Thought provoking post.

If this is supposed to alarm me (and I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to), it doesn’t. 98 is a joke. If that’s the worst nature can throw at me, bring it on. Because anyone who thinks 98 is hot is a wimp.

First off, the worst that “human caused global warming” can throw at you is 80+ sea level rise, one third of the planet turned into desert, most species extinct, and the ocean hot, acidified virtually lifeless. But that is the subject of my second link above.

That said, over 98°F on the coasts for most of the summer would be brutal. It would essentially mean very little outdoor activity during the summer for most of the country. And that assumes we have virtually eliminated air pollution — otherwise every single summer day will be beyond Code Red.

[JR: Fixed. Thanks.]

The first link is about EXTREME rises in surface temperature. From reading the map, it looks as most of the US is in the range of 40 to 44 degrees (or 104 to about 112). Yes that is hot, but really only 4-5 degrees hotter than the maximum temperatures already recorded in the continental US.

Your second link ties in the idea about how long these hot temperatures would last. I can’t argue that science there, but it is a very different study than the first Dutch study.

Yes, by 2060 60 days of 98+ degree in Washington would mean a summer of Code Reds. However, by 2060 even oil companies agree that we’ll be running out of oil, so we’ll either be walking or driving some other fuel. Plug-in hybrids, as you like to point out, don’t produce the ground level ozone which are the trigger events for Code Red days.

I don’t find these scare tactics useful in a debate about how to move to off carbon.

There are other sources of CO2 and additional problematic greenhouse gases.

Coal comes to mind….

http://www.nwf.org/gardenersguide/gardenzone.cfm

[JR: There is no “widely accepted ‘doubling’ to 560 ppm in this century.” You really need to read the literature or my blog. Achieving 560 ppm would require a radical departure from business-as-usual energy and emissions trends. The latest IPCC report, on which I base my entire analysis, clearly shows that we are headed toward 1000 ppm. Please identify three or more sources that support your supposedly “widely accepted” view.]

Perhaps, but the idea that made-made CO2 emissions might trigger tripping points which cause release of CO2 from permafrost, etc. that lead to 1000 ppm is NOT absurd. We just don’t know where those tipping points are or whether we will decrease CO2 emissions in time to avoid crossing them.

Phoenix airport has be shutdown by the heat a few times.

It seems that elevated CO2 might lead to chronic health effects in humans (and probably most other animals) and we will not have time to adapt (evolve) to cope with the higher levels.

This study http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun252006/1607.pdf seems to suggest that above ~420ppm CO2 lifetime exposure blood chemistry is altered leading to myriad chronic health effects.

If you don’t care about ocean acidification, maybe blood acidification will get your attention…

Joe, I don’t think you’ve posted on possible health effects of elevated CO2 before. It seems to me a significant unreported danger of changing the compostion of our atmosphere.

Scientist, if they think that it is happening and is as bad as it is and are not seeing a positive reaction to their alarms - should be taking drastic steps like Hansen and Gore.

Letters stating ‘we believe etc…’ are not strong enough - shouldn’t they be threating resignations, having sit-ins, demanding audiences with leaders, placing law suites …. setting themselves on fire and jumping off tall buildings?

And the temps are around 98ºF, which, combined with low rainfall, are causing quite a problem. Just like the models are sayin’.

Best,

D

[JR: What planet do you live on where that is BAU — cause it ain’t earth?]

The growth of CO2 emissions and attempts by other countries to cap them do not (so far) support your rosy assessment. I think it is a bit early to relax.

everything we are doing right now to reduce CO2 release is on the edges. There is still quite a ways to go before we will have 80 percent less CO2 release in developed countries and 50 percent less in developing countries. And it’s when we actually take large percentage of energy use from companies when they really will scream bloody murder in job and money losses.

Plugin vehicle would mean conveniance stores going out of business, and all the other jobs and businesses in the whole fuel supply chain. The people employed and owning those businesses will vote for those who will protect those businesses from any subsidies to Plugins. If oil is a trillion dollar business, they really won’t get excited about something that takes a few percent of the business, but once plugins take, say a hundred billion dollars a year, they’ll fight like heck against the next hundred billion going away. The same with coal going away.

There’s billions and trillions of dollars to be lost by many people moving to a low and non carbon world. It won’t be easy. I give it a less than one percent chance. But that’s a wild ass quess, what do I know. It will be hard.