TennTradition
Defended.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,919
- Likes
- 822
I've mentioned this before, but the theoretical limit of CO2 in the atmosphere (before it starts condensing out as a liquid) is sufficiently high that all humans would die of CO2 poisoning before they would excessively high temperatures. So, it really isn't a limit worth much of a discussion in relation to climate change because if CO2 levels reached anywhere near that level, we would all die anyway. The climate scientists are talking about CO2 levels much less than that, such as 600-800 parts per million being a potentially big climate problem (these are well below the theoretical limit for any appreciable condensation).
I will agree that a lot of people won't discuss the issues we are discussing right now, but they are discussed by men and women a lot more knowledgeable on the subject than me, and, I would wager, you as well. And, all the scenarios being thrown out the climate scientists are not doomsday scenarios. Yes, if you watch some BBC special or something it looks like doomsday, but that is only the extreme limit of a broad range of potential effects that climate scientists point to. In fact, the probability of 30-40 feet of sea level rise is about equal to the probability of no sea level rise (that is, very low) as predicted by the current Integrated Global Systems Model from MIT. And, this model agrees, in general, with other models around the world. Granted, there are MANY assumptions in these models, but they try to quantify the uncertainty in those assumptions and these propagate to the final answer - thus giving a probability distribution of possible global temperature increases. The temperature increases are actually fairly well understood....there is uncertainty, but it isn't huge. The large uncertainty comes in how the environment (regional rain fall, drought, ice melt, sea level rise, etc.) will respond to these temperature changes. The range of effects have a much wider probability distribution than the temperature rise because they are much more difficult to quantify. It is not easy work and the fact that there is uncertainty should not be regarded as making the science somehow less meaningful - understanding how to deal with uncertainty is part of ALL science.
The points you bring up about is it worth potentially disrupting the world economy to switch from fossil fuels because of global warming is a very important one. While rather independent from the question of global warming science, it is at the heart of science, technology, and public policy decision-making and interfaces squarely with the uncertainty I was discussing above. Given the expected temperature increases (with assigned probability) and the corresponding effects (with assigned probability), there is a no policy case. Even considering the probability of the effects into the decision making still leads one to see that the "no policy" (or in other words...business as usual) case does not lead one to feel comfortable about the climate of the near future (let's say 50-100 years, for example..to be conservative I think). The difficulty of the policy process comes in whether or not one trusts the probability distributions predicted by the models - which means, at the heart of the matter, do we trust a) the input and b) our ability to even model. The modeling and prediction process must be open and transparent, because all assumptions should be questioned and made as good as we can possibly make them. But, there will still be uncertainty in the end - there always will be. Whether or not we act will ultimately come down to how much we feel we can trust our models, the consequence of action on the economy, and the consequence of inaction on the environment. And - let it be noted - there can also be a huge consequence of inaction on the economy as well. This is not an issue that we can choose to ignore because the fix is difficult, nor is it one that we should blindly set policy to correct because it is difficult. I personally think that we need to take small steps now to set up infrastructure for renewable and alternative energies, in both the automotive and industrial sectors, while at the same time devoting more time and energy (and yes, $$) to better and more complete climate modeling. If a sharper eye confirms what the current models predict, then I think we will need to see actual emissions policy teamed with not just infrastructure, but implementation of alternative energy markets.
