Civilization's last chance. Global Warming running out of control?

international | environment | other press

Tuesday May 13, 2008 19:15

by Terence

The planet is nearing a tipping point on climate change, and it gets much worse, fast.

This article from the LA Times by Bill McKibben presents the case that the situation with the Earth's environment is far worse than has been admitted so far and he reports on the latest scientific paper from climate scientist James Hansen which in the opening paragraph he says:

"if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."

This in fact is a very important statement because most governments and other organizations are aiming for a level of 450 ppm and with the current level of in-action they will greatly exceed that.

In the paper by Hansen it is clear that the effects of climate change have kicked in much stronger than anticipated and that we are already in a very dangerous situation.

McKibben in his article, writing to a US audience, but just as applicable here, makes the case that collectively we have complete underestimated this thing and our token actions aren't near enough. He calls this our last chance and echoing Hansen says what is needed is a Marshall plan of sorts and to put the whole economy on the equivalent of a war footing in order to solve this problem.

Here's some quotes from the article:

Hansen cites six irreversible tipping points -- massive sea level rise and huge changes in rainfall patterns, among them -- that we'll pass if we don't get back down to 350 soon; and the first of them, judging by last summer's insane melt of Arctic ice, may already be behind us.

This last point is significant, because the summer melt in 2007 resulted in almost 50% of the Arctic Ice disappearing. At this rate the North Pole will be ice free in probably less than 5 years..

Not only that CO-2 emissions are not slowing down, instead they are accelerating!

...In this case, though, it's worse than that because we're not taking the pill and we are stomping on the gas -- hard. Instead of slowing down, we're pouring on the coal, quite literally. Two weeks ago came the news that atmospheric carbon dioxide had jumped 2.4 parts per million last year -- two decades ago, it was going up barely half that fast.

Even more dramatic is the report that methane levels are rising again. They had fallen recently. Methane is 20 times more potent than C0-2, although it is shorter lived in the atmosphere. One of the feared feedbacks (of scientists) that the trapped methane might be released and cause a rapid positive feedback, looks like it may actually be happening.... ..think the size of the tundra regions in Canada and Siberia ....

And suddenly the news arrives that the amount of methane, another potent greenhouse gas accumulating in the atmosphere, has unexpectedly begun to soar as well. It appears that we've managed to warm the far north enough to start melting huge patches of permafrost, and massive quantities of methane trapped beneath it have begun to bubble forth.

And yet more quotes:

His phrase was: "if we wish to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed." A planet with billions of people living near those oh-so-floodable coastlines. A planet with ever-more vulnerable forests. (A beetle, encouraged by warmer temperatures, has already managed to kill 10 times more trees than in any previous infestation across the northern reaches of Canada this year. This means far more carbon heading for the atmosphere and apparently dooms Canada's efforts to comply with the Kyoto protocol, which was already in doubt because of its decision to start producing oil for the U.S. from Alberta's tar sands.)

We're the ones who kicked the warming off; now the planet is starting to take over the job. Melt all that Arctic ice, for instance, and suddenly the nice white shield that reflected 80% of incoming solar radiation back into space has turned to blue water that absorbs 80% of the sun's heat. Such feedbacks are beyond history, though not in the sense that Francis Fukuyama had in mind.

So it would seem that climate scientists all along had been far too reticent in their predictions and it was probably because in the back of their minds they were fearing their own jobs. Indeed the White House & NASA attempted to censure James Hansen but luckily for us, he is far too well known for them to reign him in.

The full article is at the URL in the related link.
See also: (1st Oct 2007) Arctic Sea Ice Shatters All Previous Record Lows
http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/2007....html

save preference

Comments (7 of 7)

Re: Human impact on climate change is overstated

Tue Nov 04, 2008 21:31

Overstated? The big difference now compared to any climate change in the distant past is that human numbers were only a few millions and most of the Earth was one big intact wilderness area. Animals could easily move and humans too.

Now we have 6+ billion and any faltering production of the highly optimised agriculture could lead to food shortages for millions. Not only that most of the wilderness areas of the Earth are now gone or badly degraded. There is no possibility for animals and plants to quickly adopt. The prime agriculture areas of the Earth could quickly dry out. What then for feeding 6+ billion?

We should also take account of the fact that there are tens to hundreds of millions of people living in coastal cities that would be threatened. Many of the worlds oil refineries, chemical plants and nuclear power stations are at sea level near coasts. These would be affected. Having to deal with the cost of the loss of major infrastructure would also be a massive burden The economy would quite literally cease to function and every country that could would be hoarding resources.

The various countries of the world have through trading all kinds of resources allowed things that are scare in one area and a limiting factor there to be traded and the same vice aversa. So Arab oil producing countries support their populations that are far in excess of the carrying capacity of their largely desert areas sell oil for food. Likewise we in Europe, export food and machinery for oil. There are thousands of such swaps. If these trades are seriously curtailed then the carrying capacity for each of those regions which was artificaly raised by trade is reduced again. In short there would be chaos.

These are only some of the effects. There would be many others. And if the methane that lies at the bottom of the Arctic and in the Canadian and Siberia thundra is released. then all bets are off, because temperatures could easily soar 6+ degrees globally. That would be terminal as far as civilisation is concerned.

So there is simply no comparison to previous warmings or floods.

Correction

by ecologist

Thu May 15, 2008 01:53

Jim said "The reality is that rotting organic matter in wet lands and jungles and the oceans produce more greenhouse gases than all human industrial activity combined."

It is true that both these habitats contain huge amounts of greenhouse gases including methane which is actually 17 times a stronger global warming gas than CO2. However it is the activities of mankind who by systematically destroying these habitats through rampant deforestation and drainage, that are releasing these harmfull greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That is why rainforest such as the Amazon play such an important part in the regulation of the earths climate by acting as a store or sink for billions of tonnnes of these greenhouse gases which would otherwise pollute the atmosphere.

PS A few degrees warming does indeed make a huge difference on a global scale eg. a few degrees cooling would plunge Ireland back into another iceage

A Passing Comment

by Mr Man

Wed May 14, 2008 14:43

Hmm.. On the one hand I'm worried, on the other I'm thinking that maybe global catastrophe will cut back on global population levels which I find more concerning than global warming. It also means I won't have to bother to instigate nuclear war between India Pakistan and China.

What difference are a few degrees going to do anyway?

by Jim

Wed May 14, 2008 14:22

We keep hearing that millions of people will be forced to flee natural disasters, that farming land will turn to dust, that the sun will roast people alive, that the seas will rise up and sweep us all away, that plagues of mosquitos will descend on temperate Europe and that we will run out of oil and gas and starve to death in our hundreds of millions or blow each other to hell fighting over the scraps???

For thousands of pestilence, famine, war, storms and natural disasters have decimated the human race. Entire civilisations have been erradicated by climate change time and time and time again.
None of this is new.

I gotta tell you guys climate change scares the hell out of me. It's terrible. Maybe its the natural world on its own or maybe it is us who are responsible. I'm not a scientist. I'm not sure either way. I don't know.

Most of all I can't do a hell of a lot except recycle my newspapers, plastics, metal, turn off the TV when I'm not using it, turn the lights off at night and plant a few shrubs etc.

But some parts of the world especially continental Asia and North America experience extremes of heat and cold.

There are parts of the world where the temperature is in the high thirties at the height of summer and -40 degrees in the depths of winter.

How is a few degress either way going to make any difference?

Hundreds of millions of people perish every year from one disaster or another, famine, war, poverty.

How are a few million more victims going to make the slightest difference to the consciences of Western Europe or America or China which is going through the great economic expansion in human history?

What?

by the digger

Wed May 14, 2008 13:42

>Graham Hancock, a respected archaeologist<

Arf!

Eric Von Daniken wannabe.

BTW, agree wholeheartedly with the previous poster. Try Nigel Lawson's excellent critique of the gloabl warming propoganda.

All part of a culture of having something for the masses to fear: when the cold war thawed, something needed to fill the void to control the sheep.

Too hot ... too cold ... too hot ... etc, etc, etc

by Robert O'Coillean

Wed May 14, 2008 13:24

I just love the Global Warming game. Watching the media jump on anything shiny is like watching a kitten with a string. "Oooo!" they said in the 1920s, "We're all going to freeze to death!" "Yikes!" they cried in the late 1930s, "Hottest climate since 1776 - we're done for now!" Then it was "Brrrrr! We're all going to freeze in the next few years under glaciers of ice!" in the 1970s (good grief! I remember that one!) In fact, Earth Day was thought up in 1970 because of all the fears mankind had brought on global freezing and we had to do something to warm up the world. (Hey! Could this current global warming be the successful result of Earth Day's push to warm things up?! Gee Whiz!)

And now we have Al Gore marching back and forth on the street corner with his poster boards that say: "Repent! The end is near!"

Balderdash! Yes, I said it - balderdash! This planet was built (i.e. created, designed) with a self-regulation system. It's called climate! It gets warmer, then cooler, then warmer. Ever notice that, when your house seems colder in the winter, the thermostat kicks on and it gets warmer? Then the thermostat kicks off the heater and it gets cooler, until the heater kicks on again. TA-DA! Global warming/cooling in a microcosm.

Slow down. Breathe in and out. Go sit under a tree. That will help global warming more than all the running around an fussing of Gore's disciples. In other words, chill out!

In the 1970s, the ice was growing too fast!

Even the unshakeable CIA was scared of a global freeze!

Human impact on climate change is overstated

Wed May 14, 2008 09:27

It serves the interest of the ruling elite to create moral panic, feelings of guilt and blind obedience to exercise their control.

This role was fulfilled by Christianity in the past.

The masses were told that the Black Death was the result of the moral backsliding which provoked God's wrath.

Today were are being told that our modern industrial societies were to blame and will recieve Gaia's retribution.

In the past the Hebrews gave up burnt offerings to satiate the angry and jealousy of Yahweh.

Today to repent for our carbon footprint we must pay lip service to environment peities.

The reality is that rotting organic matter in wet lands and jungles and the oceans produce more greenhouse gases than all human industrial activity combined.

It is true that we are experiencing a period of warming that is unprecedent in recorded human history or in the record of climate change analysed in ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years.

Our impact in this crises is minimal at best.

But based on the flawed models produced by these group thinking scientists the process is unstoppable anyway.

The cyclone in Burma demonstrates the future ahead when the rising oceans breach the flood barriers.

Is this the end for humanity?

Graham Hancock, a respected archaeologist, theorises that rising oceans in the past flooded vast tracts of the earth surface flooding entire coastal civilisations giving rise to the various flood myths that feature in practically every world religion.

The biblical myth of Noah is now believed to be based on cataclysmic event tens of thousands of years ago when the Atlantic breached the barrier at Gibralter and flooded the Mediterranean basin and the breach the Bosphorous flooding the plain that is now the Black Sea.

We are now merely experiencing another shift.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Voltaire Network

Civilization's last chance. Global Warming running out of control?

Comments (7 of 7)