The climate change issue is suffering growing pains in the form of a vigorous debate between Ph.Ds over whether we have a bit of time (perhaps 20 years) in which to get our ducks properly in a row, or whether we’ve run out of time and best get it done yesterday. We have previously reported the position of the American chapter of IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has Al Gore as it’s elegant spokesperson. We have also noted the position of Dr. James Hansen, Director of the Goddard Space Institute in opposition on the question of time. Powerful voices have wafted over the Atlantic from Great Britain, where the British IPCC, based at Hadley Center, have only just now published conclusions based on their computer models. The British publication, The Ecologist, was permitted to publish those conclusions in their Jan. 2007 edition, given in graphic form depicting temperatures across the globe on a decade by decade basis until the end of this century, using present greenhouse gas emissions as a constant. Greenhouse gas emissions are, in fact, increasing vigorously, making those Hadley projections optimistic. The Ecologist also used the conclusions of The Tyndall Center in England to criticize The Stern Report for siding with the American view that a bit of time is at our disposal. It should be noted that Sir Nicholas Stern, a very prominent economist and author of the report, used Al Gore as a consultant on technical matters.

This writer is not about to get into that battle of the Titans – I don’t have a Ph.D. in climatology. But I do recognize good writing, and that is something The Ecologist provides in good measure. The lead article by Anna da Costa would be reproduced here without comment if it were possible. I read an awful lot about climate change but nothing else approaches the clarity and brevity that da Costa achieves. We ought to provide just the teeniest tiniest portion of the billions we pound down the Iraq rat hole to buy up publication rights and put them in the public domain on stuff like that. Those words should be put in front of everybody as fundamental education. Alas, it doesn’t work that way.

The Hadley projections are so scary that The Ecologist reports that access to them had been limited earlier to only scientists and government officials. Do keep in mind that these are the result of running truly vast quantities of data through a program which tries to sort it all out and make sense of it. There are potential errors or omissions in the data flow, and perhaps not enough is yet known about what factors apply and how significant they are. If computer modeling were perfect we could implicitly trust the weather man, a chap closely related to a climatologist. The models are works in progress – getting better all the time, which we appreciate. But I don’t yet put that much faith in what the weatherman says is going to happen tomorrow.

Given all that, Hadley (and everybody else) says we’ve warmed our home planet 0.7 degrees centigrade already since the pre-industrial era, and given feed-back effects, if we used not one more pound of fossil fuel the temperature differential would increase to 1.6 degrees C.

By 2020: Two degrees
By 2030: Three degrees
By 2040: Four to five degrees
By 2050: Seven degrees
by 2099: Ten degrees

The last great species die-off, the one that finished the dinosaur, happened 251 million years ago. Earth’s average temperature then had increased six degrees centigrade. Enough to destroy a sufficient number of eco-systems. Compare that with the 2052 figure. You tell me what kind of a future we are handing that child if we don’t do something now. How much life do we offer and what kind of a life can it be? Let me note that Hadley’s projections are images of the earth, and the temperature changes were not uniform. Some areas suffered more, some less, but all suffered.

I propose we don’t wait around until the Titans quit quarreling. We haven’t got time under either format to wait for our federal government to ‘do something’. When and if they got around to it they would just try and make us do what we can now do voluntarily and skip the damned political stuntsmanship. Bill Bradbury, just back from indoctrination in Tennessee as one of Al Gore’s lieutenants, agrees entirely. We must change our ways, and put the emphasis on ‘us’, not ‘them’. You and me. How painful is it going to be? In answer to that question during the Q&A, Bradbury – I don’t remember whether he thumped the table with his fist or I just remember it like that – said NO!! We are not talking sacrifice. We are talking about modifying our habits. Bradbury said he drove down here in a Prius. What sacrifice?

The U. of Oregon. had a chap there who was launching a program of canvassing selected neighborhoods, offering free energy audits and suggestions on how to save energy, and at the same time save money. If successful, the program will be expanded. We need this to work. On pain of the death of our children. According to Hadley, they may not have to wait very long to learn their fate.

If Hadley’s projection are wrong, praise God. If they are correct……..

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 9th, 2007 at 10:20 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.