Debate (sic) On Climate Shifts To Issue Of Irreparable Change - WP

[hatrack]

EDIT

This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.

There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.

The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet." "It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."

Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer, who also advises the advocacy group Environmental Defense, said one of the greatest dangers lies in the disintegration of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets, which together hold about 20 percent of the fresh water on the planet. If either of the two sheets disintegrates, sea level could rise nearly 20 feet in the course of a couple of centuries, swamping the southern third of Florida and Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village.

EDIT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801021.html

[smirkymonkey]

1. Interesting Article - Kick!

I live in the middle of Greenwich Village. Someday I'll have waterfront property.

Seriously, though, I have the feeling that the changes are going occur a lot quicker than predicted. It would be interesting to see a timeline with corresponding changes. I am afraid that until the threat is directly upon us (meaning bad things are already starting to happen) people won't pay attention until it's too late.

The problem with the Republicans - and right-wingers in general- is that they are so short sighted. They can't even see how their policies that create thier short-term gain will be their long-term nail in the coffin. The problem is, the rest of us are going to feel the pain a lot more quickly than the fat cats.

[phantom power]

2. I hope we can adapt.

I think the "Let's do something before the tipping point" ship has already sailed.

[Dead_Parrot]

3. SS Hellinahandbasket now boarding...

It's not actually sailed - it's still in port, but we can't on.

To switch analogies, It's sitting a traffic jam 5 minutes from the airport, and realising that by the time you've arrived, parked and found the desk, check-in will be closed - even though the flight isn't for another hour. We'll all get to sit round drinking crap coffee wondering why we didn't start earlier and waiting for the next flight.

Except, of course, there will be no next flight. Ever.

[hatrack]

4. It'll be 18 years this June 21st since the first clear warning went out

And what have we done in the interim?

Well, there''s one pathetically weak international climate which took over 7 years after Hansen went to Capitol Hill, and even that's not being met by any of the ratifying parties, with the exception of sleight-of-hand accounting tricks for some of the former Eastern bloc countries trading in their collapsing Soviet economies for some shiny new environmental bona fides. Of course, there was also the Hagel-Byrd Amendment, which kind of matches Kyoto and turns what could have been an awkward and legally binding agreement into a really cool "study in contrasts" kind of bookend.

There's been plenty of job growth in the public relations/junk science/reality-denying employment sectors, though things have fallen off a bit since the late 1990s in some areas. As an added bonus, the corporate world has learned a great deal about greenwashing and how to do it, which has compensated for some of the GCC/Greening Earth Society cutbacks.

There have been any number of public statements from "leaders" who'll do whatever it takes, provided that it involves more studies and steering committees.

And of course, we've marginally improved our geographical knowledge. A small percentage of Americans now are familiar with such exotic locales as Kiribati and Tuvalu and Shishmaref and the Kenai Peninsula and Larsen A and Larsen B and Columbia Glacier and Quellcaya Glacier and the snows of Kilimanjaro - but it's still hard to bring them up in polite conversation - somehow the chic appeal of being in the know hasn't crossed over to the American cultural mainstream.

Aside from that, can't think of too much else we're doing.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Just a year ago, Global Warming was officially Junk Science™

Amazing how fast reality changes, huh?

I'm also surprised that James Hansen was allowed to make the statement he did -- unless his overly-cheery estimate of 4F/century was the reason. As CO2 release is also speeding up, so is the increase in temperature. The actual heating may be far in excess of 4F. The temperature spike in the run-up to the last major Heinrich Event was well over 30F. It only lasted a few years, and ended in a temperature crash that brought on a return to full ice age conditions for about 2000 years.

--p!