Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near on Global Warming
Today I testified to Congress about global warming, 20 years after my June 23, 1988 testimony, which alerted the public that global warming was underway. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.
Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.
The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next president and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation.
Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control.
Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington and other capitals.
I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year.
On June 23, 1988 I testified to a hearing, organized by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend and that human-made greenhouse gases almost surely were responsible. I noted that global warming enhanced both extremes of the water cycle, meaning stronger droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and floods.
My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism. But while skepticism is the lifeblood of science, it can confuse the public. As scientists examine a topic from all perspectives, it may appear that nothing is known with confidence. But from such broad open-minded study of all data, valid conclusions can be drawn.
My conclusions in 1988 were built on a wide range of inputs from basic physics, planetary studies, observations of on-going changes, and climate models. The evidence was strong enough that I could say it was time to "stop waffling." I was sure that time would bring the scientific community to a similar consensus, as it has.
While international recognition of global warming was swift, actions have faltered. The U.S. refused to place limits on its emissions, and developing countries such as China and India rapidly increased their emissions.
What is at stake? Warming so far, about two degrees Fahrenheit over land areas, seems almost innocuous, being less than day-to-day weather fluctuations. But more warming is already "in the pipeline," delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean. And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a "perfect storm," a global cataclysm, are assembled.
Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.
More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well under way, it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely within a century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees, and no stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.
Animal and plant species are already being stressed by climate change. Species can migrate in response to movement of their climatic zone, but some species in polar and alpine regions will be pushed off the planet. As climate zones move farther and faster, climate change will become the primary cause of species extinction. The tipping point for life on the planet will occur when so many interdependent species are lost that ecosystems collapse.
The shocking conclusion, documented in a paper2 I have written with several of the world's leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million), and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year. Shocking corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.
These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how the world is responding to today's carbon dioxide amount. The consequences of continued increase of greenhouse gases extend far beyond extermination of species and future sea level rise.
Arid subtropical climate zones are expanding poleward. Already an average expansion of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, Australia and southern Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further unless carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.
Mountain glaciers are the source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people. These glaciers are receding world-wide, in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains. They will disappear, leaving their rivers as trickles in late summer and fall, unless the growth of carbon dioxide is reversed.
Coral reefs, the rainforest of the ocean, are home to one-third of the species in the sea. Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons, including warming of the ocean, but especially because of ocean acidification, a direct effect of added carbon dioxide. Ocean life dependent on carbonate shells and skeletons is threatened by dissolution as the ocean becomes more acid.
Such phenomena, including the instability of Arctic sea ice and the great ice sheets at today's carbon dioxide amount, show that we have already gone too far. We must draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide to preserve the planet we know. A level of no more than 350 ppm is still feasible, with the help of reforestation and improved agricultural practices, but just barely -- time is running out.
The steps needed to halt carbon dioxide growth follow from the size of fossil carbon reservoirs. Coal towers over oil and gas. Phase out of coal use except where the carbon is captured and stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving global warming.
Oil is used in vehicles, where it is impractical to capture the carbon. But oil is running out. To preserve our planet we must also ensure that the next mobile energy source is not obtained by squeezing oil from coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels.
Fossil fuel reservoirs are finite, which is the main reason that prices are rising. We must move beyond fossil fuels eventually. Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free energy promptly.
Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including disguised funding to shape school textbook discussions.
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. If their campaigns continue and "succeed" in confusing the public, I anticipate testifying against relevant CEOs in future public trials.
Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species would leave a more desolate planet.
If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead. We must demand a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. We must block fossil fuel interests who aim to squeeze every last drop of oil from public lands, off-shore, and wilderness areas. Those last drops are no solution. They provide continued exorbitant profits for a short-sighted self-serving industry, but no alleviation of our addiction or long-term energy solution.
Moving from fossil fuels to clean energy is challenging, yet transformative in ways that will be welcomed. Cheap, subsidized fossil fuels engendered bad habits. We import food from halfway around the world, for example, even with healthier products available from nearby fields. Local produce would be competitive if not for fossil fuel subsidies and the fact that climate change damages and costs, due to fossil fuels, are also borne by the public.
A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a carbon tax. Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is needed to wean us off fossil fuel addiction. Tax and dividend allows the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.
Carbon tax on coal, oil and gas is simple, applied at the first point of sale or port of entry. The entire tax must be returned to the public, an equal amount to each adult, a half-share for children. This dividend can be deposited monthly in an individual's bank account.
Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is non-regressive. On the contrary, you can bet that low and middle income people will find ways to limit their carbon tax and come out ahead. Profligate energy users will have to pay for their excesses.
Demand for low-carbon high-efficiency products will spur innovation, making our products more competitive on international markets. Carbon emissions will plummet as energy efficiency and renewable energies grow rapidly. Black soot, mercury and other fossil fuel emissions will decline. A brighter, cleaner future, with energy independence, is possible.
Washington likes to spend our tax money line-by-line. Swarms of high-priced lobbyists in alligator shoes help Congress decide where to spend, and in turn the lobbyists' clients provide "campaign" money.
The public must send a message to Washington. Preserve our planet, creation, for our children and grandchildren, but do not use that as an excuse for more tax-and-spend. Let this be our motto: "One hundred percent dividend or fight! No more alligator shoes!"
The next president must make a national low-loss electric grid an imperative. It will allow dispersed renewable energies to supplant fossil fuels for power generation. Technology exists for direct-current high-voltage buried transmission lines. Trunk lines can be completed in less than a decade and expanded analogous to interstate highways.
Government must also change utility regulations so that profits do not depend on selling ever more energy, but instead increase with efficiency. Building code and vehicle efficiency requirements must be improved and put on a path toward carbon neutrality.
The fossil-industry maintains its stranglehold on Washington via demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as scapegoats to rationalize inaction. In fact, we produced most of the excess carbon in the air today, and it is to our advantage as a nation to move smartly in developing ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem, developing countries can be allowed limited extra time to reduce emissions. They will cooperate: they have much to lose from climate change and much to gain from clean air and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.
We must establish fair agreements with other countries. However, our own tax and dividend should start immediately. We have much to gain from it as a nation, and other countries will copy our success. If necessary, import duties on products from uncooperative countries can level the playing field, with the import tax added to the dividend pool.
Democracy works, but sometimes churns slowly. Time is short. The 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen, if Washington adapts to address climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold great expectations.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Here are some words on this matter from John Trudell, Earth the Living Entity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHS6392MzEs
More here: Where Spirits Get Eaten:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKoZqB2nM4
Thanks, Dr. Hansen.
I'm doing what I can and looking to do more.
I'm so glad to hear people with your attitude. My wife and I are trying to do lots of little things to reduce the damage we cause to the environment.
- Turn off lights when not in a room.
- Turn the air conditioning temperature up a couple degrees
- Change the air conditioning filters regularly
-We car pool
-We drive the bigger car only locally, and rarely
-We drive the hybrid for all longer trips
-We stay closer to home, and avoid flying whenever we can these days. (Who wants to fly anyway, these days. The experience sucks.)
-We recycle cardboard and paper, plastic, glass, scrap metal
-We've started a garden in our back yard
-We got some of those canvas bags at the supermarket and we always take them with us when we buy groceries. (Aside: The last time I was at the store, the woman in front of me in line bought 4 of them, I had mine. The man behind us looked at this, and bought 3 canvas bags right there.)
-We shop at the local farmers market rather than the supermarket for produce
-We've put up drapes on all of the bigger windows and close them during the hottest hours of the day
Basically, we're learning to live like the rest of the world has had to forever.
Sounds like you've made a tiny down payment on the kinds of lifestyle changes needed to meet Hansen's objectives. Do you think that "the rest of the world" has two cars and air conditioning?
Thank you Dr. Hansen.
no way....
this isn't a real problem
the guy who wrote jurasic park looked at the data and said you guys are exagerating
i don't know what his credentials are
but he looked at the data
You are joking right? The guy who wrote Jurasic Park?? My uncle once read a science book and he says there's nothing to worry about, so it must not be true! How ignorant are you?
I think he's answered that question clearly.
You don't even know know the name of "the guy who wrote jurasic park" and you presume to make a statement here. You are hilarious. You don't know what his credentials are, but he looked at the data! I'm seriously rolling on the floor laughing at you right now--hard to type while doing so I might add.
I can't believe the number of people here who still refuse to believe there is anything changing about the environment. Never mind the satellite photos of Antarctica and the Arctic and Greenland and the glaciers and mountain tops. Never mind smog--you guys have heard of smog, right? Just because it's localized to cities right now doesn't mean it won't expand to cover the country or the world as we let this problem go unresolved. That is something you can see with your own eyes. Or how about lakes that have fish you can't eat. Or how about air quality alerts on the news because of high concentrations of surface ozone. These things are in your face and you still refuse to see them. And the guy who wrote the Davinci Code says there's a conspiracy. I don't know what his credentials are, but I'm sure he's right.
Thank you Dr. Hansen. I hope we wake up in time.
Meanwhile, in my corner of Iowa, I am trying to get Democrats elected who think science is a good thing.
Dr. Hansen,
I too have to say "Thank You"
You are a patriot and if I could I would vote to give you the
Kennedy "Profile in Courage" Award.
But I'm afraid that it's going to take a bit more time for as one science fiction writer once said:
"The people are light years ahead of the politicians".
It's a good thing that people who thank Dr. Hansen instead of taking him to task are a minority. Otherwise, science would die. The truth would just become whatever people want it to be regardless of what reality dictates.
The Congress and the President have to take the lead. It's up to us to tell them the direction. Call, write, email and visit often to let them know.
I think it's time folks who can't accept this information put their case to the US National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society , the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), NOAA, and the long list of other international bodies of scientists who have all reviewed the existing research and data, and have all issued reports on the observation of global warming and climate change, and the evidence for human modification of climate.
When you convince them you're right, and they're all wrong, let me know.
Until then, don't waste our time. You're just part of the problem.
Amen
Amen.
If this problem is so serious, then all the environmentalists and tree huggers that strongly believe in it should be willing to compromise on solutions. Nuclear power is the most obvious way to compromise. We already generate about 20% of our electricity from nuclear power. Why not build another 40 or 50 nuclear power plants and eliminate all those aging coal fired plants that Dr. Hansen is talking about?
When those true believers adamantly refuse to compromise on such a reasonable solution, it exposes the fact that they don't look at global warming as a real threat, but only as a political tool they can use to try to force their own agenda forward.
Your argument has some validity, but the more you understand about nuclear power the more you understand how problematic it is. In many ways it is like global warming - the issues are subtle but cumulative. If cabon emissions are your only concern then nuclear power looks good. There are some emerging technologies that make nuclear power safer but we have a long way to go on reducing the radioactive waste and storing it safely.
In many nuclear power is like global warming - the issues are subtle but cumulative.
This is a straw man argument. Hansen didn't even mention nuclear power. Personally, I don't have a problem considering nuclear power as one of many things that need to be considered to address the global warming disaster that is coming. And lumping us all together as 'tree-huggers' doesn't help your arguments. In fact, it makes me instinctively lump you in with the people in the pockets of big oil and big coal. Which makes your arguments worth about as much as the sludge those industries create.
do you have stock in nuclear dude?
the only thing preventing the construction of new nuclear plants is investors (ie. THE MARKET) who are too smart to put their money into the industry that was supposed to produce 'energy too cheap to meter'
hey, dude, I've got this bridge...
Corn-based ethanol production was seen as a short term "solution" too. That is working out well, eh?
Now remember blueshield, we are talking about adults who really believe that Eve was made from Adam's rib and an invisible man in the sky watches everything.
How much of this "the sky is falling" bs do we have to put up with? Articles like this are further proof of how statistics are manipulated to support a point of view. For instance, Hansen purports that the safe level of carbon dioxide is 350 ppm and that the current level is 385 ppm, but fails to show how much of that amount is "man-made" and how much is natural. Man's total global carbon footprint from the 1880s to today amounts to about 0.0001% of the atmosphere. Put another way, if a football field from goal line to goal line represents the entire atmosphere, the total amount of carbon dioxide would amount to approx 1.44 inches of the field; and the amount that is man-made would be roughly 9 millimeters.
Additionally, NASA recognizes other factors that impact warming and cooling. For instance, on April 21st, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory confirmed that an impending phase shift in a natural climate event would likely bring colder temperatures for as many as the next 20-30 years.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=18012
Also, meteorologist Anthony Watts notes "...while solar activity normally fluctuates in 11-year cycles, we now appear to be at a cold standstill." And his research adds voice to growing concerns that Sun cycle 24's late start may have a chilling effect on the Earth's Climate.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone/
Are you ignorant or illiterate? Why don't you try reading the article before arguing that it supports your know-nothing claims:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=18012
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”
"These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it."...
In other words, weather patterns have as much impact on global temperatures as does the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere--yes? That's precisely my point, there are a lot more factors that drive global temperatures than carbon dioxide many of which are not accounted for in the computer models the warming alarmists love to use. To simply extrapolate global temperatures by measuring CO2 levels is shere folly.
Do you have children?
Do you? I can play the "stupid question masquerading as informed retort" game too.
cct84,
I just love folks who are "Cafeteria Scientists without a degree"
Now, it is possible to study and do good science without a PhD but it's also possible for
some folks to use a tiny bit of information, totally taken out of context with no real understanding
of the science, to blow it up and make outrageous claims.
This is what you have done.
The fact is that for all intents and purposes, we are just seeing the natural variability of the Sunspot Cycle.
Now, if this continues for say, another 2 or even 3 years...
Then I would say you have a problem.
Do some research yourself.
Is it me or does it seem like this is one of those topics that bring all the trolls out.
Wow such a concentrated effort.
Shows you who is making alot of money and is spreading it around.
By the way if it is a sunspot cycle i think you should stay inside. Isn't the sun dangerous to trolls?
OK, cct84, let's apply your argument to the food industry and let's use your numbers, although I don't know where you got them because you have not cited references for them. What if the methyl mercury levels in the food you eat was as high as 0.0001% ? FDA "Action Levels" on mercury in swordfish is 0.0000001%
So very small amounts can be significant. Your 'flip flop' from English to metric units is curious, as 9 mm is about 1/4 of 1.44 inches. You are admitting that the human contribution of CO2 to global concentrations is huge. Even the Bush administration and FOX News have admitted that CO2 is responsible for global warming, and you are saying that the human contribution to CO2 levels is tremendous, yet you continue to deny the effects.
Just curious, do you happen to be employed by an energy company, or do you simply own stock?
You are admitting that the human contribution of CO2 to global concentrations is huge.
I'm not admitting that at all; I simply assumed for the sake of argument that what the alarmist claim to be man's contribution is correct (word limitations prevented me from stating this in my initial post).
Your analogy is weak because mercury is a toxic metal, period. CO2, on the other hand, is not a poisonous gas...on the contrary, it is natural by-product of animal respiration and is vital for life on this planet. If we were to eliminate all CO2 from the atmosphere, this planet would die.
"Just curious, do you happen to be employed by an energy company, or do you simply own stock?"
I own stock in a lot of companies. BTW, you should ask Al Gore what his business interest are; you'd be surprised how much money he's making from the push for "green" energy.
What you people don't understand is once we reach the tipping point which we have accelerated by hundreds of years, the oceans become accidic, the air becomes intolerable. to put it in terms you idiots will undersatnd, Your Dead. Then the Planet cleans itself. It takes time. Long after humans. We have taken carbon which was settled in the ground (also known as oil) from the last global warming phase, and put it back into the air. This creates the conditions for the earth to clean itself again. Now, do you understand that.
I guess you should sell all your worldly possessions now--can't take it with you.
here's what i don't understand: scenario A: you are diagnosed with cancer by doctors- scientifically trained specialists. you accept the diagnosis, submit to their care as experts with your survival as an utmost goal. you follow their regimen. you improve or stay the disease- or if it's your time- let their care guide you on. your friends support you.
scenario B: the planet earth is diagnosed with carbon dioxide poisoning by scientifically trained specialists causing ecological deterioration of human habitat. you see a guest peice on fox or msnbc that where a politician accuses them of being socialists. you see something in the sunday paper that you can't follow. you get opinions from your hunting friends that its a plot to control the united states. you postpone or deny or condemn all expert pleas for perscriptive care. you insist on professional care for your teeth, your health, and your investments. yet you feel completely capable- with 0- zero- specialized education or training of determining the state, variable limits, and future of global ecology. since it confuses you, you adopt suspicion and denial. overwhelmingly climate changes follow the warming scenario. your resistance hardens. you happily join a front that renders social response politically impossible.
what is the difference? scenario A is about you. scenario B is about the planetary future- not you.
so party on. you were past the tipping point long before the science started to matter.
here here
You are a hero to all that care about reversing our climates warming trend and species survival! Too bad people in power feel that to implement change will mean a short stay in political power. I suppose the "threat" seems intangible and the "dividend" seems equally abstract. And now the third-world countries want their cheap dirty energy also. Seems too many humans living destructively and selfishly and prefering to put their index fingers firmly in ears when the "truth" is told to them. The naysayers are now marginalized as Neaderthals, yet most "believers" even prefer to procrastinate in changing polluting ways. Change MUST be implemented by political leaders, AND then enforced. We needed to start decades ago...that boat sailed, but lets get aggressive and change our ways NOW!!!!!!!
Here's what i don't understand:
We know we've had ice-ages before (See Wooly Mammoth & Sabertooth Tiger). We know we're not in an ice-age now. So what happened then to cause the warming then that isn't occuring now? (Under the assumption that humans are causing the warming)
Also, there's evidence coming out now that both Mars and Jupiter are warming. Is it reasonable to assume that whatever is helping heat those planets may also be heating ours? If not, tell us why. If so, tell us what that factor is so we can remove from the "human caused" portion of the issue.
Finally, the average world temperature dropped this year. How does that agree with Global Warming Theory? After all, the basis to this theory is rising temperature. If the temperature isn't rising anymore, does the theory still hold water?
As a wise man once said, "I don't think so. Homie don't play that."
Good points which call into question the man made global warming hysteria. If the next 3 or 4 years fail to show increasing temperatures maybe everyone can start to act rationally again, then again I'm sure we'll then have people talking about how man is creating the next ice age. Go figure.
Hysteria? Predictions have been made continuosly for thirty plus years, and the only way they have been inaccurate is that things are proceeding much faster than predicted, and people like you are still in denial. WTF do you mean man made global warming hysteria? You do know that scientists recently discovered that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa, right?
Here's what I don't understand: how many times people like the author of this article have to tell ignorant, brain washed people like you that what you say is not true. What you are mouthing is exactly the line the CEO's and their propaganda machine have been pushing for the last twenty years. So who are you going to believe, a man whose every prediction has and is coming true, or some one who wants you to believe that you need to keep on keeping on in the same old cabon using style you have been because they get richer? I know the question is merely rhetorical for you because you have either been home schooled without any critical or logical thinking skills and no science or you work for a corporation like Exxon and you are being paid to muddy the waters! Either way, I hope you are still alive when it all comes crashing down. I'd give anything to be there to see what you believe then or what kinds of things you don't understand then!
If you calm down, maybe i can help you understand where i'm coming from.
First of all, i'm an engineer. So i've taken plenty of science classes. I notice you have no scientific argument yourself and are reduced to lame ad hominom attacks.
When it comes to science, i don't 'believe' anyone. I say, "Prove it to me". That's the beauty of science. It's not open to interpretation.
No one has yet to answer my question. What caused the warming after the ice-ages that isn't causing our warming now? Any scientific experient and analysis has to have independent , dependent, and controlled variables. We don't even know what all the variables are because some people are determined to blame CO2 only. Thats the only variable we're allowed to consider. So how do we control those other variables or even account for them? We don't even try.
But we know scientific understanding isn't the objective. Control over the public and exhorbidant taxing is. Talk about the politics of fear.
There is natural variability in climate -- one season (e.g., summer) may be hotter or cooler than the year before, fluctuating within a certain band or range. But over many seasons it is possible to see a trend in which the band moves higher (average temperature increases). That is what's happening with climate change.
Simple. We have been burning fossil fuels for almost a century now. The result is carbon dioxide. Radiation in the form of light(a small wave radiation) can pass through carbon dioxide easily. Once it strikes the surface of the earth, it is converted into heat, a long wave radiation, which cannot pass through the layer of carbon dioxide, so it becomes trapped. That is why they named CO2 a "greenhouse gas." It works just like a greenhouse, only the glass is replaced by a layer of carbon dioxide gas. Anything else you need an explanation for? If I can't, I'll try to find someone who can.
Lex,
I have to assume that many of these folks are either older or so young and missed science during their formative years...
Maybe they were "Out back" smoking:(
I really wish good ole Carl had not passed away so soon:(
He would be right there with Dr. Hansen..yelling and screaming at the top of his lungs
for all of us to get to work...
May he rest in peace!
Please site your evidence that both Mars & Jupiter are undergoing warming.
Also, try asking SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) Astronomers if they have seen
an increase in Solar illuminance that would account for Mars & Jupiter warming..
I asked many months ago and they said no.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070404203258.5klhwqs4&show_article=1
Solar, solar, solar. Power your electric car from your solar-powered house. Jimmy Carter had it done from the White House. That's why he had to go. He wasn't part of Darth Cheney's energy task force that was put in place to SCREW us at the pump with the only available source, FOSSIL fuels. Some country, huh?
First, there is no such thing as a 100% dividend. Instead, 40% of the money will go to the bureaucracy who has to run this mammoth of a government program. But i guess that will "provide jobs" so "the people" will be happy. i guess.
Second, how do you measure an individuals total carbon footprint? I can understand fitting industrial and manufacturing plant's exhaust stacks with CO2 measuring devices. But what about filthy rich people that fly their jumbojets everywhere? Or me leaving my phone charger plugged in. Or the thousand of other examples i hear about how we're destroying the world via "global warming"?
I can already see it. Along with filing my ridiculously complex income tax returns, i'll get to fill out an equally ridiculously complex global warming tax returns. Only in America.
Along with filing my ridiculously complex income tax returns, i'll get to fill out an equally ridiculously complex global warming tax returns"
So you admit you donn't understand a lot of stuff.
No. I just more than just fill out the 1040 EZ. You'll see what i mean one day.
You are very wrong. Off by two orders of magnitude!
Social Security administration(the definition of big bureaucracy) has a 1.4% administrative overhead(2008 budget). The carbon tax is relatively simple to administer, relative to social security.
Worst case, would be a 0.5% overhead to administer the carbon tax. It is likely to be more like 0.2%. This is one hundredth the overhead that you have assumed.
0.2 to 0.5% is quite low. As a result, more than 99.5% of the carbon emission fees would be returned as rebates. That is pretty close to 100%.
It doesn't matter what congress or anyone else does next year. The simple fact is that if the population of the earth reaches the predicted twelve billion by 2012 instead of the four billion the earth can support, the tipping point was reached at 8 billion.
The projection for the earth's population max was reduced not too long ago from 11 billion to 8 billion.(UN? WHO?) Another example that when humanity finally gets out of denial and acts, it can save it's collective arse. At least for awhile.
The decrease is going to cause another problem : "The Empty Cradle" A global issue except for areas in Africa hardest hit by AIDS deaths. The number of elderly that need to be cared for will greatly exceed the younger population available to do the caring,
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
