efficiency products will spur innovation, making our products more competitive on international markets. Carbon emissions will plummet as energy efficiency and renewable energies grow rapidly. Black soot, mercury and other fossil fuel emissions will decline. A brighter, cleaner future, with energy independence, is possible.
Washington likes to spend our tax money line-by-line. Swarms of high-priced lobbyists in alligator shoes help Congress decide where to spend, and in turn the lobbyists' clients provide "campaign" money.
The public must send a message to Washington. Preserve our planet, creation, for our children and grandchildren, but do not use that as an excuse for more tax-and-spend. Let this be our motto: "One hundred percent dividend or fight! No more alligator shoes!"
The next president must make a national low-loss electric grid an imperative. It will allow dispersed renewable energies to supplant fossil fuels for power generation. Technology exists for direct-current high-voltage buried transmission lines. Trunk lines can be completed in less than a decade and expanded analogous to interstate highways.
Government must also change utility regulations so that profits do not depend on selling ever more energy, but instead increase with efficiency. Building code and vehicle efficiency requirements must be improved and put on a path toward carbon neutrality.
The fossil-industry maintains its stranglehold on Washington via demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as scapegoats to rationalize inaction. In fact, we produced most of the excess carbon in the air today, and it is to our advantage as a nation to move smartly in developing ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem, developing countries can be allowed limited extra time to reduce emissions. They will cooperate: they have much to lose from climate change and much to gain from clean air and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.
We must establish fair agreements with other countries. However, our own tax and dividend should start immediately. We have much to gain from it as a nation, and other countries will copy our success. If necessary, import duties on products from uncooperative countries can level the playing field, with the import tax added to the dividend pool.
Democracy works, but sometimes churns slowly. Time is short. The 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen, if Washington adapts to address climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold great expectations.
Dr. James Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and is Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences at Columbia University's Earth Institute. Since the mid-1970s, Dr. Hansen has focused on studies and computer simulations of the Earth's climate, for the purpose of understanding the human impact on global climate. He is best known for his testimony on climate change to Congress in the 1980s that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue. In recent years Dr. Hansen has drawn attention to the danger of passing climate tipping points, producing irreversible climate impacts that would yield a different planet from the one on which civilization developed. Dr. Hansen disputes the contention, of fossil fuel interests and governments that support them, that it is an almost god-given fact that all fossil fuels must be burned with their combustion products discharged into the atmosphere. Instead Dr. Hansen has outlined steps that are needed to stabilize climate, with a cleaner atmosphere and ocean, and he emphasizes the need for the public to influence government and industry policies.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
85 Comments so far
Show AllWill Obama make the climate crisis a priority? Well, hre's a tidbit from my hometown newspaper:
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Obama to lead economic discussion at CMU Thursday
Event not open to public
By James O'Toole, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama will appear at Carnegie Mellon University Thursday, hosting a round-table conversation on competitiveness and the world economy. The morning panel discussion, which will be closed to the public, includes speakers from industry, labor [if one can call the compromised Andy Stern of the SEIU as representing labor - USAn] and the academic world.
The participants are to include: Lael Brainard, vice president of the Brookings Institution; Eli Broad, founder of the Broad Foundation; Geoffrey Canada, president and CEO of Harlem Children's Zone; Steve Case, chairman and CEO of Revolution Health and former chairman and CEO of America Online; Susan Hockfield, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Federico Pen~a, former U.S. secretary of transportation and former secretary of energy; Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union; and [Get this] _G. Richard Wagoner, Jr., chairman and CEO of General Motors [!].
(end article)
See anyone on this list who might give a bucket of warm spit about the environment in this closed-to-the-public meeting of the rich elite plus a sold-out-to-Wal-Mart union boss?
We need to phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible, in the U.S., and globally. The national network I direct, GlobalWarmingSolution.org, released its emissions reduction proposal, "Rosie Revisited: A U.S.-Led Solution to GlobalWarming", www.globalwarmingsolution.org , in July, 2007. (DVD also available) The report demonstrates the technological and economic feasibility of reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2025. In addition, the straightforward methodology we employed for the U.S. energy system could be applied in countries around the world so that these urgently needed emissions reductions are global. It is the most aggressive emissions reduction proposal of any U.S. national environmental group. Help us make it happen!
"...Democracy works, but sometimes churns slowly. Time is short. The 2008 election is critical for the planet..."
The elections will mean NOTHING to the planet.
"...The public must send a message to Washington. Preserve our planet, creation, for our children and grandchildren, but do not use that as an excuse for more tax-and-spend. Let this be our motto: "One hundred percent dividend or fight! No more alligator shoes!" "
FIGHT!
You know what? The "powers who be" did not listen to Doctor James Hanson twenty years ago or Geologist Michael J. Benton and many others five years ago and they won't listen now. That includes Bush and either Obama or McCain.
Many will listen, but not "The Powers Who be". Before this week is out, ~MiMiCcS~, ~Geo 522~, the ~Lizard~ and some others will have posted comments here, denying global warming is an issue.
The Powers Who Be listen to those types and so does our media and press. The beat will go on and your children and theirs are the ones who will eventually suffer.
There is not a single other issue of this importance. ___NONE.___ If for an example, you knew a madman was coming to your home to murder you and your family, you would surely act to prevent it. ____ Wouldn't you?
We have a disaster coming that will eleminate ALL life on this water world, down to the microbal level and we have to act to prevent it and time is very short. ___ Will we act?
There is only one remedy, one solution. We must initiate a massive "world wide" effort to have totally clean energy, wind, solar, geo-thermal, tidal, wave energy, a combination of all of those.
We must cease burning all coal and stop killing our forests and all of that could be accomplished within five to eight years. The money we waste just occupying Iraq would be suffecient to pay for it. There is no other recourse.___ NONE.
We would boost the economy with millions of good payng jobs also. I do believe our economy needs a boost.
You Cats ought to check out Hedges latest article on CD. In my view Obama has showed me nothing other than he is a lip service environmentalist like Clinton was, i.e., someone who introduces platitudes on the subject while embracing a plan inimical to the Earth such as Obama does. Of course, there are plenty of Democratic apologists, who when met by a more comprehensive plan not tied to, or beholden of, corporate interests like Bio Fuel, and Nuclear, always strike back with an authoritarian thunder against any one who dains think for themselves, or dares goes against their narrow agenda controlled as it is by special interest. And if anyone does not think the Bio Fuel industry and Nuclear industry are corporate controlled then they are living in a dream world.
The inability of the political system to address what is happening is blatant at every level of scale. In Peru the message from the government and the business elite is "don't make waves" -- that somehow the Divine Market will fix it up and talk of all this will only weaken the Market.
Some 12,000 years ago the huge Younger-Dryas glacial swings triggered changes the course of human social organization forever. Those societies which survived embarked on a path of ever increasing complexity that culminates in today's globalised industrial capitalism. And this in turn is generating an even greater Y-D type of climatic event which, this time, will result in an enormous simplification of human society. How we adapt to this will be generated from below by the people, while the gov't's will do all they can to hinder it.
I just read the Dot Earth blog in the Science section of the New York Times. It's run by Andy Revkin and often overrun by Climate Deniers/Skeptics/Delayers/Destroyers. However, usually about 50% of the comments are from very informed thoughtful folks who are trying to wrap their heads around this complex and gargantuan issue. Here's an entry that really picqued my curiosity,
"I would not predict the global temperature to change much until the ice caps have melted. The ice caps are a significant heat sink (known as "latent" heat) so that any heat added to the earth, from whatever source, will largely go to melt the ice caps. Once they are gone, the buffer is also gone and it is then that global temperatures would increase. So 2-3 things really should be measured currently: 1) change in mass of the ice caps, 2) change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and 3) change in global temperature."
— Posted by mike s
This is insightful as is the fact that there is a La Nina effect occuring now as well as the fact that we are currently at the low point of the 11-year solar temp effect cycle. With solar influence likely to ratchet up in a year or two and the end of La Nina period. 2010 is "very likely" to be the beginning of another record-breaking hot period. Sadly, humanity will have added another 52 billion metric tons of CO2 through fossil fuel burning and used the excuse of a few cool summers to do little or nothing to reduce the concentration of CO2 (384 ppm) as of 2007. Once our Arctic icesheet is no longer able to soak up all the heat, the temps in the Northern Hemisphere will rise more substantially. And once the Greenland icesheet cracks up, temps will rise relentlessly. Climate skeptic/denier/delayer solution is "adapt" to the changes that may or may not be due to humans' fossil fuel burning. I guess they don't realize how difficult it is to adapt to widespread droughts, floods, famines, extreme weather events, and rising seas.
Dr. Hansen forgot the really hard part: how do we convince a couple hundred million Americans that "greed isn't good," that "wanting it all, and wanting it now" is no longer an operational theory, that living smaller and with less is the only solution?
Okay, since that ain't gonna happen, and neither is the "perfect storm" of rapid government-industry-individual action Hansen outlines as a last hope, the real only choice we have is simple: stop falsely believing "we" will figure out a "solution" at the last second and start preparing for the near future right now.
If I won the lottery I'd...
send a copy of James Kunstler's "The Long Emergency" to all members of congress.
and then argue to ..
superinsulate as much of our built structures as possible (encapsulate as many buildings as we can in rammed earth blocks, to vitiate the need for heating/AC expenses, (and put a hell of a lot of people to work in the process) -
Rebuild the national train system (again, in the spirit of FDR)-
and work for universal healthcare. Can you imagine how giddy the American Consumer Base would be if they didn't have to spend money on a monthly utility bill and healthcare?
I know this is taken straight out of the Liberal Play Book, but let's start talking about some practical projects we can launch.
Well, I guess all we can do is "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die".
I'm a conservative who likes this site, drive an '85 Mercedes diesel fueled by biodiesel and has plans to power my house on the same way but...
As someone who celebrated the first Earthday walking around my high school with a gas mask on, I stood in solidarity with the Environmental Movement. I also started using roll-on deodorant to preserve the Ozone. (How come we never talk about the ozone hole anymore)? So with all that and more, we've heard this all before.
In the 70's, you could see the smog hanging in the Tampa Bay sky. Now, it's rare to see the haze. In the 70's we also heard, again and again, the imminent destruction of our planet by "Global Cooling". When's that coming back? Things appear much better today than then but, then again, carbon dioxide is invisible. (Isn't that what the trees breath?) We also have as many scientists claiming Global Warming is naturally cyclical as there are saying it's manmade.
So who do we believe? Do we destroy the US economy to reduce greenhouse gases by 1% over the next 100 years while making any dissent a treasonable offense, as Robert Kennedy Jr would like to see?
Or do we attempt to have a reasoned argument that will "save the planet", cut off the Saudi's and that sawed-off weasel Chavez by drilling for our own fossil fuel. Yes, off-shore and ANWR and any place else we find it while, at the same time, using the technological capacity of the US to find clean alternatives. It is happening all over the world. If India can produce a car that runs on AIR, what can we do here?
Then again, if the dooms day scenario is real and we are past the point of no return, "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die".
Actions speak louder than words, lead by example and show others the way, they will follow. There are not enough examples of working systems in the form of sustainable housing and businesses that can inspire people to move in the right direction, yet.
Stand in that place of integrity and do for your self what you would like others to also do, or you will continue to allow the centralaized control systems to dominate.
There must be more of us that become path finders and gate keepers. Seek out people in your community that stand in that place of leadership and integrity with their personal actions and deeds, you know, the family that has solar or wind, or built a straw bale house as example. They need your support and will reurn it to you in the form of information and experience to transition to better future.
Become a sacred hoop of knowledge and infromation, actions and deeds that shows the way for others to follow. The positive energy that will enter your life as your hoop expands is beyond description...
This is how we can wage peace accross the Planet, and save it for the seventh generation to come.
It takes great strength to walk this path, seek out others for support and avoid those that call you crazy or want to fight you.
Trashing what's left of the environment by drilling for hard-to-reach oil that may not be worth the price of extraction, so we can continue to drive our Hummers to Black Angus is not my idea of a sensible policy. OIL HAS PEAKED! Anyone who hasn't figured that out is not generating a pulse or a brain wave pattern.
Yes, we can disengage from our energy utilization - we constantly brag about our technological prowess - but if anyone still thinks that utility companies and insurance companies and auto companies want a more self-sufficient populace, one that is more than a mere revenue base, then they are failing to understand how contemptuous the business class really is toward the general population. This country is being parted out like my old '65 Plymouth Valiant. We'll see how far that gets us.
I do wish that Al Gore would consider running as VP with Obama. He has the experience and he is motivated to do something about global warming and there would be no question at all but Obama would win. Come Al Gore- what is more important in your insignificant life- go for it!
You get the eerie sense that we are not so much progressing into a brighter future but heading into dark science fiction instead and yet with eyes wide open.
What if like the tree falling in the forest with no one around, would it make a sound analogy... What if a warning were given again...but no politician or lobbyist was listening... would it be heard?
The science fiction part is our knowing that the warning is very real...
but still unheeded.
The eerie part is knowing that there are people intentionally retarding efforts to save our future...
With eyes wide open, we make our world dark science fiction.
BugsBBunny III: I totally agree with you. I don't see any brightness in the coming future. I see nothing but darkness and despair... and it's our own bloody faults (mankind). We know there's some serious problems facing us that will impact the habitability of the planet as a whole, yet we're either too stupid or selfish as a species to do anything about it.
AS frank1569 said: "how do we convince a couple hundred million Americans that "greed isn't good," that "wanting it all, and wanting it now" is no longer an operational theory, that living smaller and with less is the only solution?"
The answer to that is you can't. Plain and simple. Greed and gluttony are so embedded into the culture that people just won't do what's necessary to save the planet. They're more worried about the fictitious thing called "the economy" as if money were more important that the planet that sustains us all. Frankly, I think we deserve whatever we get as a species, it's just a shame that we have to take the rest of the species with us.
krbuck,
Let me answer some of your questions:
How come we never talk about the ozone hole anymore?
Because the ozone hole problem was an environmental success story that was accomplished by an international agreement banning CFCs.
In the 70's, you could see the smog hanging in the Tampa Bay sky. Now, it's rare to see the haze.
Because of emissions legislation that the auto industry fought tooth and nail (e.g., catalytic converters, among many others).
In the 70's we also heard, again and again, the imminent destruction of our planet by "Global Cooling". When's that coming back?
It isn't. Global cooling was a reality that most scientists still agree with, and it was due to the natural planetary cycle. Global warming has now overwhelmed the cooling cycle: if it wasn't for cooling we would be in an even worse situation now.
We also have as many scientists claiming Global Warming is naturally cyclical as there are saying it's manmade.
So who do we believe? The ones who are not in the pocket of the oil/auto industry.
Do we destroy the US economy to reduce greenhouse gases by 1% over the next 100 years while making any dissent a treasonable offense, as Robert Kennedy Jr would like to see? The economy would be invigorated - reflation has worked many times in the past. Take the New Deal, or even the Iraq War.
If India can produce a car that runs on AIR, what can we do here? You'll probably find it runs on compressed air which needs energy to charge it.
Sad to say but this is probably the end. I can't see Congress doing anything within the next year that will be meaningful-hell, the Federal Government now sues States to prevent them from legislating environmental laws stricter than Federal, sure that may change during the next administration but it won't be overnight - we still have five months plus of Bush while Hansen is saying we have to lower CO2 emissions from 385ppm to 350ppm within a year. Go to Mexico City, any metropolitan area in India and you can see that cutting CO2 emissions is not on their radar screen.
"If their campaigns continue and "succeed" in confusing the public, I anticipate testifying against relevant CEOs in future public trials."
He had better watch his back. Corporations have no qualms about causing "accidents". Or "suicides".
Dr. Hansen:
You say we are near the tipping point. But, considering the incredible slowness that our government (legislative, executive, judicial, local, state, federal) moves in response to urgent needs of the masses, I would say we have well passed the tipping point.
We all pretty much agree that the people we elect to office are crooked and in the pockets of big business, yet we continue to send them, or ones just like them, back to public office, over and over and over again. What is needed is a radical restructuring of our government that takes into consideration modern conditions and technology and the only way that can happen is with a Constitutional convention. Unfortunately, such a convention would be bogged hopelessly down with wedge issues such as gay marriage and abortion, with each side claiming that the other is trying to force their views on America. We can try to throw the bums out and elect a third party (which I will vote for, regardless) but other than a few people on this website and a few other progressive sites, most people in America still believe that the two big parties still respond to the will of the masses, and will vote to send the same crooks and charlatans back again. And even if we could get someone with popularity and charisma in a third party to galvanize the US, the corporate controlled/owned media, that most people in the US still get most of their information from, still rely on, still believe is honest and truthful, will not allow that persons message to be heard. Witness the censoring of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel from the primary debates. The only way to get "mainstream" media time is to pay fealty to the corporate machine and there is no way they will ever let someone with a message different from the "Our economy is fundamentally sound" iteration any air time as that would damage their bottom line. They know they won't live forever. Most of the "real owners of America", as George Carlin put it, are the same old, rich, white men that have always controlled things and they are only concerned with how much money/control/power they will have acquired by midnight, lather, rinse, repeat. So that leaves us with one possibility and that is to craft a message that is short and can be distributed virally. (Perhaps some aspiring computer programmer can develop a "virus" that will lodge itself on all the computers that are online in the world that would give people a daily update on the progress of global warming as soon as they boot up. Just an idea...) Obviously, the threat of global warming twenty years ago did not scare people sufficiently to change behaviors and it isn't now. We need a wake up call, fast, and we can't rely on government. I post comments frequently on the web but I know that only a few read and take them seriously. An essay on CD, while not harmful and should still be done, does not generate that level of fear that is necessary.
So, a proposal: a global meeting, social forum, perhaps, online as well as in real life, to tackle this issue, that of how to change our (human's) behavior to limit global warming, with participation by anyone serious enough to want to contribute. But, how do we prevent such a meeting from being co opted by the corporate machine? And how do we insure its success?
Bidelo
So if we keep making all this progress you just itemized, when does it stop?
No CFC's, no auto emission smog. Gee sounds like things are under control.
Global Cooling has been overwhelmed by Global Warming? That's actually one I hadn't heard of before but if we can get a balance of Cooling/Warming we should be OK, right?
As far as "those in the pocket of the oil/auto industry", you don't think there is Billions of Dollars in the Alarmist camp? Re: George Soros.
The New Deal/Great Society approaches to "envigorating" our economy have put us $9,000,000,000,000 (that's Trillion, with a TR) in debt. It has never worked to have the government try to bale out the economy. Wealth and prosperity are accomplished by creating jobs through the private sector. You know, jobs. The kind that actually produces a product, like cars or motor oil or gas. Those things that keep people working, who spend the money to buy stuff like computers and lawn mowers and stuff.
As far as the AIR car goes,air doesn't pollute like internal combustion. What would you like to see, our city streets teeming with bikes like Beijing? Oh wait, they moved to a more capitalist economy and started making money and being prosperous and buying those awful internal combustion cars.
As far as corruption goes, it's on both sides of this equation, so don't hand me the pious "we're only here to save planet Earth" stuff. Follow the money and the control and you'll see the tree has many branches.
So, this all gets me back to my original premise, if all is hopeless, "let's eat and drink, for tomorrow we die"
Or you could actually look at it with a little more balance and realize Planet Earth is just fine.
maybe humankind is unsustainable...
I give up. We're toast. We're already 35ppm over the limit and still the bare minimum is being done. Half the country denies evolution let alone globlal warming! Now we have more hybrids but they are hybrid SUVs that still only get like 24 mpg. We absolutely refuse to make any self sacrifices for the greater good and it makes me so angry! Instead of higher efficiency they'd rather dangle cheap gas as an incentive to get us to buy their particular car. (ahem Jeep) Green living, efficiency, modesty, sustainability are cardinal sins of american society, to vocalize support of those values is sure to get you labeled a communist, anti-american, neo-hippie, etc.
As a country, we will deserve our extinction, but I feel bad for the other nations who will get killed along with us in spite of their own corrective action.
Hopefully the rest of the world will come to it's senses and invade and obliterate us for the good of the species.
You say planet Earth is just fine. ~KRBUCK~
At one time in the far distant past, planet Mars was just fine also. It's now a dead planet.
Couldn't happen here? Well yes it could and it very well may if we don't start to clean up our act.
Once the methane gas which has been safely locked up in the Arctic's perma-frost for millions of years begins to release into the atmosphere, there is no turnng back, no do-overs. Once it starts it will likely play itself out. That will be the next to final bell. Global warming then will be so severe the methane locked up in our ocean's floorbeds will release and that's the final bell.
That is not MY opinion, it is the opinions of scientists and geologists who have spent their entire adult lives studying our unique water world. We may have a chance if we act to reduce Co2 emissions and we don't have a lot of time left to act.
"Pay up or die" is the term. I'm old enough to not care that much, but our children and theirs do care.
Well ~CRAIG~, it is not just us. China has now passed us in Co2 emissions, India and Mexico, etc, are drawing close and the burning destruction of the world's rain forests are not in America. All of humanity is guilty and we need a world wide effort to stop the madness.
A carbon tax directly recycled into consumer bank accounts? Well, why not?
You've got to love James Hansen. Head to head with the world's largest criminal syndicate: the oil cartel! How many have challenged the interests of the energy monopoly and ended up hamburger? These boys have had their boot on the neck of the public interest since they hung Nicola Tesla out to dry and sabotaged the Edison/Ford plan to mass market the electric car in 1914.
So long as corporate power is in the driver's seat, nothing will be done. We are told salvation lies in "market efficiency" and "private enterprise" and that will be the prevailing ideology until the waters rise onto the House floor. There is no option other than a popular uprising to displace the corporatocracy.
An energy Manhattan Project is called for, which would cost about 17 weeks worth of the Iraq War.
The number of energy options we have is remarkable. Here is one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ToojK_MJd0
Algae consume carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, amount other things. Algae are the most effective carbon sink we have.
But algae produced fuel is only a stop gap. Truly sustainable and unlimited energy will ultimately be Tesla's "radiant energy".
We have been rendered imbecilic by corporate media hypnosis. We can't see the obvious.
Nothing stimulates the imagination like catastrophe.
Twenty years later, we haven't even extinguished the Olympic torch!
well, if disaster is already treated as a component of the gdp, what's to stop it from being treated as a greater component?
isn't this trend already in place?
isn't the military-industrial thing all about capitalizing on suffering?
if the suffering becomes more massive, it only means more capital can be made -- therefore, nothing to fear -- back to business as usual
Good one, John Sullivan !!
KRBuck,
Your mentality is what needs change. Planet Earth is not fine. Apparently, you've been doing other things for the past 30 or 40 years. But, simply put it is not OK. Our major challenge here, as a world, is to rapidly get past your "conservative"? mentality.
It should be noted that the 99+ certainty mentioned here is ONLY with this one guy, there are literally thousands of credible scientists, who have nothing to do with any industry or government who totally disagree. In fact many say that there is just no scientific evidence that CO2 causes global warming, and course there just isn't any global warming since the global temperature has been going down, so why is this guy making so much noise lately?
Judging from this article I would say that this is just a ploy to get more taxes and more government control, just exactly what we need! So lets all just stop breathing and driving and see what happens...
No, there is 99+ certainty within the legitimate, impartial, not-bought-off scientific community that human activity is causing a dangerous rise in greenhouse gases that will cause untold suffering, human and otherwise, including mass extinctions if left unchecked. Some of the confusion about global warming is due to the phenomenon of global dimming, which has masked the effect of global warming until recently, but now has been overtaken by global warming. For a full explanation of the subject, google the PBS program entitled Dimming the Sun, which aired on 4-18-06.
Call me a pessimist but I know and you know too that the world isn't going to invent a new type of civilization within the next year. Mr. Hansen didn't ride up to the capitol building on a bicycle. He got there in a fossil fuel burning vehicle. And don't say "gotcha, he drives a Prius". No Prius that I know of uses solar panels to charge the batteries, and...they all have gas tanks.
Who are these thousands of "credible scientists" ~GEO 522~?
Sorry to see you finally showed up here, but it was expected.
"He rode up to the capitol buildng in a gas burning vehicle"? What else are we producing? That is precicely one of the points. However, our coal burning to produce electrical power is the world's major C02 polluter.
"Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent."
Hansen for President. The man has shown he can lie or distort with the best of them. Nowhere in the IPCC report does it state this certainty.
Here are there uncertainty classifications
"Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%."
Searching through the pdf for use of "virtually certain" relating to climate predictions. Nada
How about extremely likely. Nada.
Very likely?
"Some extreme weather events have changed in frequency and/or intensity over the last 50 years: It is very likely that cold days, cold nights and frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, while hot days and hot nights have become more frequent" [yeah, especially in bigger and bigger cities]
"Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years" [yes, following the little ice age, temperatures have risen]
"It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use." [It tripled in the last century, but remained stagnant over the last decade when mans activity has hit a new high, and still, temperatures over the last century have increased only 0.7 deg C]
"The combined radiative forcing due to increases in CO2, CH4 and N2O is +2.3 [+2.1 to +2.5] W/m2, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years" [right, since that was the end of the last glacial period when temperatures were low, and interglacial periods such as we are in last 12,000 or more years, so perhaps global warming is delaying the next glacial period]
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations." [that happens to be 1 deg F, and most is more than 50%, so whoop dee doo, we might have increased temperatures 0.5 deg F-might be tough on the polar bears, but the warmer temps and more CO2 in the air means its a happy times for plants and crops which have increased yeields over 15% for this reason alone]
"It is very likely that the response to anthropogenic forcing contributed
to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century." [this is very weak, contributed but to what extent, 1%, 90%?. Obviously no consensus on how much]
"Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century." [no consensus on how much, and of course, the changes in the 20th century were not very great, and were beneficial]
"It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation
events will become more frequent" [thats to be expected in a warming phase, thank god for A/C]
"Increases in the amount of precipitation are very likely in high-latitudes, while decreases are likely in most subtropical land regions (by as much as about 20% in the A1B scenario in 2100, Figure 3.3)," [Thats not necessarily a bad thing, so sub-tropical regions need to improve water storage, and high altitude regions need to provide better flood control measures to handle the increased precipitation, so spend some money on the infrastructure to take advantage of the warning]
"Based on current model simulations, it is very likely that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century; nevertheless temperatures in the region are projected to increase" [Cooler Europe winters]
So thats it for very likely or above from the consensus. Anything below that is not enough to make radical changes. And nothing that is greater than 90% (very likely) is worse than the changes they propose.
If the science improves, then maybe this can be reopened. The US unilaterally taking action will just drive whats left of manufacturing away and increase the number of personal bankruptcies. China and Asia will continue to use coal and belch smoke and carbon while making us toys and shoes. This region now emits more carbon into the air than the US. The US can control emissions by controlling population. Our working adults population is increasing by 1.8% per year due to immigration over the last 30 years. More people means more energy consumption. A stable population means stable energy consumption, even reduction in consumtion. Fertility rates in the US and Europe are at or below replacement levels and have been for 30 years. Population growth from 200 million to 300 million has been 100% due to immigration and children born to immigrants.
Control immigration and take the carbon cap and trading they will force on you and shove it.
I would love to be a denier. We just had the most perfect early summer day that anyone could ever imagine here in PA. Its hard to believe puny man can effect the global environment and the world of our ancestors may soon go away.
The science is straightforward, the CO2 and temperature trends are real, the models have been critiqued, peer reviewed, and improved over 20 years. Most important: the effects are really starting to pile up.
Dr. Hansen is not part of a liberal conspiracy or some copycat researcher just trying to drum up grant money. He is a patriotic scientist and public servant who has brought a very dangerous situation our attention.
The solar cycle is at a minimum right now. Maybe that is how geo gets his "cooling" data. NOAA predicts it to come off the bottom in 08-09 and hit the max in 2011-12. You can see the 11 year cycle in the NOAA temp charts, except that for several decades each cycle ends at a higher temperature.
Be ready for some hot years. Then devastation in Africa and a billion people in India, China and SE Asia losing their rivers fed by shrinking Himalayan glaciers, and the ocean dying.
Change will only come from the people. If enough people become informed about this problem and demand change the goverment will have to follow. The problem is waking up the "sheeple".
Global Temperaure Index:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
KRBuck,
"No CFC's, no auto emission smog. Gee sounds like things are under control."
My point is that most of the progress has been made by government intervention and international coalitions, at much protest from private industry. This is what I am advocating now as a solution to Global Warming, not the laissez-faire, do-nothing approach that you seem to be advocating. I we had gone your way before, the ozone and smog problems you talk about would be far worse. They don't just go away on their own!
"Global Cooling has been overwhelmed by Global Warming? That's actually one I hadn't heard of before but if we can get a balance of Cooling/Warming we should be OK, right?"
Look it up and read about it. I didn't say balanced, I said overwhelmed. We were heading for a cooling trend but that has reversed and made worse by rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations. The temperature trend is upwards and will only get worse as we pump more CO2 into the air. Even deniers acknowledge that tempeartures are rsing and are at record highs.
"As far as "those in the pocket of the oil/auto industry", you don't think there is Billions of Dollars in the Alarmist camp? Re: George Soros."
The oil/auto industry has trillions in potential losses. What has Soros, et al, to gain in comparison? A few nice jobs for cliamte scientists. That massive lobby comprised of fledgling greentech companies? Come on, KRBuck, don't be so naive to try to compare the two sides as though they have equal finiancial clout.
"The New Deal/Great Society approaches to "envigorating" our economy have put us $9,000,000,000,000 (that's Trillion, with a TR) in debt."
As a conservative, are you against your conservative government's contribution to the debt in the form of war spending. Are you prepared to slash the publically-funded military budget. At least with New Deal we got a product at the end of it, rather than death and mayhem. In this case, we would incur a debt for some time, but the rewards in terms of cheaper energy would be extraordinary. Borrow money for later profit - isn't that just buisness?
"As far as the AIR car goes,air doesn't pollute like internal combustion. What would you like to see, our city streets teeming with bikes like Beijing? Oh wait, they moved to a more capitalist economy and started making money and being prosperous and buying those awful internal combustion cars."
You completely missed my point. Compressed air vehicles are a good thing, they certainly reduce local pollution. However, we have to make sure that the energy used to compress the air comes from non-fossil fuel sources, otherwise there's still a cost in CO2 emissions.
"As far as corruption goes, it's on both sides of this equation, so don't hand me the pious "we're only here to save planet Earth" stuff. Follow the money and the control and you'll see the tree has many branches."
See above, YOU follow the money. Be realistic, you've got to know where the real money is. Are you telling me that thousands of scientists have got together to promote a lie so thay can have nice jobs?
"So, this all gets me back to my original premise, if all is hopeless, "let's eat and drink, for tomorrow we die""
That's fine, if you think there's no solution. You at least seem to acknowledge there's a problem here.
CARBON TAX!!!
How to enact a global carbon tax? You've got to empower the people to make laws federally via initiative, b/c the Congress will never do what is required.
GREENSKIER:
Vote for The National Initiative for Democracy, and encourage everyone you know to do the same:
www.ni4d.us
http://www.gravel2008.us/national_initiative
"Nothing stimulates the imagination like catastrophe." Excellent one Cruxpuppy!
We've already tipped. There may be a time gap of 5 or 10 years before we reap what we sow, but we've got a nasty harvest coming. I think finding other like minded folks and working toward sufficient local communities is our best hope. I'm not sure it's worth our time to argue with the "Planet Earth is just fine" folks.
Last night I watched the DVD documentary, "A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash," and came to the conclusion that we are, in a word, f--ked. To the deniers out there, watch that film and see if you still think everything's just hunky dory. It's time to WAKE UP, people! WAKEY WAKEY WAKEY! To the reality-based folks out there, my suggestion is to start preparing for when all hell breaks loose - when gas prices soar to the point that you can't get to work, the supermarkets are empty of food, and the lights go out and don't come back on. This, I fear, will be much sooner than we think.
First they'll say "Holy shit, the Greenies were right!", then they'll slip into total insanity and yell "We welcome your punishment Lord, we told them you would be pissed, give it to them Jesus, a left, and a right, uppercut, Yeah Jesus, Yeah!!"
... no stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.
That is one of the most ominous aspects in climate change ......... as how our global economy could continue to function given that is beyond conception too.
re geo522:
A tipping point has been reached regarding your ilk too.
That worthless post merits no other reply.
>>termite - No, there is 99+ certainty within the legitimate, impartial, not-bought-off scientific community that human activity is causing a dangerous rise in greenhouse gases that will cause untold suffering, human and otherwise, including mass extinctions if left unchecked. <<
No termite. There is NOT agreement in the scientific community. How many of the IPCC signers were scientists? 600. 600 of 1700 or about 1/3rd of the IPCC. In addition, they are not allowed peer review and the inclusion of any comments, including any critical of the process, are not included by the political appointees that outnumber scientists by 2:1.
Now those 1100 government appointees from all the nations on the face of the Earth have their own agendas. The IPCC is NOT impartial and not scientific and their motives are not to get to the truth through discussion and scientific experimentation.
There is a current petition drive of scientists that are trained in the area that disagree with the IPCC data. At current count that list includes 31,072 active scientists including 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees.
There is more going on here than a simple man-made global warming. We are in a time of change certainly, but as to causes and outcomes we are most certainly NOT in agreement.
Remember that Global Warming and Green are a huge business already. As a scientist you cannot get a grant to do anything unless you invent some angle on global warming. You have that, you get funded, you don't and you are out of luck.
In the end there won't be any real catastrophy and those that knew there wouldn't be from the beginning will say I told you so and the ones that fight for change, will claim it was them that stopped the "catastrophe"
In the end, science becomes the toy of the uneducated zealots of the left much like evolution has become the toy of the unwashed Christian right. Sad and typical of us.
I am truly amazed at the number of idiots who blog comments here on this most important subject.
Anyone else here seen the latest satellite view of the Arctic? It has shrunk about 40% in the past three years and half of what remains is now thawed mush. Let's see, July and August are just days off. Wheeee. Maybe the entire Arctic area will be mush by September and Greenland will actually be green next year. Not good gang, not good.
We need a Philosopher King, not a Monkey King.
If Bush and Gang can spend $100's of billions invading Afghanistan and Iraq on the flimsiest of evidence, can't a REAL President spend the same fighting Global Climate Chaos ?
Just call it 'War on Disaster' or something, then claim all those Unitary Executive War Powers.
Why can't a broken Democracy be used for Good, instead of Evil ?
And lets start wiretapping Global Warming deniers...