# NASA Official says, "CO2 emissions must be controlled within 10 years." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 18, 2006, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035 "2006-02-18T00:24:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/21 "2006-02-19T01:51:41Z")
I’d like to point out that studies have shown a _decrease_ in average temperatures over Greenland. [Cite](http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-15/trends.htm) > [@](#): > > In doing so, they discovered that “summer temperatures, which are most relevant to Greenland ice sheet melting rates, do not show any persistent increase during the last fifty years.” In fact, working with the two stations with the longest records (both over a century in length), they determined that coastal Greenland’s peak temperatures occurred between 1930 and 1940, and that the subsequent decrease in temperature was so substantial and sustained that current coastal temperatures “are about 1°C below their 1940 values.” [Cite](http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm) - a non-neutral source but with public-domain information ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/22 "2006-02-19T02:16:22Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > you are seeking intellectual honesty from repug shills? Get with child a mandrake root… Golly, gosh and shucks. I am impressed by the level of unwarranted personal attacks. I ask a serious question. Which is the best way to spend our limited resources in the situation we find ourselves? Every resource we spend on reducing pollution cannot be spent on remediation. How much should we do of each? A simple question. Is it more effective to reduce pollution or to buy sandbags? Which will save more lives and property? Or better yet which will yield the most results and when? I simply want to know. If you would like to resume name-calling, enjoy. I am asking a serious question and would really like to know your thoughts on the matter. Should you have any. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/23 "2006-02-19T03:53:20Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. The gases being released today start causing problems today, so lowering the release of the gases would have an immediate effect. But I’ve read that the gases currently in the atmosphere would continue to have an effect for fifty years. That said, don’t underestimate how bad the problem could become. Some scientists have theorized it’s possible for the atmosphere to jump to a new equilibrium - instead of normal temperatures ranging between zero and a hundred degrees (fahrenheit) it might achieve a new balance where normal temperatures vary between three hundred and four hundred degrees. Sandbags aren’t going to fix that. ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/24 "2006-02-19T04:25:30Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > Golly, gosh and shucks. I am impressed by the level of unwarranted personal attacks. I agree with you on the gratuitous name-calling; I was trying to be civil, but despite the recent outburst I would still ask that you address my question. > [@](#): > > I ask a serious question. Which is the best way to spend our limited resources in the situation we find ourselves? Every resource we spend on reducing pollution cannot be spent on remediation Why is this a zero-sum game? Who, exactly, decreed that it has to be one or the other, but not both? Why is it that we can spends billions and billions on an ill-concieved military adventure, but lack the resources to reduce greenhouse emissions and/or reduce energy consumption? How could the Japanese grow their economy in the-what, 1980’s- while simultaneously reducing per capita energy consumption? What law of physics are we contravening, exactly? Your arguments are basically logical falacies, except without the logic. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/25 "2006-02-19T05:57:45Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > you are seeking intellectual honesty from repug shills? **Moderator’s Warning:** **Alaricthegoth** , don’t refer to other posters in GD as “repug shills”. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/26 "2006-02-19T06:19:38Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > **Moderator’s Warning:** **Alaricthegoth** , don’t refer to other posters in GD as “repug shills”. In all fairness, I didn’t get the impression **Alaric** was referring to any specific posters. I thought he was talking about people in the general public. I might be wrong? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/27 "2006-02-19T06:32:15Z")
**athelas** , “global warming” is best actually referred to as “global climate change” which will, _on average_ be a global warming, but is more devastingly characterized by significant and rapid shifts in climate with much greater volatility of conditions and more swings away from any mean towards the extremes. Certain areas will be significantly cooler and others warmer, some wetter and some drier. But most areas will experience climates different than what their ecosystems and economies are adapted for. **Ogre** the evidence (reviewed in many past threads) is conclusive that anthropogenic emissions are certainly a significant part of what is going on. There is some debate as to how much of current global climate change is attributable to human activity. There is no debate that continued emission at our current rate will drastically exacerbate the situation and that decreasing our current levels of emissions will decrease the degree of change significantly. The debates among the experts are only about how likely it is to be how bad. Why do so may people seem to be so fixated on proving that all of current climate change is anthropogenic anyway? The fire that is approaching my imagined refinery may have been human caused or it may have been caused by a lightening strike. Who cares? I can still conclude that I better keep freely the flowing oil out of its way and get the fire trucks there pronto. **Paul** , my analogy stands despite the sillies made at its expense. You will have no choice but to abate when the time comes. Do you try to cut off the flow of fuel to the fire or do you say that you should conserve your energy to throw water at it? Is that really the choice? Or do you really have a situation where you know that you will have to waste more water if you do not try to shut down the valves now even as you prepare to deal with its consequences? ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/28 "2006-02-19T12:20:35Z")
I have no bone to pick with reducing output of greenhouse gases. If it would really help, it ought to be fairly easy to prove. But if we have a couple of billion (or as Doctor Evil would say) even a couple of million guilders to work on the problem, would those limited resources be spent on this or that? Every dollar we spend on reducing greenhouse emissions is one less dollar available for eight hundred dollar toilet seats. Each buck expended on sandbags means less money for clean needles for addicts. We cannot approach any problem by simply shoveling money on all possible courses of action. It as true of this issue as it is on school reform or any other problem. Sorry for taking the slam seriously. I failed to note it was **A the G** writing. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/29 "2006-02-19T20:47:16Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > IIRC though wasn’t Greenland pretty much ice free when the Vikings first attempted to settle it? If so…well, was it a disaster? No, Greenland was not ice-free. If it were, the oceans would have been about 7 meters higher than they are today (and there is no way that the glaciers there could have built back up to their current size in the limited amount of time). > [@](#): > > How close are we to the warming trend before the little ice age struck in the middle ages? The evidence from several climate proxy reconstructions is that by the late 20th century, we were warmer than we have been in at least the last 1000-2000 years in the Northern Hemisphere as a whole…and, of course, the temperatures are expected to continue to rise. (Data is still too sparse in the Southern Hemisphere.) Even if we were to stop emitting all CO2 tomorrow, the temperature would go up another ~0.5 C because the climate system is not yet in equilibrium with the current greenhouse gas levels, as studies of the structure of the heating in the oceans have recently demonstrated. > [@](#): > > 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? Well, when you look on more regional scales, you do see larger variations. However, I have never understood how this statement about grapes in England, even if true, is supposed to prove anything. They grow grapes here in the Finger Lakes region of New York State and I can guarantee you that the general climate is colder than in England (the winters are much colder although the summers may be hotter). > [@](#): > > (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) Well, it seems like the National Academy of Science of the U.S. and 10 other countries disagrees with you. [They say](http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf): > [@](#): > > The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. > > Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognises, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. This is not to say that we know all the details yet, but we know enough to know that it is foolhardy just to continue on a business-as-usual path. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/30 "2006-02-19T21:26:11Z")
> [@Argent Towers](#): > > In all fairness, I didn’t get the impression **Alaric** was referring to any specific posters. I thought he was talking about people in the general public. I might be wrong? in the spirit of \*“re-education”, I must confess that altho I had incontemplation the wide and varid catalog of administration shills on the board, that particular shout-out to John Donne was responsive to Biz’s rejoinder to partner Paul, to whom I apologize if , indeed, he is not a republican. (If he IS a republican, while chastened and silenced, I do not apologize) \*Lest I incur further discipline for comparing the board administrators to Mao Tse Tung, let me assure them that he is high among my heroes, (quelle surprise…) and therefore the reference to re-education should be taken as ironic and not perjorative… ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/31 "2006-02-19T21:51:54Z")
> [@](#): > > “global warming” is best actually referred to as “global climate change” which will, on average be a global warming, but is more devastingly characterized by significant and rapid shifts in climate with much greater volatility of conditions and more swings away from any mean towards the extremes. Yes, but the assertion is being made that the increased rate of glacier melting is due to manmade global warming. The fact that atmospheric temperatures (the ones first affected by greenhouse gases) have decreased seem to show that this is not a result of global warming. It is possible that geological processes or other unknown factors are involved, but this evidence suggests that there is another factor at work. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/32 "2006-02-19T22:37:30Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > If we are that close to the edge (first I’ve heard from a reputable source that we ARE in fact this close) [Here are some more sources](http://www.stabilisation2005.com/biographies.html). In precis, the salient points in summary of the recent British government’s DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affaris) climate change conference is as follows: > [@](#): > > Compared with the TAR [a 2001 report] there is greater clarity and reduced uncertainty about the impacts > of climate change across a wide range of systems, sectors and societies. In many cases > the risks are more serious than previously thought. > … > The impacts of climate change are already being observed in a variety of sectors > Ecosystems are already showing the effects of climate change. Changes to polar ice and > glaciers and rainfall regimes have already occurred. While consistent with model > projections the links to anthropogenic climate change need to be investigated further. > … > The IEA World Energy Outlook 2004 predicts that CO2 emissions will increase by 63% over > 2002 levels by 2030. This is generally consistent with the IPCC emission scenarios, > published in 2000. This means that the world will, in the absence of urgent and strenuous > mitigation actions in the next 20 years, almost certainly be committed to a temperature rise > of between about 0.5 C and 2 C relative to today by 2050. > … > Major investment is needed now in both mitigation and adaptation. The first is essential to > minimise future impacts and the latter is essential to cope with impacts which cannot be > avoided in the near to medium term. Download the report and other supporting papers [here](http://www.stabilisation2005.com/outcomes.html). ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/33 "2006-02-19T22:41:54Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > 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. This is much more than a hypothesis. It is a scientific fact. While are emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are only a few percent of the total amount of CO2 that cycles in and out of the atmosphere each year, this cycle was indeed in equilibrium and our emissions have thrown it out of equilibrium. We are taking carbon that has long been locked away in fossil fuels and rapidly (at least on geologic timescales) liberating it into the atmosphere. So far, the rest of the carbon cycle has been able to adjust to take up about 1/2 of the fossil fuel emissions that are released, although there is some belief that some of the sinks will start to saturate. CO2 levels have risen from the pre-industrial baseline of ~280 ppm to ~380 ppm today. Ice core records show that this current level is higher than anything the earth has experienced in the last 700,000 years and the much sparser data we have on CO2 going back further than that suggests that it is the highest level in ~20 million years. (See [here](http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figts-10.htm) for CO2 levels on various timescales.) ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/34 "2006-02-19T22:49:48Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Yes, but the assertion is being made that the increased rate of glacier melting is due to manmade global warming. The fact that atmospheric temperatures (the ones first affected by greenhouse gases) have decreased seem to show that this is not a result of global warming. That is only claimed to be a fact, as far as I can tell, by clearly biased sources on this issue. Do you have some reputable summary of the literature that makes this claim? ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/35 "2006-02-19T23:06:12Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > That is only claimed to be a fact, as far as I can tell, by clearly biased sources on this issue. Do you have some reputable summary of the literature that makes this claim? fuck no he does not ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/36 "2006-02-19T23:26:40Z")
> [@bizzwire](#): > > 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. Yeah, but there’s no evidence that AIDs is too far along to stop. If scientists are making fact-supported claims that there’s nothing we can do to avert disaster, Paul is right, it would be folly to waste resources trying to avert disaster. If disaster cannot be averted then I’m guessing the plan has to change to just getting through it and adapting our lives to higher temperature and sea levels. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/37 "2006-02-19T23:32:24Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > The gases being released today start causing problems today, so lowering the release of the gases would have an immediate effect. But I’ve read that the gases currently in the atmosphere would continue to have an effect for fifty years. > > That said, don’t underestimate how bad the problem could become. Some scientists have theorized it’s possible for the atmosphere to jump to a new equilibrium - instead of normal temperatures ranging between zero and a hundred degrees (fahrenheit) it might achieve a new balance where normal temperatures vary between three hundred and four hundred degrees. Sandbags aren’t going to fix that. If that’st he case then I suggest we have the government start funneling money towards massive partying. There’s a principle in management that you don’t worry about the problems that you can’t fix. If people are showing us that we can’t fix an apocalypse then we can’t afford to worry about it. I also however find these doomsday scenarios unlikely. The earth has been through some pretty insane stuff in the past, including massive increases in greenhouse gas and being hit by enormous rocks from space. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/38 "2006-02-19T23:39:15Z")
- massive partying.\* at last a platform on which we can come together… ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/39 "2006-02-19T23:44:31Z")
In that case I nominate myself for the _Get loaded and have a good time_ committee. First proposal: a luau on a beach in Iceland. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035/40 "2006-02-19T23:47:57Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > In that case I nominate myself for the _Get loaded and have a good time_ committee. > > First proposal: a luau on a beach in Iceland. excellent. Shall we bring our own blondes, or can we simply rely on the plentiful local supply… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-official-says-co2-emissions-must-be-controlled-within-10-years/345035.md?page=3)