Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
As usual we will laugh about this kind of doom day predictions in 10 or 20 years.
by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 01:11:57 AM EST
That alone is not a good reason to be optimistic. Today's risks do not depend on how often hothead doomsayers were wrong previous times. There are quite a few reasons to be concerned that the circumstances are changing fast now.

If disastrous developments are just around the corner, how could we anticipate that? Who is qualified to talk about dooms?

by das monde on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 03:44:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and often mock the absurd screeches of doom that frequently circulate through the press. I have good reason for some - it is hearsay and speculation backed up all too often by zero amount of testable evidence. Comparisons to acid rain and dying forests, the ozone hole and so on are apt in that regard.

There is, however, one looming big difference.

Acid rain was addressed (although far from actually being solved).

The ozone hole was addressed and seems today to be stabilising.

The GHG, which at minimum intensify global warming and at maximum drive the whole process, are still not properly addressed, and total GHG concentration is still ramping up and accelerating. The doom scenarios ramp up accordingly.

It's chaos theory - and the longer the earth is exposed to it, the more erratic it can get - I do think that.

by Nomad on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 05:56:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The level of linearity of the climate is a clear worrrying question.. pity is too technichal... most models should work fine thinking in decade terms ... if the models are correct...

The problem is that there might be some term we do not foresee or that the level of linearity breaks down sooner than expected and irrelevant forces became stronger..

Difficult to foresee... but the more we push the parameters (as the CO2 in the atmosphere..) the more changes we will find vey upleasant scenario..

that is why glboal warming will be either a grave phenomena or a catastrophe in 100 years... who knows?

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 07:07:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Discontinuity in the dose-response relationship is a frequent phenomenon for many kinds of pollution. A typical example is the release of a toxic agent in a river. At low to moderate levels, an increase in concentration will cause a proportional increase in the mortality of fish. Beyond a certain threshold, however, there is a jump to a new state and nearly all fish die.

We might be reaching such a threshold for climate gases, as the earth system's capacity for taking up CO2 is diminishing. See this guardian article.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 09:51:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Acid rain was addressed (although far from actually being solved).

The ozone hole was addressed and seems today to be stabilising.

And, as I reported in a comment last week, some bozo in a Spanish morning radio debate was using the fact that the ozone hole was addressed to argue against the reality of global warming. "Weren't we supposed to have fried because of the ozone hole? And yet here we are!"

Pundits! Darn you all to Heck!

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 31st, 2007 at 05:35:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The climate scientists are indeed wrong.  Unfortunately their error has been to UNDERESTIMATE the rate of arctic melting.  

I am not really sure how you spin optimism out of THAT.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Oct 28th, 2007 at 03:50:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series