Ground Control to Major Tom: Globe heating faster, do something now
Published February 15, 2009 @ 08:35AM PT
What if the cream of the world's astrophysicists, known to be sober individuals not given to extreme statements, gave a press conference tomorrow? And told the gathered reporters that they'd detected a fleet of alien warships out in space, on their way to Earth to destroy human civilization-- and that we had 10 years before they arrived?
We'd probably get to work right now on defending ourselves, right?
Well, we've gotten the equivalent signal on global warming, and while we don't have just 10 years to live, we've got about that much time (maybe less) to preserve a planet that's a pleasure to live upon. On Saturday, a well-respected climatologist told a gathering of colleagues and press in Chicago that pace and impact of climate change on the global environment are likely to be much faster than any recent research has anticipated.
"We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations," said Christopher Field, a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University.
With this information, there can't be any really valid excuses left to delay cleaning up our energy supply, weatherizing and retrofitting our buildings -- as well as overhauling building codes to require high energy-efficiency standards -- and transportation systems. Judging from some of the provisions in the economic stimulus plan on its way to the president's desk, we can merge our energy and transport goals to some extent with sparking the economy.
The reason the IPCC underestimated the pace of climate change, says Field, is that the recent research (including the IPCC report he helped prepare for publication in 2007) did not have access to the most recent data on greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. It turns out that from 2000 to 2007, these emissions were notably higher than the estimates used in the IPCC's report, already not a cheery read. They were higher largely because of the faster-than-anticipated growth of the developing economies of China and India, which rely largely on burning coal for energy.
"We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously in climate policy," Chris Field said on Saturday.
China and India have every right to expand their economies -- but US legislators and political leaders, running what's been until recently the world's largest greenhouse gas polluter -- have played a "China card" in rebuffing strong action to curb our own contributions to destabilizing the climate. Since China, as a developing nations, is not required to participate in the emissions curbs under the Kyoto treaty, why should the US risk its own economic health to do the same?
Happily, it looks like this won't be the operating philosophy of the Obama administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is making China Asian nations including China the destinations of her first diplomatic trip. "Climate change will figure high on Mrs. Clinton’s agenda in Beijing, where she said she would emphasize how the two countries must work together," reports The New York Times. "She plans to visit an energy-efficient power plant near Beijing that is a joint venture of General Electric and a Chinese partner."
At NYC's Asia Society on Friday, Clinton stated that the US has nothing to fear from a strong Chinese economy, and said she would not pursue the adversarial position of the Bush administration towards China.
Good. Faster-rising global temperatures are creating more powerful "feedback loops" that are intensifying global heating themselves, says Field:
- Higher temperatures are starting to melt the permafrost of the arctic, which stores 1 trillino tons of methane and carbon dioxide. Upwards of 10 percent of that carbon could be released into the atmosphere during the next 90 years, says Field.
- The rising heat is melting the Arctic ice cap, which would otherwise reflect sunlight back into space; instead they're being absorbed by the Arctic Ocean waters, which store the heat and contribute to higher surface temperatures.
- Evidence is mounting that the land and marine ecosystems that have historically soaked up carbon from the atmosphere are hitting their limits.
"We don't want to cross a critical threshold," Field said on Saturday, "where this massive release of carbon starts to run on autopilot."
Image:
"Although most of the deadly bushfires that ravaged Victoria in late January and early February 2009 burned in the area between Melbourne and Lake Eildon, devastation also came to more northern parts of the state. This false-color image from the Advanced Land Imager on NASA’s Earth Observing-1 satellite shows part of the 30,700-hectare (75,861-acre) Beechworth Fire—which killed at least two people according to ABC news reports—on February 10, 2009. Unburned vegetation is bright green, while burned areas are dark pink. The bright pink areas are often a sign of open flame in this type of image. The small town of Running Creek was threatened by the fire, but seems to have been spared; a burn scar brackets the town, but does not penetrate it." Source: NASA Earth Observatory
Share this Post
Related Posts
-
Follow the Money: Track Stimulus Spending on Energy, Science, more
-
The Daily Climate - October 9, 2008
-
Obama: "We are closing this carbon pollution loophole"
Comments (6)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Email



















We did do something. The stimulus plan. What a dilemma, on one hand we need economic recovery on the other hand that is exactly whats causing global warming. Growth and development all wrapped up in a little word called JOBS. Corporations fueled by consumption is the combustion that is fueling global warming. We can't have a strong growing economy and halt global warming. It's like saying we can stop a fire by pouring gas on it. Unfortunately global warming will have to mandate change by fire and ice because people won't sacrifice for it. Society forces to be consumers.
Posted by EQUINE ESCAPE RESCUE LTD on 02/16/2009 @ 03:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"We can't have a strong growing economy and halt global warming." I absolutely disagree.
In our CURRENT system and our CURRENT society, yes you are right. Our methods of stimulating growth and development are fatally flawed, and that is one of the main things we need to change. People seem to think that our current society cannot change; that we must deal with our problems only within our current systems. We seem to forget that the current "democratic" economic system is there at OUR discretion. It can be changed. And it must.
We must transition out of our outdated, narcisstic, gluttonous ways. Research sustainable development. If you Google the term there are over 23 million links, and there are dozens of books devoted to the topic. Growth and development do not have to be at odds with our ecosystems.
Posted by D W on 02/26/2009 @ 05:54PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
And scientists still seem to have problems conveying the urgency of the situation.
http://www.desmogblog.com/scientists-losing-war-words-over-climate-change
Maybe they should tell everyone that there's an alien threat. Asteroids, maybe. Anything at this point.
Posted by Natasha Chart on 02/18/2009 @ 02:27AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php
Posted by Geno Rossi on 02/18/2009 @ 10:36AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The problem isn't necessarily how to talk to skeptics. It's, if you head over to the link, a problem of the ways in which the qualifying language used by scientists translates to the general public.
From the article, when a scientist says something is "Very likely", they mean it has more than a 90 percent probability. But when IPCC statements including that term were given to a group of 223 volunteers to read ... "Participants tended to underestimate the certainty of the sentences. Three quarters of respondents thought "very likely" meant less than 90% certain, and nearly half thought "very likely" meant less than 66% certain."
The public thinks scientists are saying we've got a good chance of trouble, when scientists think they're saying that trouble is all but inevitable. This has to do with the way qualifying language is interpreted in general social situations as opposed to its necessity and ubiquity in scientific discussion and the discussion of test results.
Look at it this way ... If a politician spoke like a scientist, they'd never get elected to state legislature, because people would interpret constant qualifiers as wishy-washiness. It would seem like a character defect, insecurity, what have you, not like a sober assessment of the facts and humility in the face of imperfect knowledge. Politicians and media personalities are expected to have yes or no answers, even when everyone knows they're speculating. And that filters down to every aspect of life.
The perception of uncertainty encourages people to ignore you. The assertion of certainty, in this case, leaves a huge opening for actual skeptics to weasel the facts and raise even more doubts. Rock and a hard place, in some ways.
Posted by Natasha Chart on 02/18/2009 @ 05:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"The public thinks scientists are saying we've got a good chance of trouble, when scientists think they're saying that trouble is all but inevitable. This has to do with the way qualifying language is interpreted in general social situations as opposed to its necessity and ubiquity in scientific discussion and the discussion of test results."
This is definitely true, Natasha. And I think some of the responsibility also rests in the news professions, which are supposed to interpret the findings and opinions of experts for a general audience.
This is one arena where coverage of climate change in the popular press really fell down over the years, although to be fair, some of this was because of very successful PR efforts by the energy industry, that heightened the ambiguities beyond their actual scientific significance, and exploited the language divide between scientists and the public.
Posted by Emily Gertz on 02/23/2009 @ 08:28AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.