Do we know enough about climate change to start taking action against it now?

Question

The National Academy of Sciences says so (quote below). That's 1800 of the USA's best scientists, a scientific organization with a greater percentage of Nobel Prize winners than any other.

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to begin taking steps to prepare for climate change and to slow it. Human actions over the next few decades will have a major influence on the magnitude and rate of future warming. Large, disruptive changes are much more likely if greenhouse gases are allowed to continue building up in the atmosphere at their present rate. '

Answer 1

I agree with the National Academy of Sciences on this point.  

The common metaphor I hear environmentalists use is the metaphor about how you steer a big ocean liner.  Because of the mass and momentum of the boat and the resistance of the water, you have to start turning the wheel 1 mile or more before you need to make the turn, or you miss your turn, or endanger the vessel.

The world energy economy is HUGE - much bigger than an ocean liner.  And the sooner we start to make the turn we need to make, the better chance we have of heading off big climate problems -- without metaphorically tipping the boat over into the briny deep.

Speaking more plainly, common sense also tells us that there are several ways of fighting against "global warming" that make good sense on other grounds.  

Even if we don't know everything, it can't hurt to invest in making our buildings more energy-efficient, or to invest in boosting our national capacity to generate energy through wind power, solar energy, geothermal energy, etc.  

Ditto with building more fuel - efficient cars, one, and doing without cars where we can, two.  These are ways of making our society more energy-efficient and less addicted to imported petroleum.  

Also, we need to recognize that eventually, the world's coal and oil and natural gas will run out; these are finite resources.  Let's start replacing them now.

Answer 2

Our models of climate change show we have to do things different. The decline of oil shows we had better do something now or we will spend our last dime on oil. So we are doing what it takes. PickensPlan is putting 10 billion dollars into wind. California has proposals for almost 3 GW of solar. Bush is working on new nuclear plants-I hope some will add heat recovery for ethanol. WeCanSolveIT is taking a big step forward to help with money and information. CoolingEarth.org is working on new technologies to help solve climate change. Algae is coming along to make a new bio-fuel from fossil fuel power plants. Hydrogen is moving toward a new economy. We need everyone to stay tooned as investments will follow

Answer 3

Yes.  The NAS thinks so.  The IPCC thinks so.  Virtually all climate scientists think so.

The American Institute of Physics and American Geophysical Union think so.

"The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change...Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events."

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/042.html

Oh, but Rush Limbaugh doesn't think so.  So it depends who you think is worth listening to!

Answer 4

By taking action you mean:

- walking and biking more than driving- exercise is good no matter what!

-requiring factories to limit their pollution - clean air is nice to breath

- replant trees and limit clearcutting of rainforests - gives animals a home too.

- reduce our dependence on fossil fuels - uh, we fight wars for this!

I think that taking action against it improves our lives and our enjoyment of this earth. AND if it is working to help the earth, even better!

Answer 5

Bob do you not recognize that these are political organizations committed to their doctrine of faith, it is not a scientific position supported by scientific method but a religious/political position because they firmly believe they are saving the world by forcing them to reduce populations and resource usage. Most if not all the supporters of AGW/GCC do so because they believe in the doctrines expressed in the book limits to growth. Because they believe in this the same as an evangelical believes you have to believe as they do to go to heaven they will alter data and lie to the world to achieve these resource use reductions.

So I face your mistaken faith in this political lie with the real truth. Look up beyond the atmosphere and realize where the writers of limits to growth looked at the ground beneath their feet and saw only limits, those like myself that have vision look up and see unlimited plenty, all we need is the courage and resolve of pioneers to go out there and get it. But instead the faithful believers in limits will quiver in cowardliness in their caves in fear of those flickering lights while those such as I are challenged to go out there and use their resources to improve the lives of all!

Answer 6

That's also the same group that claim that their ancestors where slim in a pond somewhere.   You many listen to them all you please, but most of us have no use for them.  Actually if they had to find real jobs and get off the gov. checks, most could not quailify to operated the slushy machine at 7-11

Answer 7

We will know enough about climate change to take action when you can answer this question:  Fill in the blanks:  The optimal mean daytime temperature range for planet Earth is between ___°C and ___°C.

Answer 8

No, our politicians who have to make these decisions probably do not know enough to make these decisions well.

But even more importantly they have to react to the views of an electorate, and that electorate will in all likelihood nix any program likely to be effective.

We may know that action should be taken, but we do not have agreement by people using coal or oil to accept mandatory reductions in use of those resources, particularly if the resources are being imported. The urgent demand is still to cut down the price I have to pay for my fossil fuels.

So, even if someone in science knows what needs to be done, people in politics are still watching the ballot box, and will not do anything to cut consumption of fossil fuels, other than give people advice on how they could do it if they wanted.

Those electors are never willing to use less if their neighbors are not into it.

So, stop expecting government to do anything in time to be meaningful.  

Answer 9

We know enough to know nothing can be done to control the Sun (the real cause of this warming trend).  Any other actions taken are motivated by greed, lust, envy, arrogance, and ignorance.

Answer 10

No. I am not convinced. People are control freaks and no matter how smart they think they are, they always s***w stuff up. Scientist say that pollution is curbing global warming by reflecting sunlight. That was only accepted because it didn't dispute global warming. I think that people don't know much of anything.

Also, what action should we take? Any action that we take would be the goverment taking it. I don't trust the government to do anything right and I know they would trample on the constitution while doing it.

I think we should stop worring so much about it and realize that we are natural, what we do is natural, and what we think has no bearing on the reality of the long-term outcome. Mankind could sit around in a million years and thank god for us s******g up the atmosphere (temporarily) or not doing anything at all. Scientists are arrogant and generally godless control freaks.

Answer 11

Main fundamental point. We knew enough 50yrs ago to  take action on oil dependency. Nothing happen, so now it's a global whim. What do you think happen during that interim? Politics, economics, social structure, environmental concern, or the plain fact nobody gave a dam_.

Answer 12

We have much more than 100 years of temperature data and it has not been collected from airports. The graph on this link goes back over 400,000 years and shows a very clear correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/... To think that it is impossible for humans to have had this effect is just childish. History has proven that resources are exhaustible, and that man can have a giant impact.

Answer 13

climate change is a cyclical event that has been happening for millions of years. to take a hundred years of temperature readings from airports {heat sinks} and have the arrogance to say that man is responsible for any temperature change is nuts.

Answer 14

"The National Academy of Sciences says so (quote below). That's 1800 of the USA's best scientists"

Not all NAS members agree with the NAS position, so I am not sure why you would add the 1800 figure.

"Do we know enough about climate change to start taking action against it now?"

In short, yes.