I learned from this new book. Most of all it shows how the earth likely will change as temperatures rise.
For instance Lima and the Andean parts of Ecuador and Boliva are heavily dependent on Andean glacial melting for their water. An earth warmer by two degrees would create very serious problems for them, once the glaciers disappear. Most of all I came away with a renewed sense of the importance of water issues and the need for greater investment in desalination technologies (yes I know it’s not easy and transporting the desalinized water is often a greater problem than getting the salt out.) Stopping the destruction of tropical forests is another partial remedy for warming and it seems more doable than shutting down all or most carbon emissions.
That said, parts of the book struck me as very weak. The discussions of biodiversity destruction did not convince me that the scope of pending losses is unacceptable. There’s a lot of handwaving and listing of lost species as if that ends the argument. We’re in a mass extinction anyway and I’d like a serious analysis of the marginal impact on global warming on this process. "It’s so bad anyway that further species loss must be unacceptable" doesn’t cut it for me.
It is also claimed (p.236) that an earth five degrees warmer would result in the culling of "billions." Of humans that is. There is little talk of substitution or technological adaptation. Nor do I buy the claim that carbon rationing would bring "a dramatic improvement in our quality of life" by getting us off the streets, out of the planes, and bringing us closer to the rest of the community.
Overall I found this the best, most accessible, and most vivid book for visualizing the actual problems from global warming. But the Cassandras of global warming need to be more responsible, and more wary of overstatement, if they wish to press home their very important arguments.
Jonathan Adler has a good recent round-up post on some global warming issues.
It’s too bad for the “Cassandras” that the earth is starting to cool; and too bad for us too, because global warming would be good for us.
WRT both the water issue and global warming, I’ve long thought (since ’92) that a hydrogen based fuel economy would reduce the production of greenhouse gases and mitigate water supply issues. Imagine nuclear power plants near the ocean with electrolysis plants down the coastline a little ways. Sea water is converted to hydrogen and oxygen at the electrolysis plant and the hydrogen is piped inland. Perhaps there would be efficiencies to piping hydrogen for use inland; however, hydrogen is only 20% of the mass of water. Then again, it’s very difficult to contain and transport hydrogen, so perhaps not. Infrastructure for piping hydrogen would provide a mechanism for throttling water availability independent of geologic water flows (rivers, aquifers, etc.).
But remember, Cassandra was right!
Isn’t this just accelerating the inevitable, since they are depending on the *melt* (not the existence) of the glaciers, and this has likely been occurring since the last Ice Age? I’m guessing that they are unable to capture the “extra” runoff, but weren’t they going to have to face this eventually? Or do the glaciers keep regenerating from annual snow accumulation? In which case, does AGW increase or decrease precipitation in those areas?
There are a lot of books out there that focus on the damage of global warming. Are there any that focus on the benefits?
Is there any evidence that this warming is going to be any worse than then previous fifty warmings? I understand that people have guesses, but is there any evidence that the guesses are correct?
(If it makes you any happier, change “guesses” to “models”.)
With environmentalism, it’s really a question of whether we let these anti-human, anti-progress religious extremists control our lives.
We shouldn’t let creationists decide our science policy, or enviro-catastrophists decide our economic policy.
Sound public policy requires sound science, sound economics, and sound ethics. Although environmentalists at least give lip service to sound science, they ignore the economic problems, and have profoundly immoral ethics.
Environmentalism is the enemy of secular humanism.
1. the 1% rule applies. If there’s a 1% chance of the sort of extreme effects we would see, eg a 5 degree centigrare
rise in average temperatures, then strong action is justified to present it. Since that action will take
decades to put into effect, we have to start now.
2. Above 2 degrees C, it’s really quite uncertain what will happen, and in what time scale. A world with
water levels 60-100′ higher is certainly possible, and probably inevitable in a world 5 degrees warmer, but
we don’t know when.
3. life forms historically have not adapted well to sudden changes in temperature as opposed to over thouseands
of years. The colony honey bee disorder is a warning: a species can threaten to disappear on us, and we have
no substitute (it pollinates most of our fruit crops) and there will be huge impacts on human life. We are
part of the intricate web of life, and we do not know what happens when pieces of that web disappear.
4. IPCC forecasts are deliberately conservative. They don’t include the kind of sea level rises and storm activity
a world that much hotter would entail.
5. out there lies the Great Permian Extinction. A rise in temperature leads to mass methane release from permafrost
and we cook. We have no idea at what point we reach no return on that, but it would be the end of the human
race. Best guess: somewhere between 750ppm-1000ppm CO2 (equivalent). Within the realm of some of our forecasts
if we continue unabated on the present course.
6. remember we are a civilisation with nuclear weapons. Climate change is associated with the potential for mass political and
social disruption especially in countries like eg Pakistan and between Israel and its neighbours. So societal breakdown in one corner of the world can impact on us all.
7. just to be really helpful, we won’t know how bad things are until we get there: there is a 20-50 year
lag between our actions in terms of emission, and their main consequences.
So we’ll have to act without full knowledge of the future, in anticipation of the worst consequences.
The striking thing is the idea that temperatures will rise by anywhere near six degrees in the next century. Generally speaking, don’t estimates cluster around about two degrees?
I’m only 14, so i don’t really understand, but if we don’t really know anything about it, then what are we doing telling people things as if it were all fact? Six degrees is National Geographic’s opinion, while 2 degrees is where people seem to be leaning towards. I actually do not think that two degrees will be the dead point, I agree with National Geo. but I have a theory that the public and media would much rather believe the worst of things. And i’m sure that a lot of other people realize this too. There is too much hand waving and saying that “this is it”
Why scare people? Yes, let the world know that we’re ruining the one thing that we REALLY need (a home to inhabit), but don’t tell them yet that we’re all just going to die…
And the more cheap mesos is very good for you.
if the book real what the author writing It will be enlightening !
Comments on this entry are closed.