So far we have pushed up global temperatures by only about 0.8 C - but because of the 40 or 50 year time lag between emissions and temperature rise, the emissions already in the atmosphere commit us to raising temperatures by around another 0.6 degrees over the coming decades34 - which could easily place us right at the peak of the hill – or even over it.
If we do pass this critical threshold, global temperatures could soar by as much as 6 degrees.
The video is well worth a watch. You can also see the full script, complete with citations.
Wake Up, Freak Out - then Get a Grip from Leo Murray on Vimeo.
So far we have pushed up global temperatures by only about 0.8 C - but because of the 40 or 50 year time lag between emissions and temperature rise, the emissions already in the atmosphere commit us to raising temperatures by around another 0.6 degrees over the coming decades34 - which could easily place us right at the peak of the hill – or even over it.
If we do pass this critical threshold, global temperatures could soar by as much as 6 degrees.
“once we’re passed the tipping point, it will be too late”
Sounds a whole lot like a neocon saying “if we wait until june of 2003 to act with Saddam, it will be too late.” That’s tactic you liberals refer to as fear-mongering. You whine when conservatives do it, and then do it yourselves.
The difference is that in your example, the threat was completely bogus. In this case, its not.
The evidence for global warming is at least as suspect as ties to terror and Saddam. I’d be happy to review the extensive ties of Saddam to terrorism if you want to go down that path.
Sean2, thanks for the Strawman. Saddam clearly had some terror ties. But the justification for starting a pre-emptive war against Iraq was completely bogus. Waiting until June 2003 or June 2009 to act against Saddam would not have made any difference at all.
I’d love to hear your suspect evidence on climate change. Who’s your expert? Michael Chricton?
Except Hussein was NO threat to the US. Global warming is clearly an international threat.
I’d be happy to go through the evidence that proves otherwise. The lack of evidence to your global warming theory is astounding.
Holy fear-mongering, Batman!!
Wow, any excuse to control people’s lives even more…
Sean2,
We don’t want that “smoking gun” to be a smoking planet do we?
Running the economy is not about yesterday, today even just tomorrow.
Do people know where their eyes go when they drive down the highway?
What part of the road are you focused on? The headlights?
Ever tried to steer a large moving boat?
Without applying new force, steering its momentum is not easy to control.
Especially when you are new to boating.
We’ve already PASSED several thresholds.
Some people just want to believe there is always more where THAT came from.
Isn’t it interesting that people want to believe we are in crisis when it comes to
social security funds, but not when it comes to plaentary & resource impacts?
What is the rational difference in the argument?
Um, the rational difference is that we have control over the funding of social security and can verify that it’s unsustainable wheras we have no control over planetary phenomena and can only speculate on resource impacts. Furthermore, we are entitled to govern our social security system but we are not entitled to the governance of the rest of the world’s resources.
Um, wrong.
In the late Ordovician the planet plunged in to the Andean-Saharan ice age while the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was more than ten times what it is now. It is appalling that people who should be aware of this are scaring people with talk of a ‘tipping point’.
Wow, thanks for that nonsense. Do we have to enter another ice age for there to be a real climate problem?
So you are unaware. There is a graph that shows it, etc. at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
So Dan. How is that wrong? Do we not have control over Social Security spending? Or do we now have control over planetary phenomena and other nation’s resources?
Lloyd,
Oil and coal are developed at an infinitely slower rate than we are currently consuming them. Regardless of the atmospheric impact of using carbon based fuels we will be running out of them soon enough. Isn’t that suffucient reason to develop new energy resources while we still have a supply of the old ones to work with?
Ron, yes. Absolutely. There are plenty of reasons to look for new energy sources but there is no reason to stop the world to wait for them. We have vast reserves of untapped oil and natural gas that congress has repeatedly made off limits. We haven’t built a nuclear power plant or non ethanol refinery for over 30 years.
If we were to do what you say you would find very little argument from anyone on the right, however we aren’t doing what you say. Laws that limit oil and gas exploration, or ones that encourage rationing like this cap and trade only serve to artificially inflate the price of energy. For a party that thrives on crises high energy prices are a wonderful opportunity but they are terrible for business and without business how do you propose to continue to fund the research needed to develop these new energy sources.
I was just hearing about all the electric car provisions in the waxman markey bill and I had to laugh. Where is all this electricity supposed to come from with oil, gas, coal and nuclear off the table? Are we to cover every square inch of ground with windmills and solar panels? How is that good for the environement? The answer of course is that we can’t survive without the traditional energy sources and Obama and co know this. They also know that there is a lot of money to be made off of energy and a lot of power that can be gained from rent seekers like GE and Wall Street.
It takes some effort, but it is possible to argue Dan Pangburn to a standstill. In the end, his theory that sunspots are causing climate change is indefensible.
See: http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/28/hfcs-and-climate-change/