[Vision2020] Game Over for the Climate
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Thu May 10 18:30:36 PDT 2012
I must think differently than most people. When I see somebody say "The
world is going to end! We're all going to die! But, wait! I have a
PLAN!" I immediately become skeptical. Doesn't mean he's wrong, it
just means that I'm going to assume he's exaggerating for effect unless
I find out otherwise.
I don't have a lot of time tonight to go through this, but let's take a
quick look at the Pliocene era. Here's what James Hansen says:
"If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn
our conventional oil, gas and coal
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>
supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually
would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5
million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is
now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the
disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea
levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would
become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet's species would
be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk. "
So I did some quick research. The sources I found have the CO2 levels
somewhere between 350 and 400 ppm during this period, which we are
indeed just passing now. The odd thing is that the temperature during
the Pliocene was about 2-3C warmer than it is today, even at CO2 levels
equal to today's levels. This was back in the day when CO2 levels
followed temperature, by the way, since there were no evil humans
driving SUVs. This is a open question in geology, apparently. This is
actually good news, since the Earth did not accelerate into a hothouse
world due to positive feedbacks driven by the loss of the Arctic ice
pack (it hadn't yet formed, which is why the sea level was higher). In
fact, 2.5 Mya is the onset of the Pleistocene, during which the Earth
was slid into an Ice Age with short periods of warmth interspersed among
long periods of glaciation, the last one ending 15000 years ago or so.
The CO2 level during this period (the Pleistocene) fluctuated between
100 and 300 ppm. Only lately have they been as high as they are now
(~394 ppm). Given that fact, it makes me wonder if we don't need higher
CO2 levels to prevent us from slipping into another Ice Age, since these
same levels were not enough to stop the last one even though
temperatures were warmer than now, and the Arctic ice pack did not yet
exist.
As one of the premier climate scientists, I suspect that James Hansen
knows all this. My conclusion: he wanted to use the 50ft sea level rise
number as a scare tactic. Sea level rise, even at the worst estimate
provided by the IPCC, would take 4618 years to raise 50ft, by my
calculations (50ft = 15240 mm / 3.3 mm/yr = 4618 years).
Paul
On 05/10/2012 04:46 PM, Art Deco wrote:
> First, notice this is an OP/ED article.
>
> Second, notice that Hansen presents a lot of facts, then makes
> predictions on that basis.
>
> Hence, if you want to dispute his facts, do so.
>
> If you want to dispute the probability of his conclusions based on the
> facts presented or alternative facts, do so.
>
> However, he has a right, and perhaps even a moral obligation given the
> seriousness of his claim, to present warnings to the world.
>
> Scientists do what Hansen is doing all the time, and have been do so
> for a long time. The most common cases are about the consequences of
> using various prescription drugs, OTC drugs, and nutrients, medical
> devices, fillings, medical procedures, etc.
>
> All scientific theories are probabilistic, and therefore opinions --
> opinions hopefully based on probabilities based on careful research
> and reasoning. Scientific theories predict impacts on all of us.
> They ought be put into the market place of ideas for all of us to
> evaluate.
>
> "Leave the rest to politicians." Are you fucking out of your mind?
> Are you not aware of what egregious messes contemporary politicians
> have gotten us into, and how little regard they have for the truth and
> the overall well being of human kind?
>
> w.
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> I remember a day when scientists used to stick to the facts. They
> would say things like "we can't tell you what to do, but we can
> tell you that our analyses have shown that this and this and this
> are likely with this level of uncertainty". Nowadays, scientists
> are fricking political activists. They give their opinions in
> articles in Rolling Stone and charge big sums of money for
> speaking engagements at various venues, and get arrested for
> protesting oil pipelines.
>
> Can James Hansen show with scientific certainty that his plan
> would keep all the alarmist predictions of disaster at bay and
> then it would no longer be "game over"? What is the scientific
> definition of "game over"? Climate scientists need to, in my
> opinion, take back their scientific neutrality. Here's what we've
> found, here's what our degree of confidence is. Leave the rest to
> the politicians.
>
> It's statements like "the science of the situation is clear ---
> it's time for the politics to follow" that make me immediately
> skeptical of everything he says.
>
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com
> <mailto:art.deco.studios at gmail.com>>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 10, 2012 11:49 AM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Game Over for the Climate
>
> The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/>
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=cc8f29dd/870b4e4f&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787506c_nyt5&ad=BOSW_120x60_May4_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fbeastsofthesouthernwild>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> May 9, 2012
>
>
> Game Over for the Climate
>
>
> By JAMES HANSEN
>
> GLOBAL warming isn't a prediction. It is happening. That is why I
> was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama
> <http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/04/i-have-the-utmost-respect-for.html>
> in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/canada/index.html?inline=nyt-geo>
> would exploit the oil
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/oil-petroleum-and-gasoline/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>
> in its vast tar sands reserves "regardless of what we do."
> If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for
> the climate.
> Canada's tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen,
> contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil
> use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new
> oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and
> coal
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>
> supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
> eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era,
> more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50
> feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases
> would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would
> accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy
> coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable.
> Twenty to 50 percent of the planet's species would be driven to
> extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
> That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad
> enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States
> and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop
> semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in
> extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be
> incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl.
> California's Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food
> prices
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/food_prices/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>
> would rise to unprecedented levels.
> If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce
> emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to
> deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which
> Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage
> economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in
> the ground.
> The global warming
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>
> signal is now louder than the noise of random weather, as I
> predicted would happen by now in the journal Science in 1981.
> Extremely hot summers have increased noticeably. We can say with
> high confidence that the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia,
> and the one in Europe in 2003, which killed tens of thousands,
> were not natural events --- they were caused by human-induced
> climate change.
> We have known since the 1800s that carbon dioxide traps heat in
> the atmosphere. The right amount keeps the climate conducive to
> human life. But add too much, as we are doing now, and
> temperatures will inevitably rise too high. This is not the result
> of natural variability, as some argue. The earth is currently in
> the part of its long-term orbit cycle where temperatures would
> normally be cooling. But they are rising --- and it's because we
> are forcing them higher with fossil fuel emissions.
> The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen
> from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years.
> The tar sands contain enough carbon --- 240 gigatons --- to add
> 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in
> the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of
> carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding
> ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope
> of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. --- a level that
> would, as earth's history shows, leave our children a climate
> system that is out of their control.
> We need to start reducing emissions significantly, not create new
> ways to increase them. We should impose a gradually rising carbon
> fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, then distribute 100
> percent of the collections to all Americans on a per-capita basis
> every month. The government would not get a penny. This
> market-based approach would stimulate innovation, jobs and
> economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick
> winners or losers. Most Americans, except the heaviest energy
> users, would get more back than they paid in increased prices. Not
> only that, the reduction in oil use resulting from the carbon
> price would be nearly six times as great as the oil supply from
> the proposed pipeline from Canada, rendering the pipeline
> superfluous, according to economic models driven by a slowly
> rising carbon price.
> But instead of placing a rising fee on carbon emissions to make
> fossil fuels pay their true costs, leveling the energy playing
> field, the world's governments are forcing the public to subsidize
> fossil fuels with hundreds of billions of dollars per year. This
> encourages a frantic stampede to extract every fossil fuel through
> mountaintop removal, longwall mining, hydraulic fracturing, tar
> sands and tar shale extraction, and deep ocean and Arctic drilling.
> President Obama speaks of a "planet in peril," but he does not
> provide the leadership needed to change the world's course. Our
> leaders must speak candidly to the public --- which yearns for
> open, honest discussion --- explaining that our continued
> technological leadership and economic well-being demand a reasoned
> change of our energy course. History has shown that the American
> public can rise to the challenge, but leadership is essential.
> The science of the situation is clear --- it's time for the
> politics to follow. This is a plan that can unify conservatives
> and liberals, environmentalists and business. Every major national
> science academy in the world has reported that global warming is
> real, caused mostly by humans, and requires urgent action. The
> cost of acting goes far higher the longer we wait --- we can't
> wait any longer to avoid the worst and be judged immoral by coming
> generations.
> James Hansen <http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html> directs
> the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is the author of
> "Storms of My Grandchildren."
>
>
> Room for Debate: Should Churches Get Tax Breaks?
> <http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/09/should-churches-get-tax-breaks?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com <mailto:art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com <mailto:art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120510/090aebc7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list