Climate Change: It Is Worse Than You Think
There is a lot to be said for Joseph Romm’s Hell and High Water: Global Warming – The Solution and the Politics – And What We Should Do. Most of us have read several books about global warming. How is this book different or distinguishable from the rest? Romm’s description showing that things are worse than we think and his explanation of the reasons for the low acceptance of the global warming message are two outstanding contributions.
The reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other such statements are consensus documents. They soften the worse scenarios to achieve support for a statement that everyone can live with. As an individual, Romm needed no one else’s agreement. He projects that if emissions rise under existing trends, more than half of European summers will be hotter than 2003 within the next four decades. Since the 1970s, the number of “very dry areas”, as defined by the Palmer Drought Severity Index, has more than doubled to about 30% of the earth’s surface. Wildfires have been on the rise worldwide for half a century. The average temperature for the continental United States in 2006 were the hottest since readings began in 1895. On a global basis, every single year since 1993 has been in the top 20 warmest years on record.
The droughts and high temperatures do more than increase the number of wildfires. The heat and lack of water weakens trees’ resistance to pests.
Carbon dioxide levels are higher than they have been for millions of years. In 2005, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were 380 parts per million (ppm), about a third higher than preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm. Under one possible scenario, the atmospheric concentrations will be 500 ppm by 2050. When the concentrations get much past 500 ppm, the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet and consequent 20 foot ocean rise is all but certain. The Amazon rain forest will be lost. This generation and the next will ruin civilization for the next 50 generations.
Increased warming will set off a chain reaction, causing the soil, tundra (permafrost) and oceans to release carbon dioxide and methane. Ice surfaces reflect heat back into the atmosphere. When the ice in the Artic and glaciers melt, the ground or the ocean absorbs heat, making things worse. According to some models, the Artic lost one-third of its ice volume in the 1997-2002 period.
The first few feet of ocean rise will displace more than 100 million people world wide and submerge parts of our major Gulf and Atlantic coast cities making them sitting ducks for super hurricanes.
If there is any hope, humankind will have to stop building traditional coal plants. Those projected as being built in the 2005 to 2030 period will release as much carbon dioxide as all the coal burned since the Industrial Revolution. If that happens, we are doomed.
Under crises like this only Big Government can relocate millions of citizens, build massive levees, ration critical resources such as water and arable land, mandate harsh and rapid reductions in fossil fuel energy. No one wants this, especially conservatives. If there is no action now, there will be no choice.
To avoid such a grim fate, Romm like all risk managers know that prevention is cheaper than repair. He calls for “… a desperate effort to cut global emissions by 75% in less than three decades - a massive, sustained government intervention into every aspect of our lives on a scale that far surpasses what this country did during World War II.”
I hope that he and others in future books and articles go into detail about the mobilization that will have to take place now that will allow some flexibility 20 to 30 years from now. I call for looking at our entire life style and see what has to be changed and what has to be thrown overboard. Our country spends about as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Who are we afraid of? Our country has more people in prison per capita than any other country. Our country spends billions to prohibit the use of drugs that were perfectly legal before the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914. Our income inequality is worse than it was during the Gilded Age.
My solutions are to cut the defense budget by half, institute some punishments other than incarceration, take most drugs off the enforcement list and to set 100% tax on income exceeding $10,000,000 per year per individual. That would free up resources for more worthwhile projects.
Romm’s second great contribution is explaining why environmental message is not clearly projected. The scientific community does not excel in persuasive speech nor do they hire Madison Avenue organizations to present their case. Scientists are reticent about making plain statements and climatologists are even worse. They do not like to repeat themselves and concentrate on what they do not know. That is why they do research.
The media, on the other hand, like the glib and dramatic statements that politicians are good at doing but scientists avoid. Scientists like the late Carl Sagan who did a top notch job communicating with the public discovered that the scientific community frowns on flamboyance. In a special vote, the National Academy of Sciences rejected his application for membership. Scientists as group criticize those making a fuss over climate change as having a political agenda.
The usual tactic of global warming deniers and the Bush administration is to do little or nothing “before all the facts are in.” In science, all the facts are never in. If public officials were to wait until all the facts were in to formulate policy, there would never be any action to avoid any potential problem. The Bush White House demands for more research is a smokescreen.
When the Bush White House sees a draft of a government report on global warming that they do not like, they change to report to reflect their ideology. The White House heavily edited a 2003 Environmental Protection Agency report about the threat of rising temperatures and gutted every substantial conclusion. They even removed the sentence,” Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.”
Thomas Friedman in his March 28, 2007 column spoke of a House committee that released documents showing “hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil company lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role.” The official was Philip A. Cooney, who left the government after the New York Times exposed this conflict of interest. It was no surprise that ExxonMobil hired Mr. Cooney after his departure from government.
The media covers scientific issues more like a political debate giving equal time to “both sides”. They ignore the climate change consensus that is rare in scientific circles. Given this type of logic or the lack of it, they would interview Holocaust deniers and flat earthers.
At the same time, global change deniers like ExxonMobil heavily funded scientists to present their case that minimized the threat. These scientists never had their case presented in a peer reviewed journal. They prepared talking points for their clients. They argued that fuel efficiency standards, pollution reducers and the like would be job killers for Americans and companies would lose market share. These scientists never referred to companies like Toyota whose capitalization and market share have increased world wide.
Far from being job killers, green efforts have improved our standard of living by making the same goods and services with fewer resources. From the mid-1970s until today refrigerator electricity use has dropped by three-quarters. Electrical consumption per capita in California has been flat in California from 1976 to 1975 while it grew by 60% in the rest of the country.
The United States spends $250 billion annually for foreign oil. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions through alternative fuels, tripling the efficiency of our cars and going green, “…we could achieve genuine energy security, sharply reduce our trade deficit, revitalize our domestic auto industry, create countless jobs, and increase our national security, because we would no longer be beholden to undemocratic governments in the Middle East or have or economy repeatedly subject to price shocks from political instability or terrorist attacks.” This is the smart move.
Ed O’Rourke is an environmental accountant in Houston, Texas.
eorourke@pdq.net
713-664-4343
Carbon dioxide is an
Carbon dioxide is an insignificant fraction of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. (Two percent; the other 98% is water vapor.) The TOTAL cessation of all human activity would result in a minuscule decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Conclusion: the notion that we are damaging the earth is a hoax, and the notion that ANY policy regarding CO2 is going to make any difference in global temperature is preposterous.
Hysteria about the "earth" is a way for Catholics who want to ignore abortion to feel more "moral."
Our natural environment is
Our natural environment is our future. The answer lies in developing green energy sources. We need to get our government to devote significant funds and research. They helped get the internet going. They can help get this done too!
I worry that we are using FEAR about global warming as a means to get people to act. I don't want to continue on in this direction. We don't know for sure whether or not global warming is a real trend. We haven't been collecting the data for long enough. Scientists are quick to assume causation. It may or may not exist.
We do know FOR A FACT that pollution is a problem. It is damaging our nation and our world. We need to protect our water, our air, and our land. We can try to drag our current government into the 21st century kicking and screaming, or we can do it ourselves. There has been an explosion in products that support our environment. As long as we continue to conserve, reuse, recycle, and go green, we can be the tide of change. Everyday people are spearheading this movement from the ground up. It is happening in developed nations worldwide. The European Union has been our friend when our government dropped the ball. Corporate America is already moving on our side. Our government will have no choice but to follow.
Conservation and green consumption are critical. I'd love it if someone "in the know" could create a post that lists the latest, greatest, and easiest ways people can reduce energy consumption and increase green living. Personally, I'm a big fan of the Nature Conservancy, which is actively involved in conserving land from pollution and destruction. They are actively involved in the conservation and growth of wildlife, including animals and plants. They have a long history of success.
100% tax on income over 10
100% tax on income over 10 million dollars. Do you realize that you would basicly cut peoples drive to try and grow there companies? I am but a poor youth minister who will probably never make that much in my life. But if someone quits trying to grow a company because of %100 tax jobs will be lost and the county will lose revenue streams because fewer people working mean few taxes
mavfan46, Suppose that the
mavfan46, Suppose that the CEO making 10 million is taxed at 100% over that income, will the person stop trying to make the company grow? If he/she does then he will be out of a job and no more 10 mil per yr.! If he does not stop trying, then he will insure that he will continue to make 10 million every year and the grateful board will arrange for him to receive deferred compensation so that he will be able to live like King Midas in retirement even if he manages to find ways of spending his 10 mil every year. It is hard to imagine the nation collapsing because 10 mil/yr is the best a guy or gal can hope for!
You are looking at this only
You are looking at this only from the totally subjective, and hypothetical position that "I'd be happy with $10 million a year!" Wouldn't we all.
But when you try to control a price, you are destroying information. That's why price controls always result in shortages, surpluses, starvation, freezing, disease, etc.
The point is not merely that "anybody" can struggle through a year on $10 million, but that if incomes are limited to that figure, all bidding stops--no one would be able to outbid the employer who is willing to pay $10 million. I.e., the market at that level would be abolished. I.e., the State would have strangled the flow of information. The result: Misallocation of talent. Stasis. Shortages and surpluses. Ultimately, greater suffering, even for the poor, because there are always people on the margin; there are always people for whom a LITTLE economic dislocation spells the difference between being warm and freezing, between a home and no home.
Sure, if I had a job that paid $10 million, I'd hang on like grim death. But the kind of people who actually have the talent to earn $10 million in one place, may actually be more needed someplace else, for more money. There is no way to choke off a market without an increase in human suffering.
We are not living in a
We are not living in a socialist system where hard work is punished. What if I invested in that comapny and my investments net me more than 10 mil. What incentive do I have to put in capital to make the company grow, none. Granted I think your idea sounds good, wouldn't it be great to be able to donate money to charity out of your excess and be blessed for it rather than having it taken by the government.
It would be wonderful to
It would be wonderful to feel the blessings of God for every charitable act we undertake, rather than being forced into it by being a citizen of a nation! Indeed! Except the empirical evidence is otherwise. In the United States the movement to drop a citizen's responsibility toward other citizens in the nation--collective responsibilities, intergenerational commitments--has not led to the greater charitable giving/blessings of God, but more to getting that new Hummer or cruise ship I always wanted and surely do need and deserve...
It isn't about what makes us feel so good, mavfan46. God says it's about the other person and their material well-being. Hungry children need food, and if taxes of comfortable citizens brings them food faster and better than acts of charity, then that's what we should be supporting in a nation as much (or more) inspired by 'keeping up with the Joneses' than with feeling the blessings of God.
Ed, you have really done
Ed, you have really done your homework, good job! This message has very definite moral dimensions. It is a respect for life issue without question. If ever we had a need for religious leaders to educate themselves, to consult with scientists, to approach secular leaders to investigate national and global solutions the time is now. We will need moral leadership, political leadership and a grass roots involvement. On Sat. Apr 14 there will be almost 2000 LOCAL COMMUNITY actions from coast to coast to encorage Congress to cut carbon emissions by 80 % by 2050. Find a group near you and sign up to DO SOMETHING. SEE WWW.STEPITUP07.ORG FOR DETAILS AND LOCATIONS.
I dont agree the Ed
I dont agree the Ed O'Rourque text, for the following reasons.
10/04/08
Climate change
It is worse than you think/National Catholic Reporter.
http://nrcafe.org/node/1025#comment.
Home forum – thematic table – ecological sustainability.
Article from Ed O'Rourque
About the book:
<< Romm's Hell and High Water: Global Warming- The solution and the politics – And what we shall do.>>
Bleue color is quote.
Black color is comment
I give immediately the thread of my comment, the thread of this critic:
1.It never has existed any measurable Global Warming on our planet.
2.The CO² gas never had any particular quality to allow it a greenhouse effect
3.as no more does any other free gaz of our atmospher.
4.In true physics it does not exist any greenhouse effect, except in a real gardener geenhouse.
5.As the catastrophic Warming has not yet begun, ( 0.41°C since 1900's ) the text is pure politisation.
How is this book different or distinguishable from the rest ? Romm's description showing that things are worse than we thing and his explanation ----- are two oustanding contributions.
Not at all. He makes his own the others thinking, just with a big lot of emphasing, to frighten the maximum people.
Since the 1970,s the number of very dry areas as defined by the Palmer Drought Severity Index, has more than doubled to about 30% of the Earth surface.
Curious statement. The « number » double and the whole surface double ?
The doubling of the Earth dry surface, if it existed would not have been caused by a Warming which has not begun to day.
The prophecy of the IPCC is a temperature rise of 6 °C in 2100 .
And now nobody has dared to announce more than 0.41 °C rise since the year 1900.
The average temperature for the « continental U.S. » would only be for the "continental U.S". And never for the European, or Asian, or African countries.
An average temperature for the « continental U.S. »has not any sense even for that that country, or for the whole Earth.
It would have a sense for one point of the Earth, and one thermometer let in place for centuries.
Minus 40°C at Montreal and plus 40 °C in Mexico does not make 0 °C at Washington.
The Drough hapenning in numerous contries of earth is a very good index.
Drought means a diminution of rains and snow, what means a previous diminution of clouds, what means a diminution of water vapour in the air, what means a diminution of seas temperatures
The Global Warming is a Global Cooling and a Global cheating.
In my neighbouring an old pine tree – about 175 years old – has been cut and the growing rings showed a real actual Drougth beginning near 1950.
For trees and plants the first growth index is the water, and the temperatu is far behind.
Living in south of France I knew a temperature of minus 15 °C , in 1956, and not any pine tree has dead. On other side the temperatures of +40 and over, are not rare here. Without any lethal effect on trees.
The obsessional song of « CO² is a greenhouse effect gaz » is obviously present in this paper.
Carbon dioxyde levels are higher than they have been for millions of years. In 2005 atmospheric concentrations of CO² were 380 ppmv about a third higher than préindustrial levels of about 280 ppmv.
Particularily biased, even absolutely wrong. Nothing is quickly higher than nothing.
Contrarily to the current sayings we do not know the Carbon Dioxyde level for millions of years. This knomlege is a lie because it is impossible to measure the thikness of one old ice layer.
Let us assume an ice root of 3000 meters long. Dividing this length by 600 000 000 years, that gives an ice layer 5 microns thick . A saw cutting the root rubs out 1000 years.
In 2005 atmosphere concentrations of CO² were 380 ppm about a third higher than the preindustrial levels about 280 ppm.
Wrong.
About years 1870's the CO² levels were yet about 360 ppmv.
But in 1938, the first physicist, named Callendar, who used the measures of that périod ( 1860-1890) eliminated the higher values, which were similar to the high values about 1938, to put out the idea that the CO² level was growing, according to the industrial growing.
Every single year since 1993 has been in the top 20 marmest years in record.
It would have been necessary to give us that 20 values, and every year number.
According to some models the Artic lost one-third of its ice volume in the 1997-2002 period.
Earth surface : 514 millions km²
Arctic surface: 1 million km².
Remind you: old people named Greenland the Arctic country. They were hunters ans fishers, not poets, but they know the difference between grass and ice.
An important sentence of that text is:
Under one possible scenario the atmospheric concentrations of CO² will be 500 ppmv by 2050...
Why to choose that scenario among the thousands of possible scenarios ? Since the informatician has all scenarios he wants , he could get a soft and credible one.
Now we understand all that humoristic tale: it is only a picture fiction. Obviously since by 2050 all at us people involved will be dead.
We will be dead after being ruined.
When concentration get much past 500 ppm the complete melting of the Groenland ice sheet and consequent 20 foot ocean rise is all but certain.
I have an HP Invent, here the author has a new 20 foot ocean rise Invent, from a new level threshold of 500 ppmv. ???
As it is a new law he has to tell us the corresponding formula.
20 foot on all two third of the earth surface, the seas surface ( minimum).
Let us calculate the height of ice actually over Arctic country, before it melt
( 514 x 20 ) ( 2 / 3 ) = 6853 feet
Does that be too much high ? At rough measure, 4or 5 times too high.
Let us stop a minute.
Obviously the named Joseph Romm is like Abraham to who God gave a scapegoat, at last moment.
The CO² "greenhouse gas" is the scapegoat of bad physicians, and calamities prophets.
A "greenhouse gas" has not any sense in true physics.
Increased warming will set off a chain reaction......
Dont forget: his warming is a fictitious scenario, or just a fairy tale.Then Joseph Romm describes an apocalyptic scenario, which has yet been described a million times.
According to some models, the Artic lost one third of its ice volume in the 1997-2002
It is very curious since the warming is not yet into action.
We are told that the 6°C temperature rise in 2100 has produced a diminution of Arctic ice volume in the recent past 1997-2002.
We are in new NEW AGE ! The material future exercise a material influence on our present !
Why so absurd assertions from Romm ?
Hic jacet lepus:
Under crisis like this only BIG GOVERNMENT can relocate millions of citizens, build massive levees, ration critical ressouces such water and arable land....
Obviously J.R can be the unique New Saviour, the Head of that Big Government. He is making an artificial crisis to freigthten peoples, who will late easily accept his Almighty.
Poor people you will see and suffer such bad event 100 years late.
In the following O'Rourque give us his advices, his solutions, in form of necessary orders from a proud knight.
Next he says
Romm's second great contribution is explaining why environmental message is not clearly projected. The scientific community does not excel in persuasive speech nor do they hire Madison Avenue organisations to present their case.
Scientists are reticent about making plain statements and climatologists are even worse.
They do not like to repeat themselves and concentrate on what they do not know. That is why they do research.
Very good analysis a contrario.
Real scientists, members of the scientific community, see clearly that the débate is not a scientific debate but only a political way toward the political Power.
This actual text of O'Rourque which praises the Romm's positions because they are its own, is a perfect proof of this real aim of environmentalits: to get the Power.
The arguments of O'Rourque and Romm are not physics arguments, are not rational arguments, for exemple given above: the artic ice which smelt in 1997-2002 because the température rise in 2100.
Most of physicists, chemists, mecanicians, are working in structures where they have to live amongst people making a verbal dictatorial physics. Then they have to roar with the wolves, or shut up.
That analysis of O'Rourque is here to get hypocriticaly the catholics into his group, by presenting its decisions as a courageous help toward other poor people.
But scientists, if they are negligent, have an almost rational mind, which is confirmed in the sentences:
Scientists as group criticize those making a fuss over climate change has having à political agenda.
The usual tactic of global warming deniers and the Bush administration is to do little"before the facts are in".In science all he facts are never in".
An attack against the President, is a political act which colors all those O'Rourque, and Romm, texts.
In physics, if the facts are not in, they necessarily are out. "Perhaps" is excluded.
The term "wrong", is sometimes the good one, satisfying the two opposite opinions.
The medias.
The media covers scientific issues more like a political debate giving equal time to"both side".
They ignore the climate change consensus that is rare in scientific circles.
Science is not a marquet where dispute carpet sellers. So the medias are right, a consensus is not a physics law.
Chiefly when GIEC Report announces the climate change has 90% of chance to be right, and 10% of chance to be wrong.
Which let aside the main question: in what range are we now : 90 % or 10 % ?
Another question:
in the IPCC assembly, in february 2007, all participants had not the same conviction, or knowlege, about a climate change, since there were 90% for, and 10% against.
More probable: no one was really convinced by the existency of a Global Warming.
That will save them when it will be necessary to accept the Global Cooling . Very political habit.
Francis Rey