Dusk On Earth

The Nation: The Planet Has Reached Its Tipping Point, And It's Time For A Hail Mary Pass

(The Nation)  This column was written by Bill McKibben.

---

Even for Americans, constitutionally convinced that there will always be a second act, and a third, and a do-over after that, and, if necessary, a little public repentance and forgiveness and a Brand New Start--even for us, the world looks a little Terminal right now.

It's not just the economy. We've gone through swoons before. It's that gas at $4 a gallon means we're running out, at least of the cheap stuff that built our sprawling society. It's that when we try to turn corn into gas, it sends the price of a loaf of bread shooting upwards and starts food riots on three continents. It's that everything is so inextricably tied together. It's that, all of a sudden, those grim Club of Rome types who, way back in the 1970s, went on and on about the "limits to growth" suddenly seem... how best to put it, right.

All of a sudden it isn't morning in America, it's dusk on planet Earth.

There's a number--a new number--that makes this point most powerfully. It may now be the most important number on Earth: 350. As in parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

A few weeks ago, our foremost climatologist, NASA's Jim Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several co-authors. The abstract attached to it argued--and I have never read stronger language in a scientific paper--"if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm." Hansen cites six irreversible tipping points--massive sea level rise and huge changes in rainfall patterns, among them--that we'll pass if we don't get back down to 350 soon; and the first of them, judging by last summer's insane melt of Arctic ice, may already be behind us.

So it's a tough diagnosis. It's like the doctor telling you that your cholesterol is way too high, and if you don't bring it down right away, you're going to have a stroke. So you take the pill, you swear off the cheese, and, if you're lucky, you get back into the safety zone before the coronary. It's like watching the tachometer edge into the red zone and knowing that you need to take your foot off the gas before you hear that clunk up front.

In this case, though, it's worse than that because we're not taking the pill and we are stomping on the gas--hard. Instead of slowing down, we're pouring on the coal, quite literally. Two weeks ago came the news that atmospheric carbon dioxide had jumped 2.4 parts per million last year--two decades ago, it was going up barely half that fast.

And suddenly, the news arrives that the amount of methane, another potent greenhouse gas, accumulating in the atmosphere, has unexpectedly begun to soar as well. Apparently, we've managed to warm the far north enough to start melting huge patches of permafrost and massive quantities of methane trapped beneath it have begun to bubble forth.

And don't forget: China is building more power plants, India is pioneering the $2,500 car, and Americans are converting to TVs the size of windshields that suck juice ever faster.

Here's the thing. Hansen didn't just say that, if we didn't act, there was trouble coming; or, if we didn't yet know what was best for us, we'd certainly be better off below 350 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. His phrase was: "...if we wish to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed." A planet with billions of people living near those oh-so- floodable coastlines. A planet with ever more vulnerable forests. (A beetle, encouraged by warmer temperatures, has already managed to kill ten times more trees this year than in any previous infestation across the northern reaches of Canada. This means far more carbon heading for the atmosphere, and apparently dooms Canada's efforts to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, already in doubt because of its decision to start producing oil for the US from Alberta's tar sands.)

We're the ones who kicked off the warming; now, the planet is starting to take over the job. Melt all that Arctic ice, for instance, and suddenly the nice white shield that reflected 80 percent of incoming solar radiation back into space has turned to blue water that absorbs 80 percent of the sun's heat. Such feedbacks are beyond history, though not in the sense that Francis Fukuyama had in mind.

And we have, at best, a few years to short-circuit them--to reverse course. Here's the Indian scientist and economist Rajendra Pachauri, who accepted the Nobel Prize on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year (and, by the way, got his job when the Bush Administration, at the behest of Exxon Mobil, forced out his predecessor): "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

[mbburch06]

Taking the hysteria to a new level - well done. You are releasing CO2 with every breath you take.

[irliberal]

Do your part to help the fight against global warming. Remove every Republican blowhard in Congress in November. Thank you. Next.

[sean7phil]

Since we are in a brief break from a million year ice age-- global warming is a very good thing. Bring it on!

[element51]

Hysteria, maybe..But what if it''s true? This article paints a pretty gloomy picture of the future but one should always consider all possibilities. This seems to be one of those, do I believe what I hear or do I believe what I see, type questions. There is no doubt that changes are taking place all over the planet and the question is, is it because of humans or is it just a natural occurance. Either way it is clear that things are not going in a good direction. Can we change it? Unfortunately I think the answer is no. We may prolong it for awhile but think of the planet as a bucket. It will only hold so much then it starts to run over. What happens then? Many species have come and gone never to return. Why should mankind be any different?

[ubrew12]

Element51 said: "This seems to be one of those, do I believe what I hear or do I believe what I see, type questions. There is no doubt that changes are taking place all over the planet"

We know that as Arctic ice gives way to Arctic ocean, its ability to absorb sunlight (i.e. accelerate Global Warming) goes up 5-fold.

We know that as Arctic ice give way over permafrost, the permafrost melts and degrades, releasing tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

We know that humans have caused a 50% increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere, and that when climatologists put that factor into their model they not only match the temperature trend of the last 30 years, but match the observable effects occuring today.

This is human caused. But it may not be human reversible. We''re kicking off processes that could overwhelm our input, and take the planet in a direction we don''t what to go.

[voidmaster-2009]

Climate change is a self-correcting problem. Soon, Homosapiens will go extinct and the planet will begin to heal ... problem solved.

[element51]

ViodMaster...AGREED!

[monkfellow]

This is simply a call to world socialism under the guise of "climate change". so, let''s see, no one travels by plane (except the annointed, like Messrs.Hansen and McKibben),we all are relocated by force to cities into gray highrises so that "forest repopulation" can succeed.There''s forced sterilization and required euthaniasia (so that the "annointed" and "intellegent" of us are around to figure out these elusive and likely stupid "solutions").Few cars(and only,again,to the "annointed")dullard mass transit for the masses,basically like,THE SOVIET UNION in its worst heyday. This is a one-worlder''s dream and leaves no room for individual creativity and capacity to adjust what has to be adjusted in the stewardship of this planet."The Nation" is left wing tripe,and this excerpt proves it!

[voidmaster-2009]

More than likely, government is not the answer. So I doubt a one-world government would help. Still, climate change is a fact, whether man-made or not. It is a fact and it is a threat.

Eliminating most of civilization sounds like a good thing to me. It was not that long ago that we climbed out of the trees, walked through the brush and began to claim this rock as our own. I%u2019ve come to the conclusion that it happened too fast. A few centuries back into the Stone Age might be just the thing to teach %u201Cus%u201D our place.

Now, in case someone imagines that I%u2019m some sort of radical %u201Cgreenie,%u201D let me set the record straight. I%u2019m an anarchist, not an environmentalist. I frankly couldn%u2019t give a flip whether or not our species poisons itself. To me, it%u2019s all about the individual; the collective be damned.

On the other hand, I%u2019m as fond of the creature comforts technology provides as is anyone. So if we can find a way to control the climate, great. If not%u2026 well, the reason the phrase %u201CSo easy a cave man can do it%u201D is presumable funny is because we%u2019re STILL cavemen. We just wear better hides than before.

[txgrouch2004]

HOW MUCH CO2 IS PRODUCED by shipping products from China across the ocean to the USA, when those same products USED TO BE MADE HERE?

HOW MUCH HAVE OIL PRICES BEEN DRIVEN UP by - well - THE SAME THING???

[hypnotoad72]

Eliminating most of civilization sounds like a good thing to me.

Posted by VoidMaster
----------------------

Okay, so go kill yourself.

Hmm, don''t want to? Ruh-roh...

[extremophil]

Oh my Gawd.....We''re all gonna DIEEEEEE!!

[txgrouch2004]

THE FIRST STEP to reducing global CO2 emissions is to STOP GLOBALIZATION of the USA economy.

Most U.S. business travel is to overseas offices and factories that were built to house all the jobs that left. BRING THE JOBS BACK, and business travel goes down.

Massive oil is being consumed and converted to CO2 to ship products to this country THAT USED TO BE MADE HERE. BRING THE JOBS BACK, and shipping goes down.

Massive oil was consumed and converted to CO2 to BUILD ALL THOSE OFFICES AND FACTORIES. And now that the Chinese workers are demanding DECENT WAGES - factories in China are being moved to Vietnam and other countries WHERE PEOPLE ARE STILL DIRT CHEAP. MORE OIL will be consumed and converted to C02 to build a trail of abandoned factories as GLOBALIZATION keeps pursuing the motto "CHEAPER, EVER CHEAPER."

BRING THE JOBS BACK, and the problems go away.

[hk94]

Does the climate change? Yes. Is is man-made? Doubtful. 1000 years ago the Vikings lived in Greenland where they were able to farm, raise livestock, fish for cod, and make a good living. In England they grew grapes for wine. 300 miles north of where wine is grown in Europe today. Guess what, it was warmer then. There was no massive flooding. No doom and gloom. No industrial society. So what if I gets warmer. We are coming out of a mini cooling period.

Junk science is pushing their own selfish interests, including lucrative grants and the eco-industry that pushes us to produce biofuels and drive up food prices, starving people in poor countries. They ignore that we have record ice in Antartica this year. The polar bear populations has actually been increasing the last 10 years and the temperature have not been increasing. This is explained away as a short term anomoly. Everything that does not fit the model is ignored or excuses are made that it doesn''t mean anything.

Guess what? The planet does what it does and it is human arrogance to think we can do so much to change such massive natural systems.

[hk94]

While the junk scientists and media incite hysteria on CO2, we have taken the focus off or real life affecting pollution. Ethanol emissions actually increase smog which has an immediate effect on human health. The massive use of food for fuel, jump in the clearing of land for crops and increase in fertilizer drainage into rivers, lakes and oceans is wrecking our natural resources. This is immediate harm to people and our food sources. All of this from government mandated market distortion causing inefficient use of resources. I am not an environmentalist by any means, but I ma disgusted by what I see.

[element51]

hk94....I kind of come down in the same place as you. Having lived in Los Angeles most of my life I have seen the effects of smog and can remember going over the hill from Santa Monica to the San Fernando Valley being able to see the air. So I tend to believe that we are doing damage to ourselves. But when I read the right wing posts here I am certain that nothing will be done. Profit is all that is important and these people will never even try to see that there a danger. As usual, anything they disagree with is because of the "liberals" and as we all know liberals are a sub-human species that cannot grasp the simple facts of any subject. Their main purpose is to stand in the way of the "chosen ones" and they would be much better off if they either converted to Limbaughism or died. So, the helll with it. If we live as a species good, if not they can die with money in their pocket. I am not going to argue with a bunch of people who can''t see past the end of their noses.

[ubrew12]

hk94 said: "The polar bear populations has actually been increasing the last 10 years and "

Got a link or is that just your subjective opinion?

[hk94]

Got a link or is that just your subjective opinion?-
Posted by ubrew12

Glad you asked. Below is from a Canadian newspaper.

"If the polar bear is the 650-kilogram canary in the climate change coal mine, why are its numbers INCREASING?"

"The Inuit have always insisted the bears'' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.

As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren''t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears."

Their widely portrayed lurch toward extinction on a steadily melting ice cap is not supported by bear counts in other Arctic regions either."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868

Also see:
"Between 1965 and 1970 the population of polar bears was estimated at only 8,000 - 10,000 and it was classified as an endangered species.

"the current population worldwide is now between 20,000 - 40,000."

http://www.ypte.org.uk/docs/factsheets/animal_facts/polar_bear.html

[ubrew12]

Polar bear international: "Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this indicates an increased population, although the increased presence on land may, in fact, be related to shrinking sea ice and changes in the bears'' distribution patterns. Data is needed to understand the change. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states, "In the declining polar bear population of Canada''s Western Hudson Bay, extensive scientific studies have indicated that the increased observation of bears on land is a result of changing distribution patterns and a result of changes in the accessibility of sea ice habitat."

Maybe you''re seeing what you want to see.

[hk94]

Ubrew12

Polar Bears International is a special interest advocacy group whose finances are directly dependent on donations. In fact making a donation is the first thing listed under "what you can do". They have cherry picked information that talks about population in a particular area, not their entire population range.

These days I am more likely to listen to the whole story from those who are more neutral in their interests. Take for example Forecast Principles. They evaluate such claims and related studies using tried and true scientific, investigative and predictive priciples. See link below. They take issue with the studies involved in much of the media push around the issue. They find them full of political bias andn lacking in scientific methodology.

If major policy decisions are to be made that effect our daily lives and our futures, then the studys upon which those decisions are made need to be based on sound scientific principles.

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/PolBears.pdf

[hk94]

"In their audit of the GCM climate modelers%u2019 procedures they found that only 13% of the relevant forecasting principles were followed properly and some of the contraventions of principles were critical. This finding was consistent with earlier cautions. For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects on climate of
additional atmospheric carbon dioxide given the severe limitations imposed by uncertainty about
the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes. Indeed,
some climate modelers state that the GCMs do not provide forecasts. Here is a statement by one
of the lead authors of the IPCC%u2019s AR4:
%u2018%u2026there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead
proffers %u201Cwhat if%u201D projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.
There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended
to cover a range of possible self consistent %u201Cstory lines%u201D that then provide decision makers
with information about which paths might be more desirable.%u2019
(Written by Kevin Trenberth of the Climate Analysis Section, National Center for
Atmospheric Research, and posted on ClimateFeedback at nature.com on June 4, 2007.)"

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/PolBears.pdf

[hk94]

"We inspected the nine administrative reports that were commissioned by the U.S. government.
Since the current population of bears is not at a level that causes concern, the case for listing
depends upon forecasts of serious declines in bear numbers in decades to come. None of the
reports included references to scientific works on forecasting methods.
We found that the two reports that we judged most relevant to the listing decision made
assumptions where forecasts were required. Even if these assumptions had been valid, the bear
population forecasting procedures described in the reports contravened many important
forecasting principles."

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/PolBears.pdf

[noloyalisti]

We all need to stop buying and driving SUVs. some of this knew this back in 2000 when the oil companies were voted in to run the government. We certainly do not need cheap gas, nor do we need further growth in the economy. Even progressives don''t want to talk about this. It is important that we cut back on our lifestyles (read consumption). The government can step in and levy severe consumption taxes. This might save us if we do it soon.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Guess what? The planet does what it does and it is human arrogance to think we can do so much to change such massive natural systems." Posted by hk94

Ok, if this is the case, then you would be willing to drink untreated water from the Hudson river as it passes Manhattan, or Mississippi river water in Louisiana? How about a bottle of Detroit river water?

[hk94]

Ok, if this is the case, then you would be willing to drink untreated water from the Hudson river as it passes Manhattan, or Mississippi river water in Louisiana? How about a bottle of Detroit river water?

Posted by brianbwb

Actually that would be better than drinking the water from a river in the middle of a pristine rain forest. I would likely die of disentery within a few days if I did.

Regardless, my point was about global climate change and long term effects not sewer water. Even in that case did you notice the previously dreaded zebra muscle cleaned out Lake Erie pretty good from the sewer that it was.

You also missed my other posts about how the GW hype is detracting from attacking real pollution, such as *** in our rivers.

[doctor--o]

We''ve have had the information for years.
Instead our thinking has been:
Let''s see:
Al Gore, George Bush,
Al Gore, George Bush,
Al Gore, George Bush
Oh, I know that one name and I don''t like it that Bill Clinton was diddling in the oval office.
I''ll vote for the worst mistake in human history.
That''s right.
Good choice.

Hmmm, What''s that funny piece of paper that just fell on the floor.

[joyous88]

mocaleo- is just anothet example of why we all have to

get out there and vote and support democrats across the board this time.

mcbushsame, bush, even little mocoleo care more for

their ideology than they do for the rest of us, they

do not care if we all die, as long as we die christians, mindless christians.

McSame'' plan is the same as Bush''s, in spite of his

big talk express BS, he says the ''free markets'' will

solve the problem, right! thats how we got into this

mess. reublicons and thetr CON friends have destroyed

america, they are the real terroists

[perceptions5]

The Nation gives us another far left-wing liberal doom and gloom view of the world.

Definitely a "mouthpiece" for the Democrat party and all it''s "speical interests" groups.

Just another story from the most corrupt institution in America, our mostly liberal MSM wolfpack press.

And, as ususal, their trying to scare Americans with their "theories".

Really sad indeed...........

[sepa2]

The trick is we have to make conservation part of the economy growth - encorage new products, technologies and recycling etc. I think US is the last among the developed countries in this regard. We define growth by consumer spending and everyone is encoraged to spend. Everytime there is a conservation measure, the argument is it will affect the growth. Despite being a highly technological society US is sadly lacking decision makers with science / engineering background both in parivate and public sectors.

[middleman8]

this article only worries about the spoiled united states. Its about time the us woke up and stopped feather bedding on the worlds back. U S 4.9 percent to world population grabs 29.5 percent of world resources

[random_radar]

Think globally
Act locally
Commit suicide to save the planet

[mandylou4u]

I don''t know about you guys, but I personally have been recycling since 1995. Everybody at my work said I was wasting my time and they were too dam lazy to put paper in one box and trash in the other. This is what will kill our plantet. Too many dumba@@es not wanting to give up there perfect little way of life. You have to get the people to make the effort and that will be the hardest job of this whole thing. Next time you talk to someone who drives an suv, ask them to give up their car and see the response you get to that. Shame shame.

[jon2012-2009]

Does the climate change? Yes. Is is man-made? Doubtful.
Posted by hk94 at 09:48 PM : May 12, 2008btful.

The connection between global warming and human activity is today considered an established fact. There is no longer room for doubt. To dismiss the weight of this scientific consensus is to try to beat extremely long odds. I can only think you''re in denial or foolish.

[noloyalisti]

Climate change is a natural process over the course of centuries and millenia. It is the rate that is the problem and will cause species to go extinct, diseases to spread and severe weather.

Time to lose the SUVs, big house in the subsurbs, get off the fat buts and walk and bicycle. It will help our single payer health plan as well.

[briannorwood]

And the right-wing mouthpieces (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc) have worked so hard to convince us that this is all a hoax, that alot of Americans remain confused.

And the biggest moron of them all, George Bush and his administration have for years worked tirelessly to dampen the truth.

Makes me ill!

[oscarez]

The only thing that can change the impact of humans is if the human population of planet earth is cut in half. We know this will never happen so your grandkids will be living in a world that does not have enough resources to provide for the population. No hype, just the facts!!!

See http://www.wri.org/ecosystems

[voidmaster-2009]

The only thing that can change the impact of humans is if the human population of planet earth is cut in half.

Posted by Oscarez

***

As long as %u201Cmakin%u2019 babies%u201D remains more popular than dying, a dramatic reduction in human population is more likely to be an effect of climate change than a means by which it is contained. Further, I suggest that a global collapse of civilization will result in a human population reduction to around 2 billion by the time it stabilizes. That%u2019s a bit more than a 50 percent reduction of current levels.

[voidmaster-2009]

Eliminating most of civilization sounds like a good thing to me.

Posted by VoidMaster
----------------------

Ok
ay, so go kill yourself.

Hmm, don''''t want to? Ruh-roh...

***

Posted by hypnotoad72

***

I%u2019m not sure how or why someone killing himself would help with global warming. But then it%u2019s also clear that this idiot did not read (or maybe just did not comprehend) the rest of my post (go back 3 pages). My point -- which was very clear to the literate -- is that I am prepared for either outcome.

I can program a computer and I can chip a Clovis point (currently working on my Folsoms) and many, many things in between. I%u2019m ready to live comfortably within whatever environment emerges on this planet. Ultimately, the environmental impact on me will be to determine which of my many skills are survival oriented and which are mere hobbies.

Whether or not global warming is man-made is irrelevant. Whether or not our species has the ability to impact it; also irrelevant. Let us say for the sake of argument that humanity is able to effect climate change by some concerted effort. No way are we inclined toward the level of global cooperation that would be necessary. Plus, I rather suspect it%u2019s too late anyway.

[ianlou]

I think I''ll try a Repug stance on this one - here goes...

Rising Sea levels? I live 950 feet above sea level so I don''t care.

How''d I do Rush?

[oscarez]

VoidMaster well said.

[voidmaster-2009]

Actually, I could be within walking distance of the beach!

[oscarez]

Hank Williams Jr. said it, "A Country Boy Will Survive".

[voidmaster-2009]

For me, the hardest part will be the absence of commercially packaged lager beer.

[dragonez-2009]

Is Global warming helped by people, Yes

If you have one person in a building the ac is pleasant if you have a 200 in that same room the air conditioning is too warm. We give off heat through our bodies, our ACs and everything else we touch how could we not be part of the problem and thats not even counting the effect the rest of our emissions

[noloyalisti]

Not to be an alarmist liberal (actually our founding fathers and greatest leaders had liberal ideas) but significant warming could disrupt the food chain which will cause us not to survive. There are already significant problems with ocean life and food. If the oceans are further affected, the base food, microorganisms and corals who remove CO2 could be disrupted with tragic consequences.

The geological record is full of mass extinctions. The difference is we will know what is happening to us and why.

[voidmaster-2009]

I think what we%u2019re seeing is the beginnings of just another extinction level event. Whether or not **** sapiens is one of the casualties remains to be seen. In the past, such large-scale die-offs simply left niches for better evolved species to emerge in to. If that is what happens to us, then it is what NEEDS to happen to us. Something better will emerge. And in the end, the impact on the individual will be negligible.

Humans did not cause climate change. We just accelerated the process. It would have still happened within another thousand or so years anyway.

[txgrouch2004]

joh2012 wrote:
The connection between global warming and human activity is today considered an established fact.
-------------
Then why is MARS warming?

It has been observed for years now that the polar ice caps on the planet Mars have been melting - they have virtually disappeared now.

MARS IS GETTING WARMER - why?

DID HUMANS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT???

[voidmaster-2009]

Mars%u2019 ice caps are not %u201Cdisappearing.%u201D Its Southern ice cap is perennial and is composed of carbon dioxide -- which freezes at a much lower temperature than water. Thus, the very slight warming that occurs annually at each pole is sufficient to melt away any frozen CO2. Note that it does not get warm enough to ever melt the water ice at Mars%u2019 North Pole.

There has been one controversial theory put forth that suggests that Mars is warming. A Russian scientist named Habibullo Abdussamatov presented it. And notably, Abdussamatov is not even a climatologist. The rest of the scientific community has not accepted his theory.

The lower gravity and dramatically lower atmospheric pressure of Mars is insufficient to retain water in liquid form. Thus, any time some of its water ice at its North Pole does melt, it almost immediately boils off into space. I suspect that much the same thing happens to CO2 ice, just at a much slower rate, since CO2 is heavier than H20.

Further, the meteorological dynamics of any other planet have nothing to do with those of Earth. So what happens with Mars%u2019 weather is not representative of what happens on Earth. The only possible exception will not occur for around another 5 billion years -- when the sun begins to swell into a red giant. At that point, global warming will take on a much more direct meaning on ALL of the planets of this solar system.

[voidmaster-2009]

Manipulating the findings of scientific research is typically the work of the politically motivated. Since most such research is funded by politicians, they sincerely feel justified in applying pressure to the scientists to skew the results in favor of their own views. As far as I%u2019m concerned, scientists who give in to such pressure are little more than court magicians.

[juwboy]

Which of the following two extreme climate situations causes more deaths?

(A) a cold winter
(B) a hot summer

The answer is (A) by a huge margin.

So, why aren''t we doing everything we possibly can to promote and accelerate global warming until the two numbers are comparable?

That''s when our planet will have its ideal optimum temperature.