NASA warming scientist: 'This is the last chance'
June 24th, 2008 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer
Jim Hansen, left, a leading researcher on global warming, talks with House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee Chairman Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., right, prior to a briefing on global warming on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, June 23, 2008. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
(AP) -- Exactly 20 years after warning America about global warming, a top NASA scientist said the situation has gotten so bad that the world's only hope is drastic action.
Content from The Associated Press expires 15 days after original publication date. For more information about The Associated Press, please visit www.ap.org .
Similar stories from PHYSorg:
Americans consider global warming an urgent threat, according to poll
Oct 01, 2007 |
2.7 / 5 (15) |
0
Melting Greenland ice sheets may threaten Northeast United States, Canada
May 27, 2009 |
4.2 / 5 (71) |
18
Study: Next decade 'crucial' on warming
Jan 29, 2007 |
3.1 / 5 (11) |
0
NASA Study Links Severe Storm Increases, Global Warming
Dec 19, 2008 |
2.3 / 5 (12) |
5
NASA study links Earth impacts to human-caused climate change
May 14, 2008 |
3.2 / 5 (27) |
4
"..carbon dioxide emissions shouldn't be used in the United States after 2025, and should be eliminated in the rest of the world by 2030."
Last chance yet we can keep burning for another 17years? And no mention of phasing out other fossil fuel burning like in cars and aircraft. What a load of scaremongering crap!
If GW is a serious problem, then get the government to ban all oil burning, oh wait they can't do that, greed is more important than myths.
There is not a shred of evidence for a CO2 based 'greenhouse effect', see http://xxx.lanl.g...707.1161
Ok, the 'average' global temperature rises maybe, and climates change every, what is new? This is normal about weather and climate.
The theory of a CO2 based greenhouse effect is at least a century old, and has been disproved more often. This fake idea has been misused lately by politicians and 'scientists' who don't know anything about physics only to serve political goals.
This is clearly NOT representative of the NASA that had a vision to get us to the moon - and did. Forty years later have an entrenched bureaucracy, like the Church of ~1600, doing WHATEVER it takes to protect its livelihood. Time for unscientific Hansen to step down and go on tour Al Bore. They can pray together burning all that fuel jetting around the world preying on the masses.
Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer. [/QUOTE]
So, all you anti-GW'ers, here's a clear prediction by one of the scientists you claim are lying. Why don't we come back in 10 yrs and eval.
And, talk about religious. The sorts of unsupported opinions above (not including MikeB) trying to refute a scientist is the most theological thing i've seen since my childhood (and clearly reminds me of primary-school-yard debate).
and before you think me a crank alone in the wilderness...
http://www.petiti...ect.org/
"The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."
Sorry, no points for predicting the inevitable...
The Waremenizer cult makes the Church of Scientology look tolerant of dissent.
And yet, strangely, every time I actually see an actual chart or graph with actual information on it and actual attributions, it actually shows the temperature actually going up.
But I guess you have access to information that is unavailable to the rest of us, acquired through your contacts as a Home Depot clerk. You'd share it with us, but you left it in your other pants....
In 100 years, maybe we'll be a solar/wind/hydrogen based society. It'll happen when the technology becomes economically feasible, or when oil runs out.
Problem is 20% of the worlds cities are on the coast-who payes if they end up underwater?
The Hydrogen/Nuclear and renewables (CO2 free) encomony is viable and would take 20 years or so to transition to.
With Peak Oil now a reality($140 a barrell and rising)Maybe the next 10 years of recession (see what happened after 1973 oil shock) and mass unemployment might convince people that its time to change.
Or maybe we need to wait till $200 $300 $500 a barrell oil?
Though it is funny how it all lines up. This is our last chance(!), but we have twenty or thirty years to change. Ah, or about the time the big oil reserves start to dribble dry. But wait, nuclear plants and off-shore drilling will save us. Okay. Nuclear plants!?! People are really recommending massive construction of nuclear plants!? They are.
I'm afraid we don't need to chase science for the answers to these riddles. Just follow the money.
Besides, if he's really right, and believes what he preaches, wouldn't the humane approach be to plead for us to start preparing adaptations to this new environment? Shouldn't he be concerned about saving lives? There are large populations that will need to re-locate, as just one example.
It makes me laugh to see everyone rushing in to protect their precious careers and political agendas at the expense of(assuming this GW thing is real) human lives.
Most arguements I've read here today are on the wrong track, including the article. No amount of hand-wringing can make these kind of recommended huge cultural/economic changes happen overnight. If GW is coming(and I think it is), the world should begin the address the real eventualities.
I'm done.
Where I live in Washington State, I make sure not to move to any valleys that will be vulnerable to the mud flows that Mt. Rainier will cause when it blows. People on the coast should likewise adapt.
No amount of reform by currently industrialized nations will reduce the CO2 concentration, unless we also doom third world contries into perpetual poverty for the next few hundred years. These countries cannot simply jump into this new green era. Progress takes energy, and the cheaper the energy the faster the progress. They will need to build up the same way we did, dirty industrialization through cheap natural resources. Any outside help is going to result in loans, massive debt, land grabs and eventually war, it's not paranoia, watch Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Yes, it's in an industrialized nation's best interest to find permanent source of cheap energy, but to say to a developing country that they can't take the same shortcuts that we did to provide for their people is immoral.
So you get to pick. Possible nature induced relocation of millions of people or continued starvation and death of people who didn't contribute to the problem.
To cut emissions, Hansen said coal-fired power plants that don't capture carbon dioxide emissions shouldn't be used in the United States after 2025, and should be eliminated in the rest of the world by 2030.
If you are quoting, do it right, "Homo Sapien"
that said, i will not use compact flourescent lights, and will not succumb to the doomsday preachers. I will be just another spectator of the great drama that is the progress of humanity.
hey.. what about LED lighting? I'm all for that!! BTW I don't own a car, I walk everywhere I need to go, and I actually use a few CF lights in my house. OK... I'm rambling a bit.. sorry..
I just don't like the GW histeria... We live in the best of times, as i said before. Don't forget that. The best of times, and better times await!
We all know that air pollution is bad. Nothing bad about phasing out polluting technologies and replacing them with sustainable fuels. We just have to try.
Responsible stewardship of our planet.
This will happen, one way or another, within the next couple of hundred years.
We cant blame china for their massive pollution, weve been there ourselves, using it to get to where we are now - now they produce those cheap goods we so eagerly want in the west and nothing you say will make them stop - its their turn now.
What we can do is, freely teach them to use clean energy and help them avoid the mistakes we have made.
Ive lived in Greenland and things are happening to the climate, go there yourselves and have a look.
What are you? A 10yo retard? What was your point that you failed to make? And maybe use a thesaraus some more so you don't call everyone a homo-sapien
Number of energy producing satellites from Space = 00000000.0000000
Remember, if it's an environmental concern or impending catastrophe - blame our President (and all white males).
The Greens oppose any and all suggestions for a valid solution to the GW "problem". Why?
Let's look to France where their aggressive nuclear program now provides that nation with 70% of their energy needs - and with the nuclear waste problem solved.
I deeply appologise to any Homo Stupidus I offended here.
The only method of transfering voltage over wireless, that I am aware of, is through the use of microwaves... Which aren't good for your health. Good luck getting that magnetron into orbit. Not to mention directing that beam through the atmosphere in a way that it is all collected on the ground, without over spill. But you sound like a smart guy... or perhaps smart ass, can't tell which. Maybe you will be the one to launch these.
Thanks, I take it your not a tard since your aware of latin. Appology accepted :-S
Hanson is correct to warn against increased reliance on coal for power production (although the US has been importing high quality coal from abroad - that may change as fuel prices rise).
However, the reasoning behind this advice shouldn't focus on CO2 reduction. It should rest on the issues of removing fine particulates, S-, N- and heavy metal contaminants from emissions.
The argument for careful consumption of coal for energy production in the US should be health-based, rather than climate-based.
US coal is an ace in the pocket, as petrochemical base supply in the future, when oil reserves have been depleted (in a few decades or less, at the estimated escalating rise in demand).
The modern age 'engine' (and I am not referring to combustion) ticks along on a basis of petrochemicals. We have zip to replace crude oil as a source of petrochemical stocks.
If I were NASA, I would be revisiting the synfuel technology developed 20 years ago. Now is the time to be looking for lower cost catalysts, because synfuel production uses CO2 and CH4 as starting materials.
Population problems are resource problems pure and simple, it's a technology problem not a zero sum numbers game.
Yes we can fit more and more people on the planet if we ignore every other creature and if we can continue to modify and increase crop production.
This cycle is added and abetted by technological improvements in transportation and water and chemical delivery to crop sources.
The world overpopulation may continue until catastrophic crop failures, droughts or floods or some other natural disaster. Unfortunately systems under stress only need a catalysts in order for them to collapse. Such a stressor as climate change is the point of this article.
The human animal has the unfortunate habit of wanting to live in the most pleasant climates and want to live as comfortably as possible. Nothing is wrong with that. These same locations happen to be where a large number of the other creatures on earth would like to live. Nothing wrong with that either. These same locations tend to be where we grow our crops, site our industry, farm our animals etc etc etc. Nothing wrong with any of that - if only there wasn't so damn many people on this small planet.
During this next century when we are most concerned with climate change we have a long list of other disasters to contend with:
1) Extinction of just about every creature on the planet that weighs more than a person and many that weigh far less.
2) Problems delivering fresh water to citizens and crops in sufficient quantity and quality to provide for everyone.
3) Exodus of peasants to cities around the world and demand for quality of life products to satisfy the huge increase in demand.
4) The increasing cost of pollution and wast management.
5) Global warming, Ocean acidification, Deforestation, decreasing bio-diversity
6) Population pressure breeding diseases
7) War
Ah, technology. Our savior. Unfortunately, today's technological society exists simply because of cheap and plentiful energy. Unfortunately, that same energy seems to be at odds with a stable ecosystem. And, the cheapest and most easily converted of it (oil, principally, but natural gas too) is becoming ever shorter in supply.
The question arises: Will the humanity find (and allow) the development of alternatives to oil before the effects on the ecosystem become detrimental to human, and other forms of, life.
Personally, I sort of doubt it. I think that developing nations are going to continue using fossil fuels to the world's detriment. And only a world war will prevent it. Of course, a world war is another way that humanity can reduce its size to one more compatible with the planet's resources.