Bill: Two summers ago the arctic melted, quickly and violently. Our scientists got scared. In January of 08, the NASA team led by Jim Hansen put out a paper that really changed the science...any value for carbon in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible with the planet on which civilization developed or to which life on earth is adapted.
Steven: So your goal is to get things back to 350?
Bill: That's the goal.
Steven: So if we get it to 350, things will slow down.
Bill: That's right. We'll get back to a planet that works more or less the way it's worked for the past 10,000 years.
What are the problems with Bill McKibben's explanation here?
1) "Two summers ago, the arctic melted, quickly and violently..."
The arctic melts every summer, and it's hard to envision what he means by "violently"?
2) "Our scientists got scared."
Scientists have been researching this for a long time and have been trying to draw attention to climate change for more than 2 years!
3) "Jim Hansen put out a paper that really changed the science..."
Well, the science didn't change exactly. Hansen is one of 10 scientists who published this peer-reviewed paper in the Open Atmospheric Journal in 2008 (cut and paste doi: 10.2174/1874282300802010217 into Google search to see the abstract). It's one of many published papers on the subject.
4) Bill says that the Hansen paper's abstract contains this statement: "...any value for carbon in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible with the planet on which civilization developed or to which life on earth is adapted." It sounds like he's saying that an atmosphere with over 350 ppm is incompatible with life on Earth now, but that's not accurate.
Actually, the abstract says: "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that." So, actually Steven Colbert could steal Bill's thunder by starting a 349 movement.
Steven: What's the deal-eo with 350?
ReplyDeleteBill: Two summers ago the arctic melted, quickly and violently. Our scientists got scared. In January of 08, the NASA team led by Jim Hansen put out a paper that really changed the science...any value for carbon in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible with the planet on which civilization developed or to which life on earth is adapted.
Steven: So your goal is to get things back to 350?
Bill: That's the goal.
Steven: So if we get it to 350, things will slow down.
Bill: That's right. We'll get back to a planet that works more or less the way it's worked for the past 10,000 years.
What are the problems with Bill McKibben's explanation here?
1) "Two summers ago, the arctic melted, quickly and violently..."
The arctic melts every summer, and it's hard to envision what he means by "violently"?
2) "Our scientists got scared."
Scientists have been researching this for a long time and have been trying to draw attention to climate change for more than 2 years!
3) "Jim Hansen put out a paper that really changed the science..."
Well, the science didn't change exactly. Hansen is one of 10 scientists who published this peer-reviewed paper in the Open Atmospheric Journal in 2008 (cut and paste doi: 10.2174/1874282300802010217 into Google search to see the abstract). It's one of many published papers on the subject.
4) Bill says that the Hansen paper's abstract contains this statement: "...any value for carbon in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible with the planet on which civilization developed or to which life on earth is adapted." It sounds like he's saying that an atmosphere with over 350 ppm is incompatible with life on Earth now, but that's not accurate.
Actually, the abstract says: "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that." So, actually Steven Colbert could steal Bill's thunder by starting a 349 movement.