[Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism & Replicatability

[Ted Moffett]

Joe et. al.

I think you are misstating the current status of global warming, and the
impacts coming in the next few decades.  The real problems have started.
And children born today (not grandchildren or beyond) should expect to
witness dramatic effects from global warming.  Actually, right now, in the
Arctic, they are.  And relocation of the current generation on some low
lying islands due to climate change impacts is already upon us:

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1206-unep.html

Details of the scheme were unveiled at a meeting organized by the United
Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) polar centre, GRID Arendal in Norway.


The meeting called 'Many Small Voices is building bridges between vulnerable
Arctic communities and those of small island developing states.

The meeting takes place today (6 December) during the 11th Conference of the
Parties to the United Nations climate convention in Montreal, Canada.

Klaus Toepfer, UNEP's Executive Director, said: "The peoples of the Arctic
and the small islands of this world face many of the same threats as a
result of climbing global temperatures the most acute of which is the
devastation of their entire ways of life".
---------------------
Drowning or dying of heat prostration, as Paul wrote, due to human induced
global warming, might already be happening for a few people (in 2003 a
record heat wave killed many in Europe, and some think the full intensity of
Hurricane Katrina, which drowned hundreds, was linked to global warming).
But this hyperbolic language does not help the discussion.  Most people on
Earth are not at risk of this extreme consequence from global warming.
Starvation (it's hard to avoid hyperbolic language) from climate related
disruptions in food production would be a more likely consequence, in poor
nations.

Shifting agriculture to northern latitudes that have warmed may offset some
agricultural loses from climate change.  But simple physics indicates that
though they may be warmer, the solar energy in northern latitudes is less
than closer to the equator, setting limits on total food production in these
areas compared to their current locations for certain traditional staple
crops.  This might be addressed by genetic engineering of crops, suggested
by the Stern Report as a measure to create drought or flood resistant
plants, or engineering or substituting crops with a shorter growing season
for northern latitudes.

One of the most certain effects of global warming will be ocean rise, which
will remake the world's coastlines.  Oceans will rise not only from melting
ice but expansion from rising water temperature.  But most everyone will
relocate, not drown, we can assume?  Certain low lying populated islands are
already planning to relocate their populations.  The economic costs of this
world wide, though, are staggering, one variable that weakens the long term
economic argument that the costs of lowering emissions are not worth the
economic benefits.

As global warming's impacts are already dramatically impacting humans in the
Arctic, with the lifestyle of the native peoples, their children's way of
life, being disrupted tragically, the effects of global warming are
accelerating, and within 50-70 years, much more severe effects will be much
more widespread.  The current climate trends in the Arctic are thus a
warning to the whole planet, that should be heeded.

Children born today, even if we dramatically reduce emissions, will live to
witness extreme effects from global warming (unless we extreme engineer our
way out of the problem very quickly), just from the current carbon loading
of the atmosphere, now at about 430 ppm CO2 (I have found conflicting
figures, but all significantly above the 380 ppm figure from about a decade
ago)

As has been pointed out over and over, poor nations, with limited resources
to cope, will be hit the hardest.  As the richest nation on Earth, most in
the US may be able to maintain a "reasonable" standard of living, as global
warming changes the planet, though I do not state this as a reason to
continue our status as far and away the world's leader in per capita CO2
emissions.  This is irresponsible in the extreme, as we indulge our wealthy
lifestyle, jeopardizing the welfare of humans globally.

I think there is an understandable disbelief among many that the
predictions regarding global warming are based on the sober estimates of a
consensus of the world's climate scientists, who if anything are
conservative in their work.  The predictions are so incredible, it is
reasonable to assume they must be from "alarmists" or "extremists" or those
seeking financial or political gain from scare tactics.

However, though no doubt there are many interests, both financial and
political, who will exploit global warming for their own ulterior purposes,
an objective dispassionate assessment of the work of the world's climate
scientists indicates we are facing a very serious crisis, with every decade
of emissions based on business as usual increasing the severity of the
problem.

Consider that every car on the Palouse emits 11450 lbs, and every light
truck, 16035 lbs, of CO2, on average, annually.  It disappears into
"oblivion" yet it is changing the world's climate:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/f00013.htm

----------

I would be pleased to discover the scientific consensus on the dangers of
climate change to be mostly false, though It would be one of the greatest
failures of the scientific community in history.

>From the Stern Report:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Independent_Reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm


Stabilising gases at 450 ppm, seen likely as avoiding the most dangerous
effects, was "already almost out of reach".

The costs of extreme weather alone could be 0.5 to 1 percent of global Gross
Domestic Product by 2050.

Warming of 3 or 4C will result in many millions more people being flooded.
By the middle of the century 200 million may be permanently displaced due to
rising sea levels, heavier floods and drought.
----------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_on_sc/climate_change

Tim Flannery told Australian Broadcasting Corp. that an upcoming report by
the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will contain new data
showing that the level of climate-changing gases in the atmosphere has
already reached critical levels.

Flannery is not a member of the IPCC, but said he based his comments on a
thorough review of the technical data included in the panel's three working
group reports published earlier this year.

Carola Traverso Saibante, spokeswoman for IPCC headquarters is in Geneva,
said she was unable to disclose what would be in the final report
synthesizing the data before it is released in November.

"What the report establishes is that the amount of greenhouse gas in the
atmosphere is already above the threshold that can potentially cause
dangerous climate change," Flannery told the broadcaster late Monday. "We
are already at great risk of dangerous climate change, that's what these
figures say. It's not next year or next decade, it's now."

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel called Tuesday for an international
system of global emissions trading to be adopted as part of an agreement to
flight climate change from 2012 onward.

Speaking at a symposium of Nobel laureates and other leading scientists,
Merkel insisted that only by establishing limits on carbon dioxide output
per individual around the world--suggesting about 2 tons per head — could
the fight to stop global warming be effective.

"Our long-term goal can only be the assimilation of worldwide per capita
emissions," Merkel told the conference.

Flannery said that the recent economic boom in China and India has helped to
accelerate the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, but strong growth in the developed world has also exacerbated
the problem.

"It's a worldwide issue. We've had growing economies everywhere, we're still
basing that economic activity on fossil fuels," he said. "The metabolism of
that economy is now on a collision course clearly with the metabolism of our
planet."
------------
Ted Moffett

On 10/21/07, Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> A few things.
>
> First, the folks who see the problem -- primarily scientists -- are not
> the folks
> who make the laws.
>
> Second, I don't think folks are suggesting that we'll see the kinds of
> effects
> you suggest in our lifetime. The climatologists I've talked to say it
> likely won't
> happen until our grandchildren, or their children, reach our age. It is
> hard to predict but what seems certain is that once the real problems
> start
> it will proceed at an exponential rate and we won't be able to do
> anything.
>
> This reminds me of the Crabtree debate about when we'll run out of water.
> Suppose it is 200 years, as Krauss suggests. How is that NOT a problem
> NOW?
> Do we have to wait until we are close to running out to do something about
> it?
> Likewise, you would be hard pressed to find a climatologist who does not
> believe that global warming is due, in part, to human behavior -- despite
> what
> Pat says. Why not do whatever we can NOW before it becomes a problem?
>
> Joe
>
> -----------------------------
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071022/6182559b/attachment-0001.html