New Global Warming Report Says We’re Way More Screwed Than Previously Thought
- Posted by: Siobhan O'Connor
- on January 28, 2009 at 5:14 pm
All the news about auto-emissions and Blago’s maybe-confession to Rachel Maddow seems to have somehow eclipsed this rather horrific and monumental bit of news about something bigger than all that other stuff: the PLANET. According to a report released yesterday, the warming we’ve already caused is irreversible, and that based on the damage we’ve already done, the planet will continue to toast till at least the year 3,000. That doesn’t even account for your drive to work today.
I (and lots of people who know way more than I do) have always thought that if we somehow curbed our CO2 now, the planet would go back to normal in a couple hundred years at the most. Not the case, says this new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory. (An excellent NPR piece about this is also available here.)
Now, when news like this surfaces it’s all to easy to take the “we’re screwed anyway” attitude that can too easily foster inaction, laziness, and the altogether wrong decisions. So while we can no longer restore the planet to pre-industrialization, we do stand a chance to slow the rate at which we continue to warm the planet. May we propose, then, that this is more a reason than ever for all of us to do our part? If not for yourself or your maybe-one-day-children, then for the polar bears.
DISCUSSION: 9 Comments
uh oh.
this is really, really, really, really distressing.
I think that the fact that all of what we’ve done so far will cause Earth to roast until 3000 doesnt make the most sense in the world. I’m assuming they mean if we were to stop doing what we are doing right now and just the planet chill for all those years that it would be more or less where it should be by the year 3000, but have they considered that amount of projects being worked on trying to reverse the effects of what we have done by effectively removing carbon from our oceans and our air?
Additionally concerning is that one of the most reliable CO2-absorbers –trees!– may be weakening in their abilities: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/03/climatechange.carbonemissionsAs suggested in this article, we receive a “a 50% discount on the climatic impact of our fossil fuel emissions” thanks to oceans and forests. One small step to alleviating the problem climate problem… it’s still pretty easy to plant a tree: http://www.treelink.org/And awareness of one’s own contribution (or hopefully lack-there-of) to carbon emissions can’t hurt:http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspxhttp://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
You need to wake up and realize how climatological models work. They don’t necessarily represent reality, but rather a set of assumptions, input variables, a series of algorithms, and an output. Explaining modeling in our 15 second sound bite world is boring, and stupid, attention-getting headlines like this are so easy. Notice the lack of accountability.Here’s a good check for any model…see if you can feed it historical data and have it output current, actual conditions. Most “scientists” with an agenda don’t want their models under this type of scrutiny…BECAUSE THEY”RE MODELS DON’T HOLD UP!!
make tha “THEIR” models.
all of this and the additional fact that our earth itself is constantly spreading, shifting, evolving, means we should really start to look at coastal preservation. while in the past blame has been placed on the people of coastal cities for merely existing in “vulnerable areas,” the not-so-future impact spreads (in the states) from NYC to Miami. the good news is, if we start learning from others who have experienced water issues (ie. the netherlands) we have the opportunity to benefit economically and socially.
Man is a cancer upon the earth.
What this is….is so funny I think I might puke!!!