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."

[jon2012-2009]

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.

Posted by juwboy at 05:00 AM : May 14, 2008

It''s nonsense to say that by promoting global warming we will obtain optimal temperature on the planet. Warm winters in temperate zones mean hotter summers but also scorching temperatures year-round in the tropics. There is always this differential in temperatures between different zones. This will drive more plant and animal life to extinction with greater impact in the tropics because, as it turns out, tropical plants and animals can only tolerate a much narrow range of temperature. In this regard, living things in cold climates have greater adaptation to climate change. And when large swatches in the tropics become uninhabitable, where do you think affected human populations will go to survive?

[voidmaster-2009]

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

Posted by juwboy
***

Because then starvation, which is already a greater cause of death, will become worse. Climate change is already causing drought in areas where such has never been a problem. This effects crop production. The increased use of corn for ethanol production along with other factors are creating food shortages, all of which is driving up the price and driving down the supply of food globally. We%u2019re already seeing food riots in parts of the world.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[voidmaster-2009]

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

[oscarez]

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

[voidmaster-2009]

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

[oscarez]

VoidMaster well said.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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!

[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.

[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.