Comments on: What are the near-term climate Pearl Harbors?

By: Cynthia

Cynthia — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:49:38 +0000

What you don’t understand, Dodaman, is that the danger is not self evident to the ordinary person at this time (unless he’s researched the issue of climate change). You won’t be able to see much climate change if you go out for a walk, as you suggested. The Joker is methane gas and the arctic contains trillions of tons of this stuff. Carbon dioxide is just the stimulus that will set off the methane. Furthermore, most of the warming is “in the pipelines”, not realized yet because the oceans are absorbing most of the CO2 we emit. When the oceans become saturated (shortly) then we will have hell on earth. Research the topic, read “Methane Catastrophes in Earth’s past and Near Future”, watch the video, ” A Really Inconvenient Truth” (Cybersalon)with Dan Miller, then come back and comment. You obviously know nothing about this subject!

By: Cynthia

Cynthia — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:34:15 +0000

I don’t think the arctic being ice free or methane gas gushing out, etc, is really going to sway most people because most don’t research climate change or understand it. I think it will have to be something really big that slaps them across the face–like a major city going underwater (again). They can’t see the methane rising or the arctic sea ice (unless they live in that area!). They can see thousands of people fleeing an inundated coast (on the news). As my mom says, “I don’t know about this GW issue; I never see anything on the news about it!” It will have to affect their senses profoundly; not just their intellect. (Maybe extreme heat, major cities flooded, etc.)

By: Sriram M

Sriram M — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:37:45 +0000

How about the melting and mining of Tibetan glacier results in water shortages throughout South, Southeast and East Asia. Millions die of exposure to polluted freshwater sources.

Beyond Katrina; more US metropolitans get hit by Superstorms and then flood. That might bring the message home…finally

By: Craig

Craig — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:54:45 +0000

In order to spur widespread concern and serious action, a major climate event will need to be coupled with energy shortages. Climatic disasters alone are not enough to raise global alarms bells. Despite nagging doubts, most people will always believe that climate and weather are just too complex and mysterious to ever be linked directly to human generated carbon emissions. But pile an energy shortage onto natural disasters and suddenly the nation begins to paid heed. We witnessed that last summer with spiking fuel prices.

Another criteria, in my opinion, is that the event must occur fairly close to home. The melting of the summer Arctic ice cap by 2020, while being a major eye opener, happens for most people in a far and distant land they see only on computer or television screens. The same is largely true for melting in Antarctica (that is, of course, until rising sea levels begin to cause disruptions for shore dwellers). A bush fire, however, sweeping through SE Australia (as we witnessed recently) brings the issue literally to people’s doorsteps.

A third condition that will determine the debate is race and wealth. If the events (stress on plural because a single event like Katrina has seemingly proven that multiple disasters are necessary to jolt public consciousness) occur in a wealthy industrialized country, public concern will force the media to honestly and accurately address the science behind climate. However, rising oceans and the resulting increased soil salinity in places like Bangladesh will not have the same effect. For whatever reasons (and I’ll let the sociologists tackle these) disasters in poor and underdeveloped countries do not punctuate the bubble many citizens of wealthy countries inhabit.

The double whammy of any event listed below and skyrocketing oil prices would irrevocably sear the issue into people’s minds:

1. Major and frequent forest fires throughout the Rockies
2. A blistering heat wave in Europe, Australia, or North America similar to the 2003 heat wave across Europe.
3. Major and frequent bush fires in Australia
4. The die off of huge swaths of forests (sadly even more widespread than what we are witnessing today) from insect invasions.
5. A prolonged and severe drought in SW America.

By: Sasparilla

Sasparilla — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:37:11 +0000

I want to second Bill Calvin’s idea of a huge part or a majority of the Amazon drying and burning away as another one of the Pearl Harbors – its one of the CO2 tipping points as well unfortunately and we get to see it happen.

By: Lillian

Lillian — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:36:39 +0000

Seattle here,

“We’ve got some difficult days ahead.” said MLK. And we are dumber than yeast.

We won’t solve our problems even with an immense change of world-wide character. We need more than we want to believe we need. Only once have I seen what my mind is capable of, and then spent forty years avoiding it. The impossible is the only thing really left. I expect there are others like me. Are you willing to remember? Did you have the experience? Did you make another being move with simply the power of your mind? A being asleep?

We need a new power, much as I don’t want anything to do with it. I want to deny it.

By: msn nickleri

msn nickleri — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:02:10 +0000

Sure wish I had a “recommend” button, for these comments. Among my favorites -

John’s
> One way of thinking about this is to ask whether we have ever– as a species, culture or even a society – acted in advance of an impending catastrophe, and, if so, to ask what about it made us act.

Lou Grinzo’s
> There’s simply too many highly funded (and/or ideologically driven) forces telling us not to believe our lying eyes for most of [the things on Joe’s list] to have any real effect.

By: DoDaMan

DoDaMan — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:52:03 +0000

A couple of unrelated weather events are just that; unrelated. Losing ALL the trees on the East Coast? C’mon, due to what? Glaciers and glacial ice will melt every summer. Folks, it’s time to put down the newspapers and begin looking at the data. Recent weather has dropped the global temp by .6 degrees C. This while CO2 has risen over the same time period. CO2 as a pollutant? Then reduce your “carbon footprint” and stop breathing. Sorry to break it to you folks, but the earth is not that bad off and not getting worse fast. Try getting off the pavement for more than an afternoons walk on a trail. Spend some time out of doors away from your cities, learn something about which you are talking about and the hysteria will drop from your minds. Why exactly do you hate your own species so? Look at the enormous gains we have made since the 1st Earth Day. Whatever you do, stop the self-righteous preaching and get off the pavement awhile and then tell me how all-powerful we really are.

By: paulm

paulm — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:27:56 +0000

This is it folks, the tidy is turning. 2008!

Consumers rank climate concerns ahead of economy
• Consumers around the world want governments to stop haggling and start acting on climate change, survey finds
• Nearly half of all 12,000 respondents in 12 countries chose climate change ahead of the economy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/ 2008/ nov/ 26/ climate-change-carbon-emissions

By: Francesca Rheannon

Francesca Rheannon — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 04:08:54 +0000

Just as I was beginning to feel a little sanguine about prospects for tackling climate change in the new administration, I read this sobering post by George Monbiot, entitled “One Shot Left” [http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/11/25/one-shot-left/].
“Barack Obama’s speech to the US climate summit last week was an astonishing development. It shows that, in this respect at least, there really is a prospect of profound political change in America. But while he described a workable plan for dealing with the problem perceived by the Earth Summit of 1992, the measures he proposes are now hopelessly out of date…The trajectory both Barack Obama and Gordon Brown have proposed – an 80% cut by 2050 – means reducing emissions by an average of 2% a year. This programme… is likely to commit the world to at least four or five degrees of warming, which means the likely collapse of human civilisation across much of the planet.”
He says (quoting a paper by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research) that the very effort to transition to alternatives to fossil fueled energy will increase GHGE’s unacceptably. So we have no time for anything but a drastic decrease of energy use, commensurate with the deepest economic depression (of course, we just might be getting that)–on the order of 50% over the next 5 years–something that has zero chance of political palatability.