Not just in some hypothetical distant future, but now. Story here.
Issues for debate:
How much longer is denial on this issue going to persist?!
What, if anything, can we (collectively) do about the problem, at this point?
How, if at all, can we (individually) prepare to deal with the consequences? (Tangentially related to this thread. 
)
Check out this chilling map with updated plant zone information.
You’ll need to fight my ignorance and explain what a “zone change” is.
Natural fluctuations in insolation. Besides, I am sure that the Aggies used computers in their study but didn’t test their computers with an X-K-Red-27 approved technique. Oh, and they probably voted for Gore, so they are just a bunch of scare mongers who are trying to get rich sucking on the public teat. At least that is what I heard from this scientist (actually psychiatrist, but it is a doctoral degree from a very prestigious university) who doesn’t work for the government* and thus has nothing to gain and is impartial.
Now that that is out of the way:
As long as possible, which in my cynical view of the American populace, will be until it is impossible to deny. I.e., when you have either wear oven mitts to garden or you need a boat to commute from DC to Boston.
Probably not too much. First of all there is too much carbon in the pipeline. Second of all, you can’t stop the economy of the world. At least you can’t stop it without having a major war. It might be possible to do some climate engineering (say injecting large quantities of particulates into the upper atmosphere), but it is very questionable any of the tactics would work and could easily make everything worse or have unintended consequences. But, on the bright side, I will probably be able to grow citrus in the next couple of years.
Not sure. I would think it is very dependent on where you live. For me, I have been thinking of building a cistern…
*He works for SAPI, the Saudi-American Petroleum Institute, a non-partisan, right wing, Christian think tank founded by the Fox News (in order to evaluate the scientific evidence for global climate change in a fair and balanced manner) and funded by the Rove foundation.
Rove Foundation?!
Does anyone think it’s possible that the seemingly increasing incidence and severity of tornados is related to the climactic changes?
You may want to download the report now before the White House make it “go away.”
Dunno, but I’m sure they’ll be along shortly, as soon as they get their talking points in order.
NVM. Found the link at the bottom that explains Hardiness Zones.
I dunno. Since McCain is now talking green and sounding the AGW alarm, the WH might find it expedient to STFU with any contrary message.
Humor. It is a…difficult concept.
Hardiness Zone: a practical tool for detemining roughly what sort of plant you can grow where. The changes on that map mean that according to several associations whose main political focus is on helping others grow plants, you can now grow the same plant around 100 miles further north on average than you could 15 years ago, if I’m reading the map right.
Sorry for the mini hijack, but this is relevant since it is another mostly non political organization offering practical advice.
Thanks. I see that now. But this tool is incomplete, it seems to me.
Plants are sensitive to a few more things than just temperature.
Water availability, and soil chemistry, for example.
Southern California is semi-arid, with loose-ish soil. I don’t think you could transplant some of those Florida species without a lot of tender loving care. (Or can you? I’m dubious, anyway.)
You are begging the question here. I would say that denial will gradually fade (but never completely disappear) as more data comes in. I’m unsure if this report constitutes real data or not to be honest.
Nothing. If you believe the article many of the factors are already locked in…so, again if you believe the article we are looking at long term effects. Even if we stopped producing CO2 tomorrow (something that isn’t going to happen), we would have to live with the situation as it is.
I’m unsure what people think we COULD do in the short term at this point that wouldn’t be a major disruption to society. Are we going to stop using energy? No. Could we switch to some alternative for a significant portion of our energy in the short term? No. The technology isn’t ready for wide scale use…or it’s politically not feasible for us to ramp up quickly in the short term (for something like nuclear). Could we sequester the CO2 or build new, more efficient power plants? Sure…but how long would it take and how much would it cost? My guess…years and a lot. Could we stop driving cars? No. Could we switch a significant portion of our personal transport to mass transit? Sure…in the long term if we are willing to commit huge resources to it.
There are no short term silver bullet solutions…and if you believe the article we are stuck with what we have now in any case for the foreseeable future. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t be pursuing alternatives and better efficiency…I think we should and are doing that already. But I don’t see how the government could wave it’s magic wand and ‘fix’ things…no matter who becomes president. I expect that at the end of Obama’s term we’ll still be driving ICE vehicles burning hydrocarbon fuels and still have most of the same power infrastructure in place burning coal…though I expect we will be moving away from that technology and toward more carbon neutral technologies. But then, I expect that if by some miracle McCain becomes president we’ll be doing the same sorts of things and moving in the same sort of direction…since we already seem to be moving that way with Bush in office.
According to the article there is no way to predict exactly what will happen to the various ecosystems…so no real way to prepare. I suppose the best way to prepare is simply to ensure that organizations like FEMA actually function as they are supposed to, that we don’t bankrupt the government and thus have sufficient funds to meet various contingencies…and to see what happens. What more could we do that isn’t being done…and is actually possible to do?
Just a few basic questions from the article for my own information if anyone (like maybe jshore or one of those guys):
I’m curious about this part. What data are they using that shows more frequent forest fires…and over what time frame? Same with the reduced snowpack and increased drought data. I was looking over a chart a few days ago talking about drought in the South West and it seemed to show that the current drought is part of a cycle that has happened many times in the last century. Some of the droughts in like California looked to be worst in the past as well. So…does anyone have some data on this? Maybe a chart showing drought data for the past century in the South West?
I know that last year the monsoons were kind of limp, at least here in New Mexico…but the year before that we had (IIRC) a pretty wet year…one of the wettest on record (again, from memory). Now, that’s just one small region…but I’d really like to see some data on why they think THIS drought is worse than those in the past, and why it’s tied to GW/climate change.
-XT
Until the alarmists make interesting and testable predictions which generally come true.
Let’s suppose that the snowpack significantly increases over the next few years. Would that seriously undermine the alarmists’ position?
What about drought - if precipitation in the American West increases significantly over the next few years, would that significantly undermine the alarmists’ position?
Or will they say something like this:
Indeed.
Aaaaagh!! It Burns!!
It is possible, but the evidence for this (both that such changes are in fact occurring and that such changes would be expected to occur as a result of global warming) is currently lacking. Here is a recent attempt to look at trends, admittedly not peer-reviewed but written by a pretty smart blogger. He doesn’t find any trends that can’t be attributable to changes in reporting of tornadoes. The latest IPCC report supports this, saying in the Summary for Policymakers, “There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the global ocean or in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust-storms.”
As for the future predictions part, I couldn’t find anything in the current IPCC report, but the previous report from 2001 said: “For some other extreme phenomena, many of which may have important impacts on the environment and society, there is currently insufficient information to assess recent trends, and climate models currently lack the spatial detail required to make confident projections. For example, very small-scale phenomena, such as thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail and lightning, are not simulated in climate models.” As far as I know, this statement would still hold true today…i.e., namely that it is very difficult to predict the trends of something on such a small scale with a global climate model. In fact, even considerably larger scale phenomena like hurricanes are presenting a considerable challenge for the models.
[This, by the way, presents a counterexample to the claim sometimes made by the “skeptics” that the climate scientists are unwilling to say “I don’t know” when they are unsure. In this case, the climate scientists really do feel the data and theoretical foundation are currently insufficient and hence are saying exactly that.]
Let’s stop pretending that the reason for the controversy has to do with defects in the science. If it were the case that good enough science would preclude controversy of this sort, there would be no controversy about evolution, or do you believe that theory doesn’t make “interesting and testable predictions” either? The controversy has to do with the fact that the scientific conclusions go against strong ideological beliefs…and strong economic interests…and those economic interests are happy to support those with the strong ideological beliefs to keep the controversy going. (And, no doubt, some of those with the strong ideological beliefs are happy to keep the controversy going even without financial support.)
Lol. The classic alarmist fallback position - attack the motivations, not the argument.
Not really. Which is a real problem with evolutionary theory. What saves evolutionary theory is that (1) it’s simple; (2) it’s powerful in it’s ability to explain observations of the natural world; and (3) there are no serious competing hypotheses.
The same cannot be said about CAGW.
Which is precisely what this thread is about. Who are you characterizing as an alarmist here?
They (and the ones that give you practical plant-planting advice,) aren’t known as chicken littles. To try to dismiss them as alarmist is even more wrong than to believe every word they say on their authority. They have no vested interest in GCC being true. If they are incorrect they will lose respect.
