When it comes to global warming, however, this is precisely why we’re headed off a cliff, why the Copenhagen talks that open this week, almost no matter what happens, will be a disaster. Because climate change is not like any other issue we’ve ever dealt with. Because the adversary here is not Republicans, or socialists, or deficits, or taxes, or misogyny, or racism, or any of the problems we normally face—adversaries that can change over time, or be worn down, or disproved, or cast off. The adversary here is physics.
Physics has set an immutable bottom line on life as we know it on this planet. For two years now, we’ve been aware of just what that bottom line is: the NASA team headed by James Hansen gave it to us first. Any value for carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible “with the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” That bottom line won’t change: above 350 and, sooner or later, the ice caps melt, sea levels rise, hydrological cycles are thrown off kilter, and so on.
And here’s the thing: physics doesn’t just impose a bottom line, it imposes a time limit. This is like no other challenge we face because every year we don’t deal with it, it gets much, much worse, and then, at a certain point, it becomes insoluble—because, for instance, thawing permafrost in the Arctic releases so much methane into the atmosphere that we’re never able to get back into the safe zone. Even if, at that point, the U.S. Congress and the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee were to ban all cars and power plants, it would be too late.
Oh, and the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is already at 390 parts per million, even as the amount of methane in the atmosphere has been spiking in the last two years. In other words, we’re over the edge already. We’re no longer capable of “preventing” global warming, only (maybe) preventing it on such a large scale that it takes down all our civilizations.
From a longish piece by Bill McKibben, The physics of Copenhagen: Why politics-as-usual may mean the end of civilization.
To repeat, “not compatible ‘with the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.’”
Whether Washington rode in a boat or walked across ice or walked on the damn river doesn’t matter. Whether polar bears are dying or thriving doesn’t matter. Whether all the pines in Colorado are dying doesn’t matter.
We’re fucking with the atmosphere and that fact is undeniable.
Un-de-ni-able.
I completely agree with your bottom line. It is undeniable that we’re messing with the atmosphere.
Since the end of the ‘little ice age’ (about 1900) the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased about 30% from 269 to 350 ppm.
We can do one of two things: 1) Reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. or 2) Do nothing.
All of the remedies for global warming involve reducing CO2 levels. If we reduce the level to less than 269 ppm in 100 years we could reduce the temperature to less than that of 1900. If humanity can really change the weather we can revisit the ‘little ice age’.
If, on the other hand, we do nothing extra about CO2 emissions what will happen? By example of the 1900s we can assume that the CO2 level will rise to 385 ppm after 100 years. We could expect warming equal to that that happened from 1900 to 2000. Does anyone know what that was?
I don’t.
I think that the first thing we should do is find honest numbers for actual earth temperatures. This is NOT an easy project. Most of the earth’s surface is water. Satellite measurements are not enough because they don’t measure deeply enough specially in water.
Ephraim, let’s imagine you drove up to your house and you heard a funny crackling noise, smelled something burning and saw billowing clouds of black smoke coming off the roof.
Would you call the fire department? Or would you turn on your computer and start Googling ways to tell if a house is on fire? Would you wait until you were 100% sure? If you did, you would lose any chance of saving anything.
What is the downside to being proactive? The only one I can think of is having to admit you were/are wrong. Which is a pretty crappy excuse for torching the planet.
CO2 is already 390 ppm.
So Ephraim, you’re afraid we may make it too cold for our tender little 21st century selves if we mess with the CO2 in the atmosphere. You doubt the temperatures have gone up, but you fear we can make them go down. Climate is only fragile in one direction?
Why do the overwhelming preponderance of learned people who have studied this matter think it’s a civilization threatening scenario? What’s their agenda?
And what’s yours?
My interest in global warming grew when I first noticed that the blogs I visit were talking about the process that the warming alarmists were using to bolster their view. With study it soon became clear to me that there was very little science involved and even less scientific method. So, to me, the whole thing didn’t even pass the smell test. The “scientists” who were on the ‘chicken little’ side refused to publish their raw data and their model’s source code. As we learned more about the details of their work the smell got even more redolent.
As far as my agenda, what is anyone’s agenda? I don’t stand to make or lose money either way. I think I’m telling the truth. I think other people on this blog are misguided. Certainly, I believe that the reasons for warming or cooling should be studied with a view to the threat to society. We should wait till we know the threat before we take action of any kind, though.