Get News & Views Updates
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 AllSome minds truly get locked up. Frozen. Maybe global warming will help melt the ice and get them thinking for themselves.
The argument, lest we forget, is not if there is global warming, it is if man is the cause of global warming. Each year, 220 Gigatons of CO2 is emitted. Man is responsible for 3% of that. Bet you did not know that.
IPCC makes it difficult for you to get information. They link you to journals that require paid subscriptions. They even keep some of the information from other scientists who have not been cherry picked by the political IPCC. As mentioned above, not all of the members who vote are scientists.
I just came across a couple of articles from my stack of Nature Magazines, In January 2006. A new source of CH4 was discovered. Living plants and leaves. LOL. The amount was estimated to be 20%-80% of anthropogenic emissions, which had previously been estimated to be 50% of all emissions.
Another article spoke of the unexpected reduction of carbon in soil in Europe (since only this are was studied). In the UK alone, they found the annual losses from the soil were equal to 7% of UK's man made emissions. Under the Kyoto protocol, countries were not required to consider changes in soil carbon so this has not been studied much, apparently. It also found that the changes occurred under all soil conditions, so it could not be blamed on farming. The reason given? Global warming.
But Global Warming is not caused by CO2. Global warming is the cause of higher CO2. We might get hotter than hell, but it won't be due to man's SUV.
Faith based religions teach man to believe they are evil sinners. The same people who try to use science as a religion that should not questioned, teach man that they are nothing more than a virus harming the earth. The objective is the same. Social control and to pick your pockets. Instead of paying into the collection box, you will pay at the pump or with credit to pay you electricity bill.
Wake up!
MiMiCcS
Checkout Charlie Rose's interview with Michael Crichton
( on Feb 17, 2007 ), which flipped my circuits around, about
how the scientists could NOT answer Michael's questions, when he
dug & DUG deep enough into their illusive world ( to hit "dirt" ).
Here's one heck of a hard ass investigator, as witnessed by his books excessive details. nam_aste
Here's the 1 hr video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AA5aIdOqlw
Evidently the "thousands of scientists" that deny global heating are not publishing their papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. These deniers are either bought off, are being brainwashed by the denial machine financed by the big oil and the recyled tobacco lobby, or are basing their observations on looking out of their kitchen windows while ignoring the thousands of peer-reviewed studies and the mountain of unassailable data from scientists from all over the planet.
At any rate, the time has long passed when we should be wasting time in fruitless debates with the global heating deniers. Hansen has it right - the special interest groups and their political operatives should face public trials for crimes against humanity and nature.
However, Hansen's point that democracy is slow underestimates the problem that the elites in the United States, Canada and elsewhere are obstructing meaningful solutions to the problem and that these interest groups exercise almost complete control over governments, politicians, and policy makers. Here I would include the current round of US Presidential candidates (excluding the marginalized candidates such as Kucinich and Nader). Even if Obama wins the Presidency it is doubtful that he will take serious measures to combat global heating unless there is robust extra-parliamentary pressure from the grassroots. Governments must be forced to implement 'full spectrum' economic policies that reconfigure the economies to tackle the problem head on, muich as Roosevelt and other war-time leaders implemented a full range of interventionist policies to reconfigure their economies during WW2. Deregulation - precisely the problem that has brought the financial system in the US to brink of collapse - must be replaced by stringent regulations to curb carbon emissions. The focus should be, as Hansen states, on the producers who determine what and how we consume - principally, the oil, coal, and automotive companies who are the GHG emitters. The massively wasteful and unsustainable system of mono-transportation must also be phased out in favour of a comprehensive system of mass transit and human powered transport - bicycles and walking - at the local level. Precious fossil fuels should be reserved almost entirely for commercial transportaion and other essential needs. Regulations must be implemented to end suburban sprawl in favour of sustainable communities that produce most of their own food and manufactured goods. Consumer communities - the big box, strip mall, suburban model - must be replaced with locally based conserver communities. The templates and technologies to lower carbon emitting communities are straightforward. Cities like Curitaba in Brazil were doing this thirty years ago and the Chinese are currently pioneering the construction of state-of-art sustainable communities such as Dongtan in the mouth of the Yangzee River. Diminishing global oil supplies - the peak oil mechanism - make this inevitable independently of whether people like it or not. Moreover, a civilization based on sustainability trumps the need for wars to corner and plunder 'strategic' resources (Iraq) or geopolitical hegeomony (Indochina,Iraq...)
In his recent book Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning, George Monbiot provides a comprehensive and well-researched set of policies that if implemented could reduce Britain's emissions of GHGs by 90 percent by 2050 while maintaining a comparable if not improved quality of life.
"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."
~
In other words, these CEOs and the companies they run are the equivalent of Nazis who are turning the earth into a (green house) gas oven and this time, all life on the planet are "the Jews." These guys are manufacturing a 21st Century Planetary Lebensraum.
But rapid population adjustment is what is needed right? So, wipe out all but 500 million, blame it on "the climate" and live "guilt free" as ever.
I do not for one minute believe the PTB did not listen nor agree. They simply decided to do what they always do: exploit the disaster for their benefit.
By consolidating resource production, food supply, health and finance, and transport and knocking out renewable energy sources to delay the situation, they have advantaged themselves and disadvantaged everybody else. Manufacture an economic disaster as well, and there you go. A recipe for rapid planetary depopulation.
The rich will survive because they can afford to establish themselves in enclaves and have the latest greatest gadgets for energy saving. At the moment of disaster all they have to do is knock out the power, turn off the water, the food distribution, and bam! millions die, leaving a planet free of its most major problem the peasants, the poor, the worthless human dregs, and of course the Darwinian Elites in control of what's left, surviving because "they are the fittest."
Planetary pressure problems resolved in one foul swoop.
No need for costly education programs. No need to retool.
The economics of the planetary situation will drive it into this scenario. And all the Elite have to do is keep us teetering in debate as we hurtle towards the tipping points. Until it is too late and we start to drop like flies.
Are we still so naive that we think that people who will lie about WMD and so many other things, who will entrap millions in mortgage schemes and debt, who will create and manufacture energy crises so they can line their pockets, who will sell cancer-inducing agents and then bald-faced lie to a senate, who will violate the highest of Freedom's ideals without a fucking scruple or second thought, will not balk for a moment at carrying out such a plan when they stand to inherit the earth? The prize of prizes!
They have the technology to clone. To replicate. They have the seeds stored. The genetic code. The robotics. The weapons. The high ground of space.
Stupid humans. By the time we figure out that this is what's happening it will be too late, it will have happened.
MiMicCs- you ain't no scientist. Don't even flatter yourself. But you are correct on one point- Bushes give off massive amounts of CO2 that causes global warming.
Bidelo
You have missed the entire point of my original post. If we have just one more year to turn this "crisis" around, we are DOOMED. There has always been the fatalistic, "the sky is falling" types since time began. Ted Turner now says we will be eating each other in 30 years.
If Al Gore lived more like Ed Begley Jr, I could take the leadership of the Enviro-Movement a litte more seriously.
So to make my point once more before I sign off (I have to go to work now),if our civilization is soon to be over, go ahead and "Eat and Drink, for tomorrow we Die".
And one more thing, Kem Patrick.
"At one time in the far distant past, planet Mars was just fine also. It's now a dead planet".
Uh....Mars....Right.
Check marks pretty much all the way down the article. I especially love Dr. Hansen's recognition that there are numerous ways to make automobiles or other personal rapid transit systems that don't burn carbon.
I would have added a couple of ways to counteract global warming. First, put water vapor into the stratosphere over oceans, especially in polar climates. This creates more cirrus clouds which reflect sunlight back away from the earth. We already do this with jet contrails. On 9/11/01 we grounded all U.S. jets and the national temperature went up 2 degrees Fahrenheit that day.
Second, think about manufacturing charcoal from fast-growing trees and sequestering it in old coal mines. Or, deliberately grow coral reefs (calcium carbonate). Take carbon dioxide out.
Finally, feed inventors. Don't treat them like they were top-notch lawyers, or maybe uber-businessmen waiting to make a killing. Don't force them to write really crazy grant proposals. Feed them. They're human beings with one gift only (usually), and they need to work on that gift full time. Someday this will seem like common sense, but right now we are such idiots.
And now for your up to date methane forecast.
There's a Texas-sized clear area of the Arctic Ocean above central Canada absorbing heat 24/7 with no ice to keep it cool, and summer has just started. Nearby is an Alaska-sized section of mush which is absorbing maybe 20% to 40% of the sun's heat. Across the pond, Western Siberia is doing not much better. The entire sea north of Archangel is devoid of ice (unlike 20 years ago in June). Eventually (in several years) this will probably affect the methane clathrates just below the continental shelves. An ice-free sea is linked to immediate melting of permafrost on nearby land. Expect a bunch of bubbles.
This is why I suspect we've already tipped, and good. We need to think more about damage limitation.
Well ~KRBUCK~, indeed the evidence is very strong that "Mars" was once a live water world much like Earth. Whether humans once lived on Mars is not known.
My point was and is, Earth could become a larger twin sister of Mars and despite what ~MiMiCcS~ says, humanity is causing it's own destruction here on this water world and has no place else to run to. If we manage to kill off the ocean's phytoplankton, Earth will become a dead planet. We also have a good start on that killing. ___ Idiots.
The amount of C02 in our atmosphere has risen dramatically in the past 200 years, which is only an eye blink in time for Earth's history. We have been burning fossil fuels like madmen for the past 200 years and continue to do so even though we understand the clear danger.
When the methane in the ocean's BURP out due to "man caused", (oh the gals too,) global warming, we will ALL die. That's you, me, all of the bloggers here and our children and their children and the rich and famous, the poor and the in betweens, the good, the bad and the ugly will all die. All of our elected past and present will die and that will serve them right. I hope that my last shouted out words will be, ____ "I TOLD YOU SO."
So we're gonna miss you ~KRBUCK~ cause you sound like a fun person. ~MiMiCcS~ and ~Geo 522~, you two have finally done it, ___ I hate you.
The prediction regarding the small core group of denialists popping up sure proved true. They seem to be taking a page out of the neocon playbook: repeat a lie over and over until it assumes an aura of truth.
The most obvious lie, which most thinking people now simply ignore, is that there are thousands of scientists who doubt the science. My challenge to the denialists is to come up with a list of ten credible scientists, not on industry payroll (this includes industry funded front-groups), who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. The credibility requirement leaves Singer and Lomborg off the list, so you're going to have to put a bit of effort into this. Even the Heritage Institute sponsored denialist conference earlier this year couldn't find that many, so good luck.
The uncertainty argument is part of the corporate media disinformation campaign that they're trying to remain fair and balanced, as FAUX News likes to insist. As if the scientific community is evenly divided, when the ratio is actually well over 1,000 to 1 which is also what the ratio of press coverage should be. The only actual scientific uncertainty concerns how quickly its full force will impact us, and exactly how devestating that impact will be.
The next piece of disingenious spin is that we're going into a cooling period. While 2007 wasn't as hot as 2006, by 1/10 of a degree or something, it was still well above the global mean. All this shows is that the rate of increase is temporarily slowing, not that we're going into a cooling trend. This is simple high school math, you guys should be able to follow along.
And I could go on and on for all the other arguments denialists tend to make: solar activity, clouds, natural variance. I mean, you guys would actually be better off arguing that space aliens are the real cause, because at least then your argument couldn't be scientifically refuted and disproven.
So, my question to the denialists is, who's paying you guys? It simply boggles the mind that anyone could stay so willfully ignorant when your arguments have been so thoroughly refuted, from numerous angles, by so many people, in so many venues. You must stand to gain something, because it's hard to imagine that it's simply an unwillingness to let go of a lifestyle and economic theory you've become addicted to.
Global Warming Debate:
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/246.html
OK Kem Patrick, one more post.
Try to put yourself in my shoes. I'm in my 50's now, have followed politics and the different movements of all sorts and actually bought into some endtimes scenarios, believing all is lost. Check some of this out:
From Wikipedia:
The Population Bomb (1968) is a book written by Paul R. Ehrlich. A best-selling work, it predicted disaster for humanity due to overpopulation and the "population explosion". The book predicted that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death", that nothing can be done to avoid mass famine greater than any in the history, and radical action is needed to limit the overpopulation.
We're 30 years past and no mass starvation other than the politically created kind like in Darfur.
Also an excerpt from Wikepedia:
In the late 1950s, Rachel Carson turned her attention to conservation and the environmental problems caused by synthetic pesticides. The result was Silent Spring (1962), which brought environmental concerns to an unprecedented portion of the American public. Silent Spring spurred a reversal in national pesticide policy—leading to a nationwide ban on DDT and other pesticides.
We banned DDT, a fairly inert pesticide but highly effective against malaria carrying mosquitos but banned from widespread use in the areas of the world most vulnerable. The ones who "know best" don't want the Africans ruining their environment but don't mind if the people die.
And from Atlanta Journal Constitution, Ted Turner says:
If steps aren't taken to stem global warming, "We'll be eight
degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow," Turner said during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with PBS's Charlie Rose that aired Tuesday.
"Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals," said Turner, 69. "Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable."
Ted Turner says we'll turn into cannibals because we have too many people using too few resources but a very real disaster is looming with Social Security. We don't have enough people paying into the system and we may see real starvation, here at home, because of that.
We've also killed 45,000,000 of our fellow citizen's over the last 35 years and now have to have illegals in the country to harvest our crops. I'm not one to say that they need to be shipped home, en mass, but if they don't assimilate into our culture and learn the language, we will create a permament underclass and a caste system similar India's.
With all that said, I hope you understand my skeptism in the doom and gloom (uh, were you serious about Mars?) I do beleive in doing whatever I can to save energy, reduce-reuse-recycle and all that, but not to save the planet. To save my wallet!
And speaking of wallet, with our country in $9,000,000,000 debt,(TRILLION) that makes each of us responsible for $30,000,000 (that's Billion) each. We will all need to become a Bill Gates to pay it off.
And once again, not that I believe this, but if we are past the point of turning the ship around, what else should we do but "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die".
And this time I really am done.
Oh yeah ~KEM PATRICK~, I've been told I'm pretty fun to hang out with.
I'll be back.
(Wait, that's Schwarzenegger's line.)
Melting Andean Glaciers Could Leave 30 Million High and Dry
About 99 percent of the Chacaltaya glacier in Bolivia has disappeared since 1940, says World Bank engineer Walter Vergara, in his new report, "The Impacts of Climate Change in Latin America."
One of the highest glaciers in South America, Chacaltaya is one of the first glaciers to melt due to climate change. Although the glacier is over 18,000 years old, it is expected to vanish this year.
"The greenhouse gases are the main driver," says Vergara. "The scientific community has a consensus - this is manmade."
Since 1970, glaciers in the Andes have lost 20 percent of their volume, according to a report by Peru's National Meteorology and Hydrology Service.
Environmental News Service, April 28, 2008
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-28-01.asp
Kem Patrick said: "At one time in the far distant past, planet Mars was just fine also. It's now a dead planet."
TOUCHE!
Kem Patrick: I'm with ya on your assertions. The most frustrating thing about it all is that these people are playing politics, playing opinions, playing games all the while we're killing ourselves. It's madness!
Reading MiMi's posts, you have to realize that on the last day while Kem will be yelling "I told you so!", she will still be saying "CO2 is high and the methane is killing us because the world got warm first!"
There is an article on AOL News today about the Energy Information Agency's prediction for world wide growth of fossil fuel use and remaining reliance on coal between now and 2030. Its not good news at all.
I guess facts like we contribute only 3% of CO2 emissions do not mean anything. And the fact that we are 10,000 years into the interglacial cycle. Has anyone even read the IPCC report where they admit the level of understanding of solar irradiance forcing is low. Have you noticed they do not assign any forcing to the most important GHG, which is water vapour.
Did you know 8% of the radiation into space comes from CO2 in the stratosphere. Possibly CO2 is released in response to global warming to absorb the IR from the increasing water vapour (they compete for the same IR, so CO2 can absorb IR emitted by H20) and is a negative feedback mechanism. But I am just a chemical engineer, lets hear from someone else.
Lets look at one scientists views. Ian Plimer, a professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide in South Australia.
"Looking at the long history of Planet Earth, we see we've had massive climate changes, driven by the orbit of the Earth, driven by mountains being built and washed away, and driven by the Sun..... Even slight changes that we are experiencing today, we can relate to solar activity."
"We're playing a very, very small part indeed, because the main greenhouse gas is water vapor. Carbon dioxide is a very minor gas in the atmosphere and about 90% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from de-gassing of the planet, through volcanoes, carbon dioxide oozing out from the soils, from algae, from bacteria, from plants. And the human contribution of carbon dioxide probably only contributes about 0.1% of the global temperature. So what we are doing is having an extremely minor effect on the planet."
"I'm not in the minority in the geologists and astronomers. The scientists who are making the noise, and who are frightening people witless, are the atmospheric scientists who are having a wonderful long party of operating in self-interest in doing research on the atmosphere. We have in this country far more geologists than we have atmospheric scientists, and you can count them on the fingers of your hand, the number of geologists who take a contrary view to mine."
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/0412_aussie.shtml
How about this one.
"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC........
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism........
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority." .....
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore......
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped "consensus" that the debate is "settled.""
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
"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."
Kem Patrick, you are being far too alarmist. I have absolutely no doubt that life will survive, although I suspect human civilization might not, even if humans survive. Earth has previously been through periods where 70% of lifeforms have become extinct within a short time and the current extinction might not be even so drastic. Certain classes of bacteria will do very well thank you and the extinction and changed environment will open up new niches for exploitation by new life forms.
"We have to act to prevent it" is just so much derived from the idea that humans have stewardship of the Earth. What we have to do is get our act together and live in harmony with the planet and its ecosystems and not act as if the planet's resources belong to us and are there freely for the taking. We need to start worshiping the sun as the giver of life and use its energy, guaranteed for another 5 or so billion years, to drive our economy.
It is troubling that Hansen says nothing about the global dangers Nuclear Power. i am at least as worried about the proliferation of Nuclear Power Plants as the current fossil fuel madness. We could be out of warming pan and into the fiery furnace.
I would like to hear an open debate among credible scientists on this topic. Hansen should do more to address his detractors.
If all those climate change deniers could come out to California fight the 1000 out-of-season fires that we are having that would sure help. The smoke won't hurt your lungs because it's a figment of our imagination.
Deniers lie. There are no credible refutations of Climate Change theory. The IPCC rather than being alarmist actually downplays the actual danger at every turn and filters out the actual speed of the changes that are happening.
Google: "faster than expected, climate" and read what you find there.
The world you stand on is choking and we really aren't doing anything to fix it.
The only global scale solution proposed is to increase the amount of carbon in soils. That means that every human on the planet has to get downright obsessive about collecting dead plant material, leaves, branches, grass, prunings, twigs and deadfall logs. What we would then do with the material is cook it in pressure vessels to charcoal. The charcoal is then ground and dug into soils until it reaches about thirty percent volume. That soil is then a permanent carbon store and will also break up clay and allow rain into the soil.
Biochar, Terra Preta. Just about the only hope left.
Hi there ~PROF~ in reply to your post to me, June 25, at 11;25pm. You say that "I am being too alarmist", meaning me.
Well old man, it just so happens that I didn't give MY opinions here on the subject of methane gas. MY opinions are only as credible as yours and MiMiCcS and Geo 522s are. What I do here at Common Dreams on this subject, is quote comments made by geologists and scientists whom are world renounded. __ The big leaguers.
BTW ~MiMiCcS~ contratry to your new and recent assertion that "VERY FEW" geologists are warning us about the release of methane, I suggest you check it our more toroughly before you repeat that bullshit here. Any may do so by Googling ___Arctic Methane Gas, ___ there are hundersd of world renound geologists who totally disagree with the things you write about the subject.
One is Michael J. Benton, who penned a recent book titled, ___ "When Life Nearly Died."___ That was when almost all life, (down to the bacterial level) ~Prof~, nearly died on Earth and he proclaimes it is about to re-occur when the Arctic methane Burps. Which is an th everge of burping BTW.
Sorry for the interupption there ~PROF ~. I do not believe what I wrote is "over alarming". If you or any think so, take the time to reasd up on the subject and become educated. Here ia one brief comment taken form one of hundreds of articles valible for free by googliong Arcit methane gas. This followin gpara was recently published in the LA Times.
Quote: ~KATHY WALTER ~ From The institute of Arctic Biology U of Alaska, wrote in the Journal of Nature, 2006 and in Philosophical Tranasactions of the Royal Society, that the melting of the Arctic Permafrost is a ___ "ticking time bomb".___ A global tragedy of momential proportions in now unfolding at the top of the world, and the human race is all but oblivious to what's happening.
I take it ~PROF~ that you are a member of the human race. ___Me too. ___ Are you oblivious as to what is happening? Apparently you are, but do not feel lonely there. Another world renouned scientist and a geologist stated, "unzipping the Arctic and ocean's methane will warm the Earth "tens of degrees" and the mechanism will be RAPID once it begins to unzip. Those are alarming words, but not my words ~Prof~.
BTW, I'm 72 ~PROF~ so I'm considered by a few to be an 'old man' also. I argree with your's and ~JONABARK's~ other comments and I believe we have to act swiftly to have a massive "world wide" program initiated to have totally clean energy and that is not nuclear energy in my opinion, it's a combination of solar, wind, Geo-thermal, wave and tidal energy plants. ___ We can do it.
These are MY opinions. We spend $TRILLIONS$ to wage unjust and unnecessary wars. We can have totally clean energy and have it in less than ten years if we had to do it, and for far less than a $trillion$ and create millions of good paying jobs to do it. ____ We have to do it. ___ We either do it, ___ or we die. The kids, the pets, and the wildlife die also.
~MIMICCS~ Where do you get the "FACT", that humanity contributes ONLY 3% of the Co2 in our atmposphere?
Perhaps burping, breathing and farting by humans, the 3% may be correct. The fossil fuels Humanity burns however, contributes most of the excess Co2 which is presently in our atmosphere. "Excess" is the key Word there bud.
Its all about balance. Fossil fuel use only adds a small amount of CO2, but humans don't remove ANY CO2. Photosynthsis does that, and its been in balance with respiration for millions of years.
Mimi would have to agree its quite a coincidence that the current upwards CO2 trend started with the industrial revolution and has accelerated exactly as fossil fuel use has grown. If the oceans have reached saturation and fossil fuel use continues as EIA claims, we could see the trend spiking above the present 2 ppm/year.
Hansen probably isn't going to get his projects and carbon tax. Its gonna hit the fan, and people will want to start playing with artifical aerosols and contrails to increase "global dimming", innoculation of phytoplankton, and crash nuclear power projects...
Planting new coral reefs is something people are already doing. Maybe thay can stay ahead of the bleaching. My great grandchildren will see our old Cape May house as they are snorkeling around a reef that was once found off the Florida Keys. Nah. Too much nitrogen in the water.
~elmysterio June 25th, 2008 4:27 pm~
Kem Patrick said: "At one time in the far distant past, planet Mars was just fine also. It's now a dead planet."
TOUCHE!
Just one question. If NASA's Pheonix mission is to determine whether there ever was life on Mars, where are you coming up with this "Martian Paradise" stuff?
What have you been watching,
"Abbott and Costello go to Mars"?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045468/
Do you wish to debate the issue of the Atctic's methane gas causing global warming like we never dreampt of ~KRBUCK~, or would you rather discusss my comment that Earth could become another Mars?
I NEVER wrote Mars was a paradise, or that humanity resided there. I said there is "strong evidence" Mars was ONCE a "water world" and it is now a DEAD planet. We don't know the cause of it's death. We don't hnow if humanity lived on Mars. We only know there is strong evidence that at one time, Mars was a water world liken to planet Earth and it is possible for a "water world" to become a dead planet.
We do know humanity can kill Earth and give ample scientifically proven reasons how to accomplish that. Life evolved here on Earth after the tiny plant life "phytoplankton" bloomed in our ocean's waters. Kill the phytoplankton and the atmosphere dies, when the atmosphere dies you have a dead planet.
Long before the atmosphere is litle but Co2, you will be dead, me too and everyone else. What are you attempting to prove with your childish, silly argumentative comments?
Here is a thiry second read worth reading on the issue, argue this link if you wish.
http://www.whyplankton.com
~KEM PATRICK June 26th, 2008 12:32 pm~
OK Kemmy, first, you obviously missed the sarcasm of the "Martian Paradise" line, so let's get a sense of humor. Second, we have a different view on how life began on our planet.
You say "Life evolved here on Earth after the tiny plant life "phytoplankton" bloomed in our ocean's waters."
As one who believes we were created and not evolved from a single cell, who do you know that was there to see it happen?
I'm sure you will probably say that I believe in some fairy tale or superstition but there is much more evidence for creation than evolution. It takes an awful lot of faith to take a scientist/philosopher's word on the subject than to believe that an Intelligent Designer put it together.
You say 'there is "strong evidence" Mars was ONCE a "water world" and it is now a DEAD planet.' What evidence? Someone you know have better evidence than NASA? I thought that's what NASA was looking for now.
I have to tell you, I feel like I'm in an alternative universe when reading some of these posts and hope you can understand why a lot of people think of this type of thinking as "fringe wacko".
Please understand that I am not trying to make myself out to be superior here and do find this interaction stimulating, enlightening and fun. We just look at this with from a different perspective and hopefully we can come to a better understanding of each others point of view.
Oh yeah and one more thing. Are we talking Methane or CO2? Methane is a naturally occurring swamp gas and I thought all plant life took in CO2. Shouldn't it be that the more CO2 we produce, the happier and healthier the grass and trees will be. (Kem, I'm being facetious again)
The article that started our discussion said, essentially, that we are the 11th hour, 59th minute and just a few seconds left to midnight and it brings me back to my point again. If we are out of time to reverse Global Warming, then this conversation is moot.
The general trend of the preceding posts is mostly concerned with convincing the other side that there is or is not a problem, that humans are or are not the cause of the problem. But that's it. There is no discussion of solutions, though. And that is what we really need to be doing.
Let's agree that the planet/humanity is facing several, very serious problems right now and that these problems will not be solved by the end of today or tomorrow or even the beginning/end of next year with a new president in the US, regardless of who that person will be. We can also agree that, ultimately, time is limited, whether that means we only have a small amount of time to live our personal lives or the larger picture of the time that humans have left in our civilization or time left on the planet. Perhaps we can also agree that these multiple problems are really different aspects of one big problem.
Before we can even begin to tackle the ultimate issue we face an obstacle in ourselves, humanity. The way I see it is thus: How do we galvanize the masses into seeing the big picture: that we all face a big problem and that we have only a limited amount of time to solve this problem. Our concerns about whether this or that group of people/scientists/report is right or wrong and trying to convince the other side of the truth of our position is really rather insignificant when viewed in relation to the big picture.
The problems, I think, are all connected. There is a food crisis/shortage in the world. It's manifesting in the US as inflation, elsewhere as there simply is no food. There is an energy crisis. To some, it is the price of gas/oil is too high. To others, it is the dependence on fossil fuels. There is a problem with the worldwide environment. Some see this as global warming brought on by humans, others a natural cycle of the sun or planet. They are all related, intimately. Ultimately, it no longer matters who or what is responsible for the problem anymore, whether that is speculators, dependence on foreign oil, dependence on fossil fuels, the production of more bio-fuels... It doesn't matter. There is a problem and the real question is, what are we going to do about it? We can agree that we are able to at least bring some influence to bear on the problem, whether that means solving it entirely or at least mitigating the final outcome. It doesn't matter which side is right, whether this or that scientist is supported by the government or industry...
It's a problem we are all going to have to solve for ourselves and for each other. And we can only solve this problem together, cooperatively. Having only one person or country apply a solution only to themselves is not sufficient. The weather doesn't recognize international borders, famine and disease don't care whether this person is Asian or African or descended from western Europe, and death comes to us all, be it in combat or quietly in bed. The saying in Chaos Theory, that a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo and because of that there is rain in New York applies. It's all connected.
There is a problem and there is an obstacle in front of it. How do we turn the discussion from who is right or wrong, who or what is the cause to what do we do about all humans and the planet we live on?
Hi there ~KRBUCK~ I didn't miss the sarcasm ~BUCKYYY~, I didn't see the necessity of it for such a serious subject, and I at times use sarcasm to put someone down off of their high horse. Did you think I was on a high horse? My opinons are not important, I offered the opinions of highly qualifed scientists.
I didn't say life began with the phytoplankton in our ocean's, ~BUCKY~, ~NASA~ scientists among many others did. Do you have an argument with the link about phytoplankton I offered? If so, precicely what is your argument about it? Please do give us ALL some more of your incredible wisdom on that issue.
You believe we were created, I have no problem with your believing that; what does that have to do with the subject? Life on Earth is not just human life, the phytoplankton created the breathable atmosphere for animal life as we know it, so that other later arriving life forms could breathe oxygen when they arrrived, or evolved, or were created. ____ Ya got that BUCKY-AROO~?
Many scientists who have studied the universe, and Mars in particular, strongly believe that Mars was once a "water world". They and the NASA scientists are not positive, nor have they proven that theory and they therefore are attempting to prove it one way or the other. You deride me in a sarcastic manner for stating what they have stated, which is "belittleing" me and you know it. ___ What's your point?
You then write, "Oh yeah, one more thing, are we talking Methane or Co2 ?" ___ Where have you been ~Buck~?
Evidently you have a serious reading disability ~BUCKY~ and you're writing over your head here on this subject. You should stick to "attempted" humor and sarcasm. We were discussing both Co2 and methane smarty pants.
There presently is an excess amount of Co2 in our atmosphere and that has caused a Greenhose effect for the planet and global warming is the result. Global warming in turn will cause 400 gigatons of the Arctic's methane gas to release into the atmosphere, which will cause even much greater global warming. It's termed 'FEEDBACK'. Methane is 25% more potent as a Greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
The release of millions of tons of methane into our atmosphere, will insure the end of almost all, if not all life on this here planet.
Now if you wish to argue that ~BUCKAROO~, offer some facts and links to back up your words.
Here, for a starter ARGUE this link, a ten year old with an average IQ can easily understand it. This is only one of hundreds of Arctic lakes which are now spewing out methane, which is not the same as normal releases of swamp gas.
http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/09/26
BTW, ~KRBUCK~ I enjoy fun debates also, but I never start the rude comments. I often reply to them in kind.
Hi ~DAVID PEACE 2002~ I read in your first paragraph that you read the comments and then say there has been no discussion to solutions to the problem. You didn't read all of my posts, or if you did you failed to comprehend the words. Then what solutions have you offered?
I have written this many times here at Common Dreams and again here on this link.
We humans must have a world-wide effort to develop a program to have totally clean energy and stop burning coal for starters. It can be done, we do have the funds if we stop using our funds to initiate unjust wars and occupations of other countries, etc. ___ Check it out.
Kem Patrick, in response to your reply the statement you made "eleminate ALL life on this water world, down to the microbal level" is still far too extreme.
As I said some microbial life will do very well. You can google thermophiles or read http://www.resa.net/nasa/otherextreme.htm.
Life is extraordinarily resiliant.
BTW "When life nearly Died" has a catchy title to promote the book and is a good read but ignores thermophiles and archaebacteria bacteria capable of living in mineral rich deep ocean volcanic vents. Such micro-organisms have been the dominant life forms for most of the Earth's history of life.
Dr. Hansen, on the chance that this was not covered in your presentations may I inquire about the following:
Will planetary plate tectonics play a part in the post-tipping point temp/CO2 spike defeat/reversals as shown on the IPCC ice core data chart? Do I notice correctly that seismic activity has picked up along plate boundaries (USGS) over the last few years? Will melt water move to the equatorial bulge changing the earth's angular momentum, thus tweaking the plates? Will Greenland tend to rise as the weight of the ice is decreased, perhaps cracking the mid-Atlantic ridge like an egg, loosing lava flow, flash-heating ocean water and killing the thermo-halene conveyor? Does mid-Atlantic ridge magnetic striping offer any evidence of that occurring in previous cycles? Have you noticed any patterns of weather organising at 40-90d N&S in ways that portend how the tipping point scenario might unfold?
Aside; may I share an insight from "Black Elk Speaks" which I just re-read? In his descriptions of ancient rituals he speaks of the cardinal direction North as "where the great white giant lives". A hint (?) that an ice age begins at the top of the temp/CO2 spike? And that grande glaciers descend from the poles, stopping at about 35N and melting back and forth, even as mean temp drops from increased(?) albedo, exposing more earth, which warms the planet creating the conditions for the bloom of organic life that we, (and others? Atlantis/Lemuria??), experienced in the last 10ky of each of these cycles? Has our death-dance with hydro-carbons driven GHG beyond historical norms and boosted our cycle to a level which, unlike the others, is unsurvivable, even by nomadic tribes existing in close harmony with Nature? (answered above, I see)
Risking advice, I would from this point on, not blow any more resources on trying to convince people to believe the data. We should begin building (an ARK!!...oops, wrong story) regional survival network shells (outside of govt and business-as-usual) that can be filled out into functioning survivalunits once the first of the local, non-subtle, undenyable manifestations of environmental collapse appear (5 yrs?). Something like a big chunk of the Greenland ice cap cracking off and making a slushrun for its east coast with the ensuing tsunami zeroing the low countries and triggering that weakened island in the Azores(?) to splash and send its tsunami over to Hilton Head during the Halliburton Open golf tournament. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that we don't want the government or business in on this--- they'd just slow us down and try to profit from the effort.
I would love to leave my email for a reply, but will not, for the usual reasons, until 1/21/2009. I hope some treatment of the above questions might appear in this column sometime.
Thanks for your service to humanity.
Cheers. Snydly.
~PROF~, do you honestly believe that your sensless argument about how many deep sea bacteria may survive is of primary importance to the issue? What is your point to do so, when the major issue is, if we HUMANS don't work to stop polluting our atmosphere with Co2, we MAY kill all life on this planet.
Now would you have preferred and been happy, if I had used the words, "ALMOST ALL LIFE may be eliminated on Earth when the Ocean's methane gas burps out into the atmosphere as it has done previously and some depo sea bacteria may survive"? Some rodents and insects MAY survive. ___ So what? Our younger generatios may ask and they may also ask, what are we adults doing to prevent a disaster?
I wrote, ALL life, "down to"" the microbal level to save word usage. I did not believe it was necessary to go one with a lengthy discourse, that some bacteria may not die off. I did not go on and write that there may be bacteria alive on Mars. I did not do so, because I didn't think there would be any sensible person here, who would argue such a mundane and unimprotant point.
Is the fact that some bacteria may survive really that important to you ~PROF~? Indeed, it may be important millions or billions of years into the future for some other "intelligent" life, which may arrive here on Earth and find it is a healthy planet, because some phytoplankton and other bacteria survived a long ago disaster.
What is important to me ~PROF~, is our next generations of humans and animal life and what will transpire in the next twenty to fifty years.
BTW ~PROF~, since you bought it up for some obstinate reason, "When Life Nearly Died" indeed is a catchy title to a very good book. It is also an excellent educational book written by a world renouned geologist and he tells of how ALL life on Earth NEARLY died and the same situation is about to transpire once again due to mankind's stupidity. He didn't go into detail about all of the bacterial life which did survive. He wrote, "when life NEARLY died" and it is likely the publisher wrote the book's title, ___ they usually do.
So again what is your point to attempt to detract from the primary issue? Are you attempting to show others that I'm an idiot or a doomsayer? It isn't my opinions I gave here ~Prof~, let's hear some arguments about the facts of the issue, unless you just wish to argue.
Read the new article about the Arctic melting on Today's Common Dream's edition. Argue that one denyers.