« Nugget Nectar | Main | Ethanol efficiency concession »
May 17, 2006
Have we reached the tipping point?
I have been thinking a lot about where we are on the climate change trend line, and I think we have exceeded the point at which we can avoid some drastic changes in global climate. Several factors have brought me to this conclusion.
The past year has brought a number of announcments by earth scientists along the line, "This is happening more quickly than we had expected." Antarctic ice loss; Arctic ice loss; Greenland ice loss. All more rapid than had been predicted from climate change modeling. I am also concerned with the past couple of extremely hot European summers, and this past extremely cold European winter.
Besides, how plausible is it that developing nations, which are yearning to achieve the American standard of living, will quell their desires to avoid adverse climate change impacts. The rich world certainly isn't doing much to control its release of global warming gases.
I have a powerpoint file by John Holdren, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that asks the questions, "What Do We Know? What Can We Do?" The file is too large to upload, but I will send it to you by email dsheridan@aquacura.com
I read a subtext in the presentation that supports my concerns that we have passed the point of avoiding very unpleasant effects. I suppose we need to keep stressing the importance of decreasing global warming emissions, and perhaps there is some merit to continuing to try, but I believe it is time to switch gears and begin to adapt to the likely effects of climate change.
Posted by aquacura.com at May 17, 2006 09:46 PM
Comments
I have been amazed by the media-led leap of faith in recent months that has so many folks accepting without question the broad claims of the global warming proponents. Climate prediction is an extremely complicated "science" and the proponents of global warming end up acknowledging that their predictions are tied to computer models which have not yet been proven and are as yet highly speculative. As a skeptic towards all this I don't deny the current (past 50 years) evidence suggesting we're experiencing a warming trend, but I've searched and researched to find dependable, reproducible evidence that all these claims are valid -- how can we tie all these claims of warming to greenhouse gasses when there was a measured warming cycle in the 20's and 30's in spite of increased CO2 -- what about the long medieval warm period -- how can we base claims for global warming on glaciers retreating on Mt. Kilemanjaro when reputable research has already concluded this is more the result of increased dryness in the area (due to human development) not warming -- besides, of the many hundreds of glaciers in the world only a handful have been studied and not all of them are retreating -- there is no credible evidence that oceans are rising (it's all empirical) -- claims of artic ice packs melting and antartic ice thickness decreasing are highly geographic and tend to ignore other locations where there is either no such evidence or the reverse! I keep wondering where is the objectivity that would allow open discussion with research on all sides of the issue presented? Seems like this issue has become so politicized that whatever views are presented are immediately attacked, not for their substance, but for their perspective. Is acceptance of global warming merely another element of political correctness?
A simple search of the internet will reveal dozens of resources challenging the popularized claims of proponents like Al Gore and, while the genesis of some of these may be more skewed towards opposition to the politics of the global warming proponents, I was pleased to see there are some excellent, seemingly well-researched and presented scientific arguments by skeptics.
I suggest those of us who seek to remain objective and reasonably "scientific" in our assessent of the evidence for climate change should make an effort to challenge the news media favored broad claims (mostly doom and gloom because that's what "sells newspapers") and the supposed policy arguments by political organizations whose agendas might be better supported by a global warming trend than otherwise, and keep our minds as open as possible to all sides of what the research and data are revealing. Perhaps experiencing a generalized warming trend will actually improve some areas in terms of food production and the like.
Like many I had more or less gone along with the growing cacaphony about global warming, although I resisted the doom and gloom aspects suspecting them to be overblown, until I read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" which, as it turns out, is a darn good story if you like the Tom Clancy type of high action plots. But what grabbed my attention was the author's obvious disdain for current global warming arguments as well as some other environmental "drums" currently being beaten -- first time I've ever found an appendix at the end of a novel (Crichton offers his personal perspective and views). Of courst this is a work of fiction so the author had wide latitude in how he chose to present his views, but even allowing for that, it got me thinking. The preponderance of data and resources he quotes in the book (reasonably well attributed should a reader want to check them out) challenged me to do more homework. Though skeptical I realized I lacked the depth of understanding to defend my views, and, after all, maybe "they" are more right than I am. The more I research the more saddened I become at the obvious evidence that politics has crept in and supplanted objectivity. Of course, like so many doom and gloom issues, time will ultimately define reality. If my skepticism is accurate the trends being predicted will not be borne out and perhaps, as was the doomsday prediction in the 60's, we'll actually end up experiencing another ice age (said with a smile).
Posted by: Bruce Wilson at July 21, 2006 12:18 PM