Global Warming: Why isn't reality bad enough?

Hi Andy,

I'm a little confused by your post, because I don't see how one could interpret your article as saying that "the reality is bad enough." The article states:

"The unresolved questions concern the pace and extent of future warming and the impact on wildlife, agriculture, disease, local weather and the height of the world's oceans — in other words, all of the things that matter to people."

Instead of saying the reality of climate change is bad enough, you appear to be saying almost the opposite - that we don't very much about any of the consequences of climate change that will matter to people. The one point of consensus that your article highlights – more greenhouse gases will lead to more warming – seems unlikely to inspire action if this warming can't be connected with things that matter to people.

Am I missing something?

Sincerely,

Julian

Hi Andy,

You should see www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/ . I think the evidence is compelling as is, then when you factor in the masking effect that dimming has had it becomes very compelling. The dimming effect for some reason has gotten little press. How can anyone argue with the evidence like long-term pan-evaporation rates taken around the globe? Ten percent dimming with possible significant weather/climate impacts like the African drought of the 70's and 80's aren't subtle (and the latter is a possible political bombshell).

I don't see this as a democratic issue any more than deciding on how much lead in your water is acceptable (and lead contamination doesn't have a visible real-time impact). Leave determinations like this to an organization like the National Academy of Sciences. We need sound decision making if only to protect the rights of future humans. Is the general public involved in deciding what the legal threshold for driving under the infleunce is? It should not be.

I recently saw a climate person pushing compact flourescent bulbs. I paused and realized that I switched over within months of the release in the 80's of GE's Circle Light and that no one (or close to no one) I know has bothered to move on this or much of anything else. For the most part the activism of "environmentalists" I know is limited to 3 things - voting Democrat, hating Bush, and not driving an SUV. On the other hand as I have found out it is not hard to address these issues for oneself. I use energy at about 1/4 the US rate, eat a (very healthy) vegan diet, and have 1 kid. This isn't rocket science, doesn't require some big top-down effort, and isn't hard (the diet change, in particular, is self-serving). The sober empirical read though, is that most people are lousy at adjusting their lifestyle, and limits need to placed if only to predict the rights of future humans. Waiting for some enlightened ground swell is foolish.

Ted Christopher

I quote from the Sunday story: "Without big changes in emissions rates, global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases is likely to lead to substantial, and largely irreversible, transformations of climate, ecosystems and coastlines later this century.... As a result, by 2100 or so, sea levels could be several feet higher than they are now, and the new normal on the planet for centuries thereafter could be retreating shorelines as Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets relentlessly erode.... Rivers fed by mountain glaciers, including those nourishing much of south Asia, could shrivel. Grand plans to restore New Orleans and the Everglades would be rendered meaningless as seawater advances. Manhattan would become New Orleans ­ a semi-submerged city surrounded by levees. In summers, polar bears would be stuck on the few remaining ice-clotted shores around the largely blue Arctic Ocean.

That reality is plenty bad enough, according to many scientists who've emailed since the story ran.

Hi Andrew,

I agree that this reality is bad enough, but the article doesn't present these impacts as "things we know firmly." Instead, with the exception of the first sentence - which doesn't directly describe human consequences - your quote comes from a section of the article entitled "What Is Debated."

Moreover, the line I quoted in my initial comment clearly implies that all of the consequences that matter to people are yet unresolved. If environmentalists are only to talk about areas where everyone - including skeptics - agrees, as you seem to be arguing, the impacts you quote above would appear to be off-limits.

I'm not trying to pick a fight – I respect your work enormously – but merely explain why it's hard to read your article as saying the reality is bad enough and why your article may not have been well received by some in the environmental community.

Julian

PS For clarification, I fully agree that the generally accepted science is plenty worrisome and there's no need to stretch the science to make a compelling case for reducing greenhouse gases.