Climate Change and the Black Death
Earlier this year a drama-documentary was released called "The Age of Stupid". Narrated by someone in the year 2055, facing the extinction of humanity, it was about how climate change could have been avoided.
This year, at the Copenhagen conference on climate change, Al Gore claimed that the Arctic could be free of ice in summer within five years.
Both of these scenarios are complete scientific nonsense. They aren't based on any reputable scientific data or predictions.
I have no doubts that climate change is a very serious matter that needs to be dealt with. If we do nothing, there is likely to be at least 3C change in global temperature within a century. That will change our world in many ways, and it results in the death of tens or hundreds of millions.
But that is bad enough, and we must not exaggerate the consequences. Global warming will not boil the oceans. It won't change Earth into Venus. It won't wipe out humanity. It won't even destroy our civilization.
Humanity has faced major threats. One happened a few centuries ago. It was called the Black Death. The Plague swept across the world, and killed nearly a third of humanity. It was a terrible time, but we survived, and civilization continued.
I urgently want some sort of deal on the reduction of CO2 production. I want action on climate change. But I refuse to support exaggeration and outright lies to get that done. We need to present what is likely to happen as a result of climate change. That is bad enough.
This year, at the Copenhagen conference on climate change, Al Gore claimed that the Arctic could be free of ice in summer within five years.
Both of these scenarios are complete scientific nonsense. They aren't based on any reputable scientific data or predictions.
I have no doubts that climate change is a very serious matter that needs to be dealt with. If we do nothing, there is likely to be at least 3C change in global temperature within a century. That will change our world in many ways, and it results in the death of tens or hundreds of millions.
But that is bad enough, and we must not exaggerate the consequences. Global warming will not boil the oceans. It won't change Earth into Venus. It won't wipe out humanity. It won't even destroy our civilization.
Humanity has faced major threats. One happened a few centuries ago. It was called the Black Death. The Plague swept across the world, and killed nearly a third of humanity. It was a terrible time, but we survived, and civilization continued.
I urgently want some sort of deal on the reduction of CO2 production. I want action on climate change. But I refuse to support exaggeration and outright lies to get that done. We need to present what is likely to happen as a result of climate change. That is bad enough.
Re: Climate Change and the Black Death
a rise of 3C will raise the level of the ocean by a lot, wont it?
a catastrophe?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html
or a little?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
or
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090315155112.htm
a catastrophe?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html
or a little?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
or
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090315155112.htm
Re: Climate Change and the Black Death
I agree with you about the present prospects of global warming. But I should point out that the greenhouse effect is what has made Venus the hellhole that it is, and that there is little reason why it could not do similar damage to our own planet. The present models are focussed on carbon dioxide, but if things get sufficiently warm (and the threshold is well below the boiling point of water) the oceans will start releasing their methane, and things rapidly spiral out of control after that. It could happen, but it is unlikely (I hope it is unlikely!!).
One of the biggest problems with ecological disasters like global warming is that, if we prevent them, we will never know how bad things could have gotten: successful intervention will result in nobody noticing the success. And yet, failure is so serious (even if it is just a 3-degree heating of the oceans) that it must be averted. And on top of that, the data are sufficiently difficult to understand, the models sufficiently complicated, that the average person is not able to appreciate them. How to make the point that action must be taken, then? I can certainly understand the hyperbole here, even if it is irresponsible. While we should rein in those who hyperbolise the situation, we should also be careful not to give the denialists the impression that there is still any question that this is a serious problem.