Can We Still Avoid Dangerous Human-Made Climate Change?

[Jcrowley]

Dr James Hansen: Can We Still Avoid Dangerous Human-Made Climate Change?
Posted by Chris Vernon on Wednesday November 22, 2006 at 1:46 PM EST

Dr James Hansen, physicist, adjunct professor: Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, director: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science and their lead climate scientist spoke to a packed lecture theatre at Bristol University on Friday (17Nov06). Outside the scientific community Hansen is probably best known for accusing the Bush administration of trying to silence him after he gave a lecture December 2005 calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Hansen believes there is a huge gap between what is understood about global warming by the science community and what is known about it by the people who need to know, that is the public and policy makers. This belief has driven Hansen to communicate the science directly to the public as frequently and as clearly as he is able. Why is this important? Because we have just a decade to embark on a fundamentally different path regarding our use of fossil fuels if we are to avoid dangerous human-made climate change.

The world has experienced 0.8°C global average temperature rise over the last century with 0.6°C of that occurring over the last 30 years. Figure 1 illustrates the temperature anomalies of the 1st half decade of this century over the 1951-‘80 average.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/18/93514/869#more

Controversial scientist predicts planetary wipeout
28.11.06
 
Controversial scientist James Lovelock
Billions of people could be wiped out over the next century because of climate change, a leading expert said.
Professor James Lovelock, who pioneered the idea of the Earth as a living organism, said as the planet heats up humans will find it increasingly hard to survive.

He warned that as conditions worsen, the global population which is currently around 6.5 billion, may sink as low as 500 million. Prof Lovelock also claims that any attempts to tackle climate change will not be able to solve the problem, merely buy us time.

Given the dire situation we face, he urged people to drop the phrase "global warming," which has cosy connotations, and instead start to think of it as "global heating."

<snip>

However he fears that as carbon dioxide emissions from man and the planet itself soar, the Earth will heat up causing water shortages, destroying life in much of the planet's oceans and making it impossible for plants to grow.

Prof Lovelock, who last night gave the 5th John Collier Lecture to the Institution of Chemical Engineers in London, said: "There is very good evidence of what happened 55 million years ago when as much carbon dioxide was put into the atmosphere by geology as is being done by us now. "Temperatures zoomed up by 8 degrees and stayed there for 200,000 years then came back to normal."


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23376247-details/Controversial+scientist+predicts+planetary+wipeout/article.do

[Gwerlain]

1. No, we can't. n/t

[kestrel91316]

2. Uh, no. We done screwed the pooch already. We can try to mitigate,

but we have already made a complete mess of things. It will take a monumental effort to save our civilization, IMHO.

[Kelly Rupert]

3. We have to assume we can.

Because saying "there's nothing we can do" only enables the corporations in their destruction of our homeworld. If there's a chance we can keep the Earth habitable, we have to take it.

[Jcrowley]

4. Doing

What's interesting here is to consider what it is we can "do" and how some of that means "not doing." For example one of the great contributors to greenhouse gasses is air travel. That's why I will never fly. Of course that manner of personal example isn't really enough at all the larger issues have to do with the larger forces.

What are some of the innumerable gadgets we possess and how do they contribute to CO2 levels?

The first example is with the world's worst polluter and contributor to catastrophic climate change which is the US Military. How do we go about stopping that behemoth from destroying our atmosphere? Well eliminate the funding. How do we do that? There is no political will for this in Congress. Who's going to make this happen?

And that's just the first most obvious example.

I agree that we must assume we can but understand what is asked of us and understand the level of change that is necessary across all aspects of our living arrangements.