NASA Official says, "CO2 emissions must be controlled within 10 years."

Great Debates
1

Pretty disturbing stuff.According to Jim Hansen, the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the icecaps in Greenland are melting far, far faster than previous global warming models had predicted.

He says that twice as much ice is melting per year than it was even five years ago, when most climatologists considered the Greenland Ice Sheet stable. He predicts that sea level change will become an issue very, very soon, and that if we don’t cut greenhouse emissions drastically within the next decade, then we could see the climate being as much as a degree warmer…and if that happens, he predicts the icecaps will disintegrate, freeing massive amounts of cold water (and as an afterthought, might this not shut down the globally-important Gulf Stream “pump?”)

Thoughts? Are we that close to a sci-fi dystopian cataclysm scenario, or is he blowing hot air?

2

Also, Hansen specifically says:

So is there a concerted effort by the US government to cover up or play down the actual consequences of greenhouse gases?

3

But what does that have to do with gay marriage? :rolleyes:

4

Er, huh?

5

There can no longer be any doubt that Global Warming is real. But now we face the question of what we should do.

Does it make more sense at this point to cut back on greenhouse gases, or to invest in sandbags? More money on one means less for the other. Can we cut back on greenhouse gases enough (and quickly enough) to moderate the global warming effect over the next (say) fifty years? Or are we simply screwed?

That is to say, can disaster be averted if we cut back on CO-2 emissions now? If not, then we ought to not even bother trying and use our limited resources addressing the effect, moving people, rebuilding ports and so on.

Oddly I have not seen any discussion on the proper balance between these two options.

6

The flaw in your reasoning is assuming things won’t get even worse than presently projected if we do nothing. I doubt disaster can be averted, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make it worse by spewing out even more CO-2 while “putting up sandbags”. Which would be of limited use, since you can’t outrun global famine and ecological collapse.

The First Rule of Holes comes to mind : When you’re at the bottom of a hole, stop digging.

7

It is possible that the present effect is from CO2 released long ago. It is possible that no reasonable cuts in pollution now would have an effect for a long, long time. Perhaps we are too far along the path to turn back.

If any of those ideas are true, we would be wasting time and resources cutting emissions (which will have no effect) rather than buying sandbags and lots of mops. Sandbags will save lives now. Cutting pollution (might, in a worse case scenario) help thirty years from now.

We must set priorities. Trying to do everything at once is a prescription for not doing any one thing very well.

8

If we are that close to the edge (first I’ve heard from a reputable source that we ARE in fact this close) then basically nothing we do will avert disaster…whatever that turns out to be. IIRC though wasn’t Greenland pretty much ice free when the Vikings first attempted to settle it? If so…well, was it a disaster? How close are we to the warming trend before the little ice age struck in the middle ages? Again, I seem to recall that the mean temperature was as high or higher than now…didn’t they grow grapes in England during this period for instance?

I’m always skeptical of this gloom and doom stuff…especially when scientist friends of mine (granted, not climate specialists) seem to find the ‘science’ so wanting of data. I’m sure the usual crowd will be along promptly with all the facts and figures and scientific consensus showing that global climatic change is inevitable…and that its all humans fault and that only by some unspecified amount of cutting back (perhaps going back to the caves) will we avert disaster, etc etc.

(Note: I don’t discount that global climatic change is happening during our time. I just don’t think we have the data OR the science or models to make accurate predictions nor to chart a course that would so disrupt both our economy and society)

-XT

9

Good point. We should also stop trying to find cure for AIDs because it is using up resources that could be used to find a cure for malaria.

10

Well you set the priorities then. “Doing everything at once” is not setting priorities.

11

Paul, imagine if you will that there is a fire at an oil refinery. Which do you do, shut down the valves that are spilling more oil onto the fire, or evacuate the people, or call for the fire engines with appropriate flame retardants? Set a priority.

12

Fire the newsmen reporting on the refinery fire.

13

I believe the current admin approach is more like the way I deal with my smoke detector when it goes off annoyingly–take out the battery, then you can sleep through the night…

14

Looking through the thread, I can’t find a single instance of anyone suggesting “Do everything at once.” In fact, I don’t even know what this means.

Could you please explain what “doing everything at once” actually entails? Also, I’d appreciate a link or a cite, or a list of people who have proposed such an approach.

Thanks in advance.
Bizz

15

you are seeking intellectual honesty from repug shills? Get with child a mandrake root…

16

Stick with the subject matter.

If you want to address the political side of this debate, I’d appreciate a few sources. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m an ecological scientist, and in matters of environmentalism, I tend to lean decidedly to the left (although not extremely so. I think ELF are thugs that must be stopped, for instance.)

Like most scientists, I have no idea what to think about this. There doesn’t seem to be any question about whether the earth is warming anymore, but are we the cause? Is it a natural cycle? If we are the cause can we do anything to stop it? Is it, as Beyond the Limits hypothesizes, far too late, and even if we stopped putting out greenhouse gases RIGHT NOW, ecological consequences will still be horrendous?

One of the more reasonable hypotheses I’ve heard, and IMO one of the more depressing, is that, despite the fact that total human output of CO[sub]2[/sub] is far less than natural sources, the carbon cycle was at a natural equilibrium, and even a relatively small input of CO[sub]2[/sub] forces the system to find a new equilibrium, with all the disastrous consequences that may entail.

Thoughts?

You’re trivializing the degree of projected sea level rise. The linked article states that the last time the earth was 3 degrees warmer - a realistic prediction for the relatively near future at this point, according to his analysis, the ocean was 25 meters higher. This means that major coastal cities will be inundated possibly up to 7 or 8 stories deep. No number of sandbags or other stopgap measures will help keep, say, New York, London, Hong Kong, Sydney, Los Angeles, or Boston from being completely unliveable.

In addition, one of my major concerns is the impact a huge amount of icy water could have on the vital Gulf Stream ocean current climatological “pump.” This would be absolutely disastrous. Read more here, under “Shutdown of thermohaline circulation,” about halfway down the page.

17

Smother the fire with the bodies of environMENTALists. There isn’t a single type of power plant that isn’t pounced on by the ELF patrol… We should be building nuclear power plants, hydroelectric dams and wind farms where they’re best suited. I don’t want to hear any more crap about spent nuclear fuel, fish that don’t like dams or birds that don’t like windmills. Make them as environmental friendly as is financially practical and let nature takes it’s course.

In Ohio we just ended the $10/car per year E-check because it was pointless waist of time. It consisted of people in urban areas driving to a station to have their car checked for pollution. Well that sounds nice on paper however…

  • It didn’t involve non-urban areas as if cars didn’t pollute in rural areas.
  • The trip itself represented an unnecessary drive, which contributed to pollution.
  • It involved mostly cars with computer controlled engines that adjusted fuel burn on a second-by-second basis - cars built from 2000 on are checked by verifying the engine check light is not on.

If the same money (call it a tax) was levied on everyone in the state we could transfer that money in the form of grants to power plants to clean them up. Same amount of money comes out of everyone’s pocket but it is actually used to clean up the environment.

Since I’m on a rant - There is no excuse for a planet full of politically stable nations not to pool their scientific resources (people) to construct innovative machines that pollute on a significantly reduced level. We, as citizens pay taxes to governments who in turn fund colleges who do research. Obviously we’re already doing this but I don’t get the warm/fuzzies that I’m getting my money’s worth. I just watched a news clip about some high school kids that built a 50 mpg sports car that did 0-60 in less than 5 seconds. Great!!! Where’s my local university with the plans to convert my Saturn/Escort/Civic/(pick your econobox) to something that gets 50 mpg. I’m ready, I’ve got my tool box open…… I can buy parts all day long to build a 500 hp car but I don’t see any practical kits to build a 50 mph car. Tough to do.

18

I agree with all your proposed alternative sources of energy (especially nuclear…the technology has come a long way since the '70’s,) except hydroelectric dams. The price in biodiversity that’s paid for hydroelectricity is horrendous. There should be far fewer hydroelectric dams.

19

That’s what the durn scientists are for. Build step dams that make fish so frickin happy we have an overbreeding problem. Or as I like to call it, lunch. There are certainly rivers where fish and dams are compatable. Put the 2 together and give the beavers in my area a break. Some places do better with windmills, some places with nuclear plants. Hell, there are multiple designes for wave powered generators at sea.

20

I get your point, but if only it were that simple. The fish might be OK (or maybe not, since fish ladders have never been shown to actually work, but for the sake of this conversation…,) but what about the endemic mussels that depend on shallow, clean shoals, or the snails, or the stoneflies, or the vegetation, etc.? I’m posting from the Tennessee River Valley, btw, which is both famous and notorious for its lakes and hydroelectric dams. Notorious, in part, because the Tennessee River is also the center of biodiversity in freshwater mussels, some of which were never even studied properly, and several species have been driven extinct here, which has caused ugly cascade effects within the Tennessee River ecosystems which endanger the whole structure of it (see also: watermilfoil, European.)