I disagree, and of course we’ll go round, and round, and round over this. All I can say is that the latest information shows that the globe has been cooling for the last few years and that climate change is a natural – not man-made – phenomenon. Anyway we’ve debated this to death.
Change is an issue. A stabilized climate really isn’t. It isn’t inherently better for Canada to be mostly uninhabitable, for instance. But it is costly to take everyone living in areas that are becoming uninhabitable and move them to the newly habitable areas of Canada.
In a sense, a stabilized ecology is a better outcome than having things revert–because then you have to shuffle everything back again.
wow, denial much?
i liken this to scientists telling us that over use of antibiotics will cause us major problems. this first was published in the 1950’s. it’s been ignored for that long and is now a fact. as a Ph.D virologist/scientist i was shocked to realize that people realized that back in the 50’s. so now it’s truly here to haunt us MRSA, Cdiff just name two. we now spend alot of time trying to pay for the fact that we didn’t listen to those people until now. So maybe i’m wrong. it may not be in 10 years, but rest assured it will happen.
More useable farm land would be created in countries like Canada.
Garbage.
Nope. Because here’s the translation of what the global warming fanatics (NOT that we don’t need resource conservation, a related, but separate and more sane issue) are screaming:
The Planet HAS to be SAVED!!! “They” need to come up with alternative energy sources!!! As if to keep on saying it will magically cause this mysterious, and yet ultimately responsible “they” to invent/innovate etc. the solution merely by repetition of the request for “them” to come up with it.
Resource and development of whatever natural, sustainable, green energy source that would please ALL of the people ALL of the time, isn’t possible to instantly pull out of thin air. And despite the fact that some oil companies are working on innovative solutions that are not based upon petroleum products at all, such as solar and wind power (BP for one). The problem is that so many people think the answer is that the oil companies have to do this. They’re basically in favor of requiring the manufacturers of oil based energy to come up with a product completely outside of their traditional product line, and one that would have to be completely created from whole cloth, and frantically insisting that they do it "NOW, before it’s too late,"and this is a more than a bit unrealistic.
It’s like asking McDonalds to help to fight the obesity epidemic by inventing a fat fighting pill, RIGHT NOW!!
It’s as if people believe that someone, somewhere out there (probably an oil company), really knows what the answer is, and already has this mystery answer to our green energy needs, but they’re keeping it secret out of spite.
“In time” for what?
In time to prevent directly-AGW-caused human misery? It’s already too late for that.
In time to prevent losing lots of valuable waterfront real estate? I don’t think so.
In time to prevent becoming a second Venus? Yes, I believe it won’t get to that.
First, we already have a solution; nuclear energy. Second, neither solar nor wind power is a practical solution, or will ever be. The rest of what you say is a non-sequitur, since a solution for climate change will work even if some people don’t like it.
I think it unlikely we could pull that off on purpose. It’s even more unlikely to happen by accident, even if we do nothing to try to stop climate change.
In answer to the OP, no, we won’t change in time to prevent it. We will adjust. The idea of a tipping point, where things go to hell overnight is mostly (IMO) a scare tactic to stop people from asking questions.
The planet gets warmer and wetter (overall). This is good for plant growth, so I doubt starvation from scarcity is going to be a big problem. Local flooding along coastlines could certainly be a problem, but it is hardly a new one. Sure, we’ll lose species, but that is also not a new problem, and I look to advances in genetic engineering to offset all the stuff about the rain forest and all the magic drugs we are losing and so on.
But the point about antibiotics is a good one. Yes, there are now antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Has this caused widespread deaths and destruction?
The difference is between changes, some of which are problematic, and the end of the world as we know it. We will likely have the first, but the second? I doubt it, even if we burn up the rest of our petroleum.
Regards,
Shodan
When I worked at the Science Museum a bunch of us were sitting around discussing what was going to be done about global warming. My response was “nothing.” This rather shocked everyone and they pointed out the overwhelming data indicating a problem and the need to take action. I said that was all irrelevant. People would rather not do any of those things and there is no shortage of soothsayers telling them that the scientists are either wrong or are lying.
That was more than ten years ago. The data scientists have accumulated since then is alarming and it matters not a bit. Today the world produces more CO2 than it did then.
Humanity will continue with its great experiment. What will happen if we put as much CO2 as we can into the atmosphere? As results of this unregulated experiment on the only atmosphere we have come in we will continue to ignore them.
I don’t have to wait ten days. The genocide in Darfur is caused by desertification; witch, in turn, is caused by global warming. In ten years, things may be the same for you; again, be thankful that you were born in the best armed, best fed country on Earth.
Don’t forget to take into account future technology.
With current technology stopping climate change would take a long time and a lot of sacrifice. With the stuff we might still come up, with it might not take much effort at all.
Viewed at the society level, not the personal level, we do things which make somebody money. If there was a way to profit from reducing CO2 emissions we would do it. If not, not.
CO2 emissions today are a classic case of privatising profit and socializing cost.That profit and cost is not just about so-called “greedy” oil companies; when I drive to work I get the benefit of a pleasant car, nice air conditioning, time savings, etc. You all get to breath my exhaust.
We’d need a way to turn that around before CO2 emissions will decline. And not a way based on Utopian legislation, but one based on hard economics. If I invented a gizmo which attached to your tailpipe to turn the CO2 into gold, then we might see some reduction. Absent that, no way.
As a global society we are simply incapable of making these kinds of decisions far enough ahead in time. Human gratification time horizons are a few years at most, and for most people most times, mere minutes. The time horizon to cause or prevent climate change tipping is measured in multiple decades, some of which are already behind us.
Our great-grandkids will live in a post-tipping, or busy-tipping-now world. That won’t be a total disaster, but it will be different, and it may be more difficult than life today. Oh well. Unless the metoer gets us all first.
I believe that eventually things will get Very Bad, & society will feel compelled to change, & this will make an eventual difference, but not one that say, saves more than 20% of present glaciers.
I think there will be some big changes in the environment, national economies etc and then globally people will get behind “change”.
Once there is a predominance of people that want change, then change wil happen.
The nearest three examples I can think of would be
- The space programme - America went from basically no space programme to landing a man on the moon in less than a decade because they were willing to spend whatever it took.
- The Manhattan project - again a case of huge strides as people were willing to dedicate massive resources
- Huge production capacity ramp-up for WW2
I don’t have the cites right now, but imagine if this same level of dedication went into engineering “clean” energy, or revamping the production process to cut down greenhouse gases. Or even scrubbing / sequestation devices?
Imagine if we found a way to take greenhouse gases out of the environment and turn them into construction materials for building dykes against rising sea levels.
Its like the old saying, neccessity is the mother of all invention. People just don’t see the neccesity yet.
No we will not. The powers that wants things to stay the same is too strong. We will fight global change in the political arena until it is too late.
Poppycock. First, we will not have an overnight disaster. Nobody is predicting that. Second, technology is naturally moving toward greater efficiencies. Third, if there were indications of impending disaster we could easily remove co2 from the atmosphere with off the shelf technology.
We wouldn’t have to suddenly drive vehicles powered by Ed Begley Junior’s self esteem.
Just a nitpick, but that desertification is not caused by anthropogenic global warming. The desert has been expanding since the end of the last ice age. 2000 years ago, North Africa was the breadbasket of the ancient world. Look at it now.