Alastair McDonald wrote:
> >> If only you would agree that we are in imminent danger then I
> >> could stop saying "We are all doomed" :-)
> >
> > These are strikingly different messages, really.
>
> No they are the same message, but my previous cries of "We are
> all doomed!" are being taken out of context. My argument is that
> if everyone continues to deny that we are in great danger, then we
> are all doomed. We are not doomed if we take action now. It is
> quite simple and it is quite logical.
>
> Don't forget that there is a climate commitment which means that
> after we stop COMPLETELY emitting CO2, the temperature will
> continue to rise. Moreover, it is possible that the concentration of
> atmospheric CO2 depends on sea surface temperature, and hence
> even after we stop emitting CO2 it is possible that CO2 levels will
> continue to rise, forcing temperature even higher.
>
> We cannot wait until it gets too hot and then stop emitting CO2,
> because that would cause total economic chaos. Moreover,
> by that time it would be too late. Hansen says we have ten years in
> which to take action. If we don't then we are all doomed!
>
> BTW do you think we will take adequate action?
The question here is "what would constitute adequate action".
To my understanding, to avoid the dire consequences the alarmists
are predicting, we'd have to go back to pre-industrial levels of
emissions, on the order of 1% of current levels. GLOBALLY. Anything
less than that just slows it down, it doesn't stop it. anyone care to
take odds on that happening? even to achieve a 10% global reduction
over 10 years would be a truly herculean task. the US, canada, and
australia (incidently, australia is the largest per capita emitter,
followed by canada, followed by the us) could cut that much without
significant hardship, but that drop over that time would be totally
swamped by the increases in the developing world, which cannot be
stopped without resulting in deaths, and lots of them.
The resources we would need to spend to effect a 1 year delay in
global warming (which 1 year would be 25 years out due to the
commitment and the time it would take to implement the policies) would
be far better spent in preparing to deal with the consequences,
especially given that the consequences are unavoidable, regardless of
what we do about it.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
