2012 is the Year the Public Awoke to the C in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming)...
There's a new flavor of Climate Change denial. It goes something like this:
Sure there's Global Warming. And sure it's partly man-made. But with a little ingenuity we can solve this thing and continue our American Lifestyles.
Were that it so. The truth is that the damage done to date is almost certainly irreversible (at least in human time scales) and to prevent turning this planet into a living hellhole for our children, we're going to have to make radical changes to our economic and political systems and were going to have to radically change our lifestyles. And we have precious little time to do these things before Climate Change take on a life of it's own and becomes completely unsolvable.
There will be more to say in a few months when we're all less entwined with the election, but know this: solving this problem is engaging the finest minds on the planet and it's a snotter. There are no easy answers.
THAT"S the straight-up truth.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I don't doubt that a few skeptics may have indeed taken this line of thinking. However, though, what I've consistently noticed, and what you seem to completely fail to realize, is that the good majority of anti-AGW leaning skeptics who DO finally acknowledge that climate change is a reality, this is usually the kind of stuff they'll say:
"Okay, so global warming may be man-made. So what? We can't do anything about it, it is irreversible. All we can do is adapt. Deal with it."
Rex Tillerson, anyone?)
"Who gives a shit if the planet's warming, and if mankind is the problem? "
"The planet may be warming, but what can we do? It's too hard and too damn expensive to put any solutions in place, and who knows if any of this will work anyway? Better just to adapt than try to solve a problem that cannot ever be solved"
"Okay, so mankind is warming the planet? So what? We humans cannot reverse what has been done, only Almighty GAWWWWD can."
"How dare you even think about fixing the climate, you sinner! Global Warming is all part of God's plan, even if it is manmade! And going against His holy will earn you a trip to hell! Repent!"
None of these are actual comments, but they ARE variations on various arguments I've heard over the years. I have ever only heard a few skeptics admit that climate change can be mitigated, and even fewer still who admit that it MUST be done.
And what worries me, is the surprising similarity between a certain part of the arguments between apocalyptic prophet set and many anti-AGW skeptics, that is, the "We can't fix climate change." baloney. And that's exactly what it is. Is pure baloney.
Some of the changes may indeed last longer than many of our lifespans. And certainly, most of the species we've lost are liable to never be recovered, ever. But that doesn't discount the efforts of those who are trying to find solutions that will help mitigate, stop, and one day, begin to reverse, climate change(and yes, this problem can be solved, but better sooner than later, of course!). Were it not for those people, our challenge to save the climate would be far, far, tougher than it is. Remember that when you talk about anything climate related, and thank people, famous or not, like Rachel Carson, and our very own A Geek Named Bob, for their commitment to this indeed very serious issue.
we can and should slow it down. We can and should carefully monitor it, and there are LEGITIMATE (as opposed to A Geek Named Bob's silliness) geoengineering solutions that may need to be deployed when worst comes to worst, but the changes we're making to the atmosphere are profound and largely irreversible.
FAQ 10.3, Figure 1. (a) Simulated changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration relative to the present-day for emissions stabilized at the current level (black), or at 10% (red), 30% (green), 50% (dark blue) and 100% (light blue) lower than the current level; (b) as in (a) for a trace gas with a lifetime of 120 years, driven by natural and anthropogenic fluxes; and (c) as in (a) for a trace gas with a lifetime of 12 years, driven by only anthropogenic fluxes.
https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-10.3.html
Reposted from ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2008) Now that scientists have reached a consensus that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are the major cause of global warming, the next question is: How can we stop it? Can we just cut back on carbon, or do we need to go cold turkey? According to a new study by scientists at the Carnegie Institution, halfway measures won’t do the job. To stabilize our planet’s climate, we need to find ways to kick the carbon habit altogether.
In the study, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, climate scientists Ken Caldeira and Damon Matthews used an Earth system model at the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology to simulate the response of the Earth’s climate to different levels of carbon dioxide emission over the next 500 years. The model, a sophisticated computer program developed at the University of Victoria, Canada, takes into account the flow of heat between the atmosphere and oceans, as well as other factors such as the uptake of carbon dioxide by land vegetation, in its calculations.
This is the first peer-reviewed study to investigate what level of carbon dioxide emission would be needed to prevent further warming of our planet.
...
With emissions set to zero in the simulations, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere slowly fell as carbon “sinks” such as the oceans and land vegetation absorbed the gas. Surprisingly, however, the model predicted that global temperatures would remain high for at least 500 years after carbon dioxide emissions ceased.
Just as an iron skillet will stay hot and keep cooking after the stove burner’s turned off, heat held in the oceans will keep the climate warm even as the heating effect of greenhouse gases diminishes. Adding more greenhouse gases, even at a rate lower than today, would worsen the situation and the effects would persist for centuries.
...
http://co2now.org/Future-CO2/Targets/stabilizing-climate-requires-near-zero-emissions.html
NOAA stunner: Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe
Important new research led by NOAA scientists, “Irreversible climate change because of carbon dioxide emissions,” finds:
…the climate change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop…. Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450-600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the ”dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise.
I guess this is what President Obama meant when he warned today of “irreversible catastrophe” from climate change. The NOAA press release is here. An excellent video interview of the lead author is here.
The Proceedings of the National Academies of Science paper gives the lie to the notion that it is a moral choice not to do everything humanly possible to prevent this tragedy, a lie to the notion that we can “adapt” to climate change, unless by “adapt” you mean “force the next 50 generations to endure endless misery because we were too damn greedy to give up 0.1% of our GDP each year” (see, for instance, McKinsey: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero or the 2007 IPCC report).
The most important finding concerns the irreversible precipitation changes we will be forcing on the next 50 generations in the U.S. Southwest, Southeast Asia, Eastern South America, Western Australia, Southern Europe, Southern Africa, and northern Africa (see also US Geological Survey stunner: SW faces “permanent drying” by 2050 and links below)
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/01/26/203610/noaa-climate-change-irreversible-1000-years-drought-dust-bowls/
