According to this morning’s NY TIMES, the first Federal report on the effects of the growth in greenhouse gases on the planet will be released today. Available on the net at http://www.nacc.usgcrp.gov
The report estimates the potential effects of further warming by using a “business as usual” assumption, in which CO2 levels continue to grow at the rate of recent years. At this pace, the average temperature in the U.S. would rise five to ten degrees over the next century.
The report cites some “benefits” of continued warming, including “rising yields and falling prices for food crops and timber.”
Um. Am I being an alarmist here, or can we look forward to “Global Warming is GOOD BUSINESS” ads from the gummint, especially if Business Boy Bush gets into the White House?
My feeling has always been one of “You fuck the environment, the environment will fuck you right back.” But this smacks to me of “We’re screwing up the planet, and it will be a GOOD thing.” Can we expect to see this sort of propaganda, do you think?
That kind of propoganda is already out there. I find it to be a oversimplistic mentality. CO2 = plantfood, therefore, more CO2 = more plants = good. If we don’t first cut down all the trees, then perhaps there would be a brief growth period resulting from higher CO2 levels. But our species is adapted to a certain environment. If that goes, we may too. Either way, it’s an uncontrolled experiment with an uncertain outcome and global consequences.
All I want is the Pacific Ocean to rise just enough to get over the hill and end at my doorstep. Then I’ll have beachfront property without all the trouble that Lex Luthor wanted to go to (atomic bombs in the San Andreas fault.)
The largest problem is that people don’t want to pay the price to fix the problem. Note the howling about gas prices, recently. Rather than purchase a more efficient vehicle, they whine about the price - but keep buying bigger SUVs. They want somebody to Do Something, but they keep doing what they want, when they want, how they want.
Ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. There are three basic options:
Slow down combustion to the point the biosphere can handle the CO2 produced. (Fat Chance)
Capture the bulk of CO2 at the point of production and sequester it artificially. (Yeah Right) (For details, see the February 2000 issue of Scientific American)
Put up with the greenhouse effects. (Are You Nuts?)
Option 1 would drive prices through the roof. The lion’s share of our energy (including electric) is provided through combustion. That is because it has the lowest immeadiate cost. Alternate sources will be more expensive. (Won’t bother you with my Nuclear Phobia Is Stupid rant)
Option 2 would be nearly as expensive as option 1. Plus it still has the uncertainties of a large scale, irreversable experiment.
Option 3 has already been addressed.
The NIMBY effect prevails. Only this time, when you see the effects in the back yard, it’s going to be too late to fix. Hope I already have a condo on the L4 Habitat when this thing comes home to roost.
(Eh Gad! I sound like a tree hugger, here! I’m usually a good little Republican, honest.)
Does this government report (no I haven’t read it) PROVE that global warming exists? I do agree that pouring all the gases in to the atmoshpere is not a good idea, but can someone prove that higher temperatures are caused by this? Records have not been kept long enough to determine if human activity is causing raising temps, or if they are due to long term (read geological) effects that we don’t yet know about?
The only evidence I’ve seen for industrially-caused global warming was what I saw on a Nova/Frontline special on PBS. There were two pieces of strongly-presented evidence:
By using old weather reports, short ice cores, and a number of other methods, we have determined that the global average temperature in the last half century has been 1/2 a degree Celsius higher than at any other time in the last 1000 years. We do not have reliable data for average temperatures more than 1000 years ago.
By using deeper ice cores, we have determined that global atmospheric CO2 levels are now higher than they have been in the last 450,000 years. We do not have reliable data for atmospheric CO2 levels more than 450,000 years ago.
So global atmospheric CO2 levels are higher, and global average temperatures are higher. This correlation does not necessarily mean that the higher CO2 levels have caused the higher temperatures, but it’s damn good circumstantial evidence – assuming our methods for determining historical CO2 levels/average temperatures are reliable.
Incidentally, if higher CO2 levels do trigger more vigorous plant growth, all the newly-growing plants will suck up some of this excess CO2 and thereby help to moderate the atmospheric CO2 level.
What we really need is some good data on CO2 levels in the Cretaceous. The Age of the Dinosaurs apparently boasted significantly higher global average temperatures than what we have today, as well as lush plant growth. If high CO2 levels were responsible for this warm period, then we already have a model for what a globally-warmed Earth might look like.
I think I saw that same Nova episode you mentioned (or something similar), and one experiment had found that increased plant growth will mitigate CO2 levels for a while, but the plants eventually reach a carbon saturation point and can’t absorb any more.
adam yax…from what I heard on NPR about that report is that it did not prove that global warming is occurring, but instead, it’s goal was to try to figure out what would happen regionally assuming that global warming is a fact. The study used a couple of the more reliable computer models that show global warming trends, and they assumed the current trend (e.g., current production of CO2) would continue.
Scientific American did an article on this in either the april or May issue. THe conclusion was that no scientificly sound conclusion can be drawn regarding the cause of global warming. The article stated that this is what VP Gore’s top scientific advisors told hi…and he chose to ignore. Evidence on the polar Ice shelf suggests that the change in global climat is actually cyclical.
Let us not forget that we currently have a Vice President who is running for president and who has already dran a conclusion regarding this hot political issue.
Let us also not forget that many scientists were convinced that we were facing another ice age onlt 20 years ago:
Furthermore, let us not forget that Schneider is now calling out warnings about global warming.
Actually, I have a textbook right here (Environmental Chemistry by Colin Baird) that has a graph (reprinted from Chemical and Engineering News) of global average air temperature over time, representing the last 1000 years. It shows about a 250 year period from about 1100 AD to about 1350 AD where the global average air temperature was HIGHER than it was when the book was printed (1995 – basically now on this large of a scale).
Also of note… it shows that the average rate of temperature increase has been the same since about 1675. I’m no history buff, but I don’t think that the internal combustion engine was very popular in 1675. Taking that into account, I would say that the circumstantial evidence for the higher CO2 levels causing higher temperatures is actually pretty crappy.
Unless you have a spare Earth handy to use as a control group, that’s the only kind of data we’re likely to get.
True, a lot of the research surrounding the issue is biased or contradictory. That doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to conclude that there is no issue. Inconclusive doesn’t mean insignificant.
What are you arguing here? Sometimes scientists are wrong. Politicians are not motivaed by pureness of heart. True and true. Does that mean that any related issue is immediately rendered moot. We wouldn’t have much left to talk about. What’s the worst that could happen here? We’ll think about more efficient energy use? Why would that be so distasteful?
ICe cream sales are increasing this summer. Drowning deaths are increasing at the same rate. They also decrease as sales go down on certain days. There may be no correlation, but just to be safe, we should put a high tax and strict controls on ice cream. After all, there * may be a correlation*.
Should we create expensive national programs, increased gas taxes, expensive controls on energy, restrictions on where you can build your house, just because Gore has decided to ignore the facts and created a national panic over some threat that could very well not exist?
You sound remarkably like Dr. Schneider, whom I quoted above. Here is another gem, and one that I think you are agreeing with:
By the way, one does not need an apocalypse to encourage efficient energy use or lower pollution. Both have improved steadily since 1970.
Minor nitpick: We did have an apocalypse of sorts in 1973, when OPEC instituted its big international oil embargo. Before 1973, no American cared how fuel efficient his car was, so long as his gas tank was big enough; for a decade or so after 1973, high EPA gas mileage ratings were advertised proudly for new cars that had them.
Hmmm, I don’t know if I’d trust records of average air temperature from 1000 years ago. Where are these records kept and what units are they measured in?
