Tom Gillespie, right, and his son, Aengus, show off their banner
urging action against global warming Tuesday in Albany.
(Steve jacobs / Times Union)
While nothing in science is generally ever 100% agreed upon, the fact that the majority of the worlds scientist don't contest the fact that the earth is warming is a bit scary.
Sure they differ on what the results will be, how far we can go before the inertia of nature is shifted, but they don't contest it's happening, or that we are better off stopping it before finding out what the results will be.
We know that coastal areas will be devastated. If the ice caps melt it will at the very least increase water volume and erase some of the coast. It will affect growing seasons, rainfall, jetstreams, and gulf streams. The results of which are modeled but uncertain at best.
The ocean temperature is largely responsible for our global climate as long as it stays within a range that doesn't vastly differ (and that range could be just a few degrees or less) we should be able to correct our climate change. If it changes too much we will lose our inertia and lose the battle on global warming.
However, shifting the inertia of the ocean in any direction is hard to do. The reason is the ocean is a huge amount of the earths stored heat. It averages 13,000ft deep and to heat or cool all that water will take some time. If we shift the direction of that heating or cooling too much we will be in serious climatic trouble.
Inertia is a key word in "Global Warming" once we shift it so far off it's course it will be impossible to correct it. There is no definite degree of temperature increase that would be the point of no return at this point, but scientist agree that we don't want to find that point.
Right now the environments, and oceans, inertia is still in our favor according to most scientist. If we act now and act fast we can keep it from shifting in a direction that we will not be able to fix
The scariest part of all of this to me is the fact that in the US we don't care, well, not enough to change.
Congress is completely inept. Not in the usual way, but in the fact that they are lawyers and politicians and simply don't understand the things scientist are telling them. If you watch the C-Span congressional hearings of scientist, and even Al Gore, it's clear that congress has not a clue as to what to do. The only question they know to ask is "how much will it cost".
Our national lawmakers seem completely confused even as the scientific dogma is sliced so thin that even a child with a 8th grade education could easily digest it.Weaning the nation from wasteful ways, and an addiction to fossil fuels will be tough and expensive, but a more effecient energy plan will save money. Ultimately less dependence on foreign oil will save money in both real dollars, global security, and will eliminate the speculative uncertainty of the price of foreign energy which unfortunately has more to do with energy cost then the actual value of the fuel we use.
Higher effeciency will mean lower cost and more stable economies. In a nation where the bottom dollar is the most important thing that will be the most influential argument to facilitate changing our policies.
To take part in the fight against the "do nothing and hope for the best" policies of our government on April 14th (and beyond), visit:
Step It Up 2007: A National Day Of Climate Action
And Remember That Uncle Sam Loves Fossil Fuel So If You Do Nothing, Nothing Will Happen.
Scientists turn up the heat in climate debateGlobal warming rally planned for Troy is one of 1,300 across the U.S. By BRIAN NEARING, Staff writer
First published: Wednesday, April 11, 2007
"Scientists are being treated as the authorities for this issue," said Bystroff, who is among 20 RPI scientists involved in planning the Troy rally.
"Let me dispel any notion that scientists all think alike. They like to argue among themselves, and that is why the convergence of opinion on climate change is quite astounding. That there is real controversy remaining over the science behind the climate change has been exaggerated."
"A decade ago, McKibben wrote "The End of Nature," the first general-interest book on global warming by an American.
Last year, his family ate only food grown near his home in the Champlain Valley of New York and Vermont as a way to reduce the transport of food across vast distances.
McKibben said 36 calories of fossil fuel energy are consumed to transport one calorie of nutrition from iceberg lettuce from California fields to East Coast supermarkets.
"The reality that we are faced with now is that our government has been reluctant to get involved to fight global warming," said David Yarrow, director of the Regional Farm and Food Project.
"Since we live in a democracy, it is only the voice of the citizens that can provoke the government into action," he said.
"This is our first attempt to make this a national issue. We need to stop contributing to climate change, then we can figure out how to adapt to the changes that are already coming."
Blogged with Flock