The study results, published today in the journal Science, indicate that even if greenhouse gas levels had stabilized five years ago, global temperatures would still increase by about half a degree by the end of the century and sea level would rise some 11 centimeters.
This is the “fact” cited in Scientific American and many other publications. Here are the “editorials” usually attached to the “fact”.
“Many people don’t realize we are committed right now to a significant amount of global warming and sea level rise because of the greenhouse gases we have already put into the atmosphere,” says study author Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. “The longer we wait, the more climate change we are committed to in the future.”
Here is the actual NCAR report:
Even if all greenhouse gases had been stabilized in the year 2000, we would still be committed to a warmer Earth and greater sea level rise in the present century, according to a new study by a team of climate modelers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The findings are published in this week’s issue of the journal Science.
Now, I agree with the original comments made by Meehl. But, I don’t think man’s contributions are enough to amount to anything substantial when put in context of naturally occurring events that dictate climate change. Secondly, WE ARE NOT CAPABLE OF AFFECTING GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. We may be capable of slowing or minimizing man’s affect, but it’s going to happen whether we walk or drive cars. Period. The climate will warm, and it will cool. Man is not in control of the climate, and until man looks at the issue realistically, is not going to come to the proper conclusions we need in regards to climate change. We don’t need to know that the climate is going to change, I can tell you that unequivocally right now. What science needs to be doing is figuring out how man can survive most efficiently in the ever changing climate. There are things man needs to do to make the Earth a better place to live, I’m not against that. What I am against is the political and scientific debate of whether it is proper to stick our finger in the dike or examine the water and see how it can benefit us.