By ROBERT SEITZ
A month ago Sen. Gray-Jackson introduced SB 120 “An act establishing the Alaska Climate Change Emergency Response Commission.”
In this bill is stated “The legislature finds that a state of emergency exists because of the threat climate change poses on communities in the state, the state economy, traditional ways of life, fish and game populations, and natural ecosystems.
I contend that it must first be determined that there is indeed a “Climate Crisis.”
Greenhouse gas emissions are not responsible for much warming at all. If you spend some time actually considering our weather it will become clear that we are not warmer because CO2 and Methane are trapping heat in the atmosphere, but you will notice the jet stream is moving around a lot and high temperature days will occur in the summer where the high pressure areas persist.
My commentary May 31, 2024 “Climate, politics, and energy in Alaska” covered that Alaska is NOT warming at two to four times faster than the rest of the world. I brought out that the comparisons are made with average annual temperatures which have high values when compared with the average over long period of time.
If you look at the data, you will find that while the comparison of average annual temperature reveal larger values for recent times, but you will also note that the high temperatures (summer temperatures) are not much different than they have been for a long time. It is a climate crisis sleight of hand, because the real change is not greater heat, but a lot less extreme cold.
We have had Chinooks in Alaska for much longer than I have lived here. This year when the Arctic Express sent lots of cold air, and snow, to Florida and Louisiana, that air was replaced by warm wet North Pacific air that was sucked into the space above Alaska. The jet stream affects Alaska much more than do greenhouse gases.
If you have been paying attention to the Arctic sea ice extent this year you know that it is being touted as the lowest maximum extent value ever on March 22. If, however, you look at the sea ice around Alaska (e.g. the Beaufort, Chukchi and Bering Seas) it has been recovering quite well. While we don’t have the multiyear ice and the thickness of ice we used to have in the Beaufort sea, the sea ice presence has been reliable for most winters since 2017 as have the Chukchi and Bering Seas. The water temperatures that rose considerably when air temperatures were high during winter months in the Bering Sea last decade, have recovered and are back to normal low temperatures since the sea ice coverage returned to normal extent in 2022. The ice extent in the Bering Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are well above minimum extent so have returned some of the coastal protection from winter storms.
If we really don’t have a problem with greenhouse gas heating then we really don’t have a climate crisis and thus we do not need the Alaska Climate Change Emergency Response Commission. With a more flexible jet stream it may be that we need to be looking at flooding opportunities, and potential landslide opportunities that abundant rainfalls can exacerbate. We already know that we must pay attention to lakes that form behind receding glaciers and we need to identify the coastal areas subject to erosion during winter storms that may occur when lees open in the sea ice.
It is imperative that we recognize and accept that there was a Little Ice Age and that we have been recovering from it and must determine what kinds of changes should be expected from that. Did the extreme cold of the northern latitudes provide a stabilizing effect on the jet stream?
Without a greenhouse gas heating crisis we no longer have a hydrocarbon (fossil) fuel crisis. It is time to get back to real definitions for reliable, reliant and sustainable energy. Cook Inlet gas and North Slope gas will provide all of these for at least the near future while we work out the best alternate energy source for the Railbelt. For now, it is natural gas that we must depend on.
Sen. Bill Wielechowski filed SB 149 and Rep. Ky Holland filed HB 153 both entitled “An act relating to generation of electricity from renewable energy resources: relating to a renewable portfolio standard:…”
These bills include a noncompliance fine, which means any entity in the Railbelt electrical system is mandated to add a prescribed amount of renewable generation according to a time table and failure to do so will result in a substantial fine. This is a mandate. I have argued against mandated addition of renewables to the Railbelt for some time; I support the free will, free market approach to additional renewables to connect to the Railbelt electrical system.
Without a greenhouse gas heating crisis we also really don’t need an RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard), but we can proceed with the development of renewable energy sources wherever they are determined to be the best energy source for the community or the location. The objective is still cheap energy source whether it is for a remote community, for remote portions of the Railbelt electrical transmission and distribution system or even a mine or a lumber camp.
We will eventually have Cook Inlet tidal-driven electrical power, geothermal energy sources from near our many volcanoes, and we will use wind and solar power where they are the best sources of energy. Alaska is different than the rest of the USA. Our winter last longer here, so if we get our energy source wrong for a location, people can die. Let’s not put our citizens at risk to depend on a source of energy that may not be there when it is needed.
On Aug. 4, 2024 my contribution “Power transition is more complicated in Alaska than many realize” in MRAK covered many of the issues which make high percentage of inverter-based resources difficult (i.e. less reliable, less reliant, less sustainable) because of the added complexity of additional controls, communications and electronic components. I want to be sure each of the utilities can interconnect a large inverter based resource with knowledge, and understanding and predictability before they have to do it.
One way to get cheaper energy is to find big industrial customers, like a mine, to reduce the financial burden that energy has on the individual customer. We need energy development and we need resource extraction to build Alaska’s revenue generating capability.
And for those who want to hinder development in the West Susitna Road area because they don’t want to be disturbed or to have their recreation comprised, please remember that that area was already mining country back in the 1920’s.
My parents grew up on mines west of Talkeetna. I grew up with “ you can’t play until the work is done.” We have an economy to rebuild in Alaska. We all need to be a part of the building, so that we have a way to keep our infrastructure in good repair. We want to be ready for whatever weather comes our way.
So it is NO on the Alaska Climate Change Emergency Response Commission and it is NO on RPS, for the best interest of Alaska.
Robert Seitz is a professional electrical engineer and lifelong concerned Alaskan.
What we need to do is clean up litter. I’ve been to some of the remote islands and coves in SE AK and many are a real mess. Old nets and plastics everywhere amongst other debris. Sea glass is as prevalent as many types of real rocks. This can go a long way to improving our environment and we don’t have to line the pockets of politicians or guys like Kerry and Gore.
It’s not just remote places. Try walking around Anchorage, the amount of garbage littered around is disgusting. I was out walking my dog last week and found cans set down upright next to a trash barrel. If they can reach down to set down the can, dropping it in the trash was even easier.
More Democrat BS.
It’s worth noting that the Republican Party is the only political party in the entire world that officially denies climate change.
According to a December 2024 Pew Research poll, though, even 55% of Republicans say that human activity contributes to global climate change. That’s compared to 74% of US adults as a whole.
These bills by Gray-Jackson (SB120), Bill Wielechowski (SB 149) and Ky Holland (HB 153) are how government becomes overburdened with useless and expensive bureaucracy. These bills will do nothing that will in any way change the climate trajectory. Will these bill will do is create more bureaucratic employment that is essentially invisible. Undoubtedly these representatives have introduced these bills at the behest of the environmental lobby.
Emergency Response Commission? What are they going to do? Powwow everytime the temperature is 5 degrees above the normal?
These are the environmental wackos and climate fanatics that live off of federal grant money and hold government jobs…..all in the name of fake science. Losers.
and… We don’t need the government mandating that we produce a Hazards Mitigation Plan that includes section on how to deal with the Zombie Apocalypse. I’m serious folks – check out your borough and muni documents…
Well now Rich, don’t be so hasty here.
During Covid I was forced to make a trip downtown by city hall. As I parked there were only 2 other vehicles parked and the only other humans were several inebriated individuals wandering down the middle of the road on 6th…..it certainly did feel like the Zombie Apocalypse!
All joking aside Elvi’s plan is all show and no substance. As I recall her emergency commission is to be staffed with other politicos from around the state, not a scientist in sight!
All this type of “legislation” does is further infringe on free enterprise, grow an already unresponsive, bloated bureaucracy and further load the consumer with ever more increases in cost of living. Bureaucracy is especially skilled at expansionist policies that are carried out by the likes of Gray-Jackson and Wielechowski, both of whom suffer from the delusion that there is no such thing as too much government. Kerry and Gore have teamed up to invoke the biggest, most costly, scam on the American people in the history of the world, while they have grown their wealth exponentially.
Also worth noting is the “sky is falling, climate change will kill us all” eco-zealots have multi-million $$ homes on the very beaches they claim will be under water soon.
“In this bill is stated “The legislature finds that a state of emergency exists because of the threat climate change poses on communities in the state, the state economy, traditional ways of life, fish and game populations, and natural ecosystems.”
.
Please pardon my language, Suzanne, but when I read this, the only reaction to it that springs to mind, and it’s directed at Ms Jackson…..is that that is complete horseshit.
.
There has never been a time in the earth’s history when the climate was not changing.
It will always be changing whether or not man is on this globe, and there is no “emergency”, there is only the Left trying always to vacuum money out of the pockets of the private sector, and instigate laws and regulations to stifle economic prosperity, except for the parasites in government, who seem to grow richer every year without ever producing an iota of usable goods or services.
.
And thank you Mr Seitz for penning a great analysis of this scam, complete with facts to refute it, and to Suzanne for hosting it on her site….
Dr. Judith Curry.
Contact your legislator and tell them to not support this garbage bill: ‘https://akleg.gov/
There is climate change happening. Has anyone bothered to look up at the sky over the last 12. months? Constant chem trails! Time for Sullivan and Begich to introduce legislation to halt the poisoning of our skies, land and water.
Agreed, it needs to stop now.
AK Patriot, Dunleavy needs to get off the absurd “carbon capture” train and do what other governors are doing to ban weather engineering (chemtrails, blocking the sun, etc) in the name of saving the planet. Trouble is he has a state legislature filled with leftist enviro-nuts and spineless Republicans who would not help him to do it.
Climate Change was always about control by the globalists. The man who started the Weather Channel back in the 1990’s even stated that numerous times. Making a fool out of the CNN script reader. Thw planet simetimes undergoes slight changes and it’s perfectly normal. The carbon they want to reduce is us. Trees breathe out Oxygen and in Co2. So stop cutting down so many trees and start fining people who throw garbage everywhere. In the 1970’s it was a $1,000 fine for littering.Alaska was bautiful then. Now no one cares or is ever fined. Those dumpster sites they have in Fairbanks are a joke. People throw their garbage in the back of their truck and it blows out of the truck driving into town. You could balance the budget by fining those people $1,000 everytime they litter, period.
You say, “Climate Change was always about control by the globalists.” The way rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere cause an increasing greenhouse effect, thus raising surface temperatures, was first described in 1896 in a seminal paper by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius. I think he would be surprised to be called a globalist, and there is no evidence that he wanted to control anything.
It is absolutely true though that “the planet sometimes undergoes slight changes and it’s perfectly normal.” But these aren’t slight changes that we’re experiencing. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased by 50% in the last 150 years to levels not seen since 2 million years ago. If you graph these changes, they are literally off the charts. It takes a while for these changes to manifest in the climate, but they’re starting.
Anything that mentions “climate change” usually pegs out my bullshitometer and catches on fire.
CLIMATE CHANGE…one of the largest “SCAMS” perpetrated on the public!
Waste of money!
Greenpeace was founded on blatant lies about the “dangers” of “climate change”. As many people already brought up, the Earth’s climate has always changed on it’s own. Passing taxes to “fight” it is just another scam from the left.
Its called Mother Earth and taxes won’t change what she does.
Greenpeace was founded in 1971 in British Columbia to oppose U.S. nuclear testing at Amchitka Island in Alaska. In 1971, very little was known about climate change, and Greenpeace certainly wasn’t spreading “blatant lies” about it.
Cute Steve, clearly YOU were not around in the 70’s. I however remember all the hyperventilating over “global cooling and the ozone layer”, the need for getting rid of propellant in spray bottles and demands to reduce emissions, riding more bicycles/public transportation…..
Oh yeah we heard all about it back then. It was just global cooling and the coming ice age with Europe under a sheet of ice by the year 2000. Greenpeace was all about saving the whales and harassing offshore oil platforms. Then Al Gore changed the narrative to “global warming” and the earth having a fever. When Armageddon did not arrive on his timeline either, they changed the name of the narrative to “climate change” as a catch-all. It eliminated the need to have actual global dramatic and obvious changes. Nifty!
You can blame the fish and game populations on DF&G They like it when non-residents come wipe things out and leave nothing for residents All about the money
The lack of understanding of basic climate science by the author and apparently all of the commenters is truly amazing. Only in the United States is such denial of climate change so pervasive. Even so, the author concedes a number of points that demonstrate the actions of climate change in and around Alaska.
The author says, “If you look at the data, you will find that while the comparison of average annual temperature reveal larger values for recent times, but you will also note that the high temperatures (summer temperatures) are not much different than they have been for a long time. It is a climate crisis sleight of hand, because the real change is not greater heat, but a lot less extreme cold.” Yet these two sentences each employee that average temperatures are rising over time. No data is given to disprove the claims of climatologists.
The author states, “The jet stream affects Alaska much more than do greenhouse gases.” The jet stream may be responsible for more immediate and direct effects, but what has caused the jet stream to deviate from its traditional patterns, bringing more extreme weather with it? It is the greenhouse gases and the changing temperature differentials on the slides of the jet stream. That is why, in the author’s words, “the jet stream is moving around a lot.” This behavior is relatively new and coincides with the increase in average global temperatures.
The author also says “Greenhouse gas emissions are not responsible for much warming at all.” This is contrary not only to basic chemistry but also to the findings of essentially all data scientists. If you follow the climate science closely and don’t cherry pick your data, this will be quite evident.
He also says, “If you spend some time actually considering our weather it will become clear that we are not warmer because CO2 and Methane are trapping heat in the atmosphere…” First of all, weather is not climate. Weather is much shorter term and may temporarily manifest effects that are different from the long-term climate trends. This is why instead of” considering our weather,” one must look at the climate data, which is available from many sources.
As for ice coverage, the author says, “While we don’t have the multiyear ice and the thickness of ice we used to have in the Beaufort sea, the sea ice presence has been reliable for most winters since 2017 as have the Chukchi and Bering Seas.” It is the Open Seas of the Arctic Ocean that have been losing their ice coverage first. The ice near the coastal areas is typically the last to melt. Yet in this quote the author concedes the loss of multi-year ice and the lessening of ice thickness. These are exactly some of the signs that climate scientists are pointing out.
Climate change does not happen overnight. But if you wait until its manifestations are completely obvious to everyone, it will be far too late to do anything about it. As it is, we are blowing past the UN’s upper limit on a global temperature rise that would not be completely disastrous. So whatever we do now, catastrophe lies ahead. The only question is, do you want to be prepared for it, or not?
Steve,
When you say “So whatever we do now, catastrophe lies ahead” what makes you believe that? It’s just as probable that prosperity lies ahead. The peoples of the Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods might have thought that the warming of the climate and the end of the ice age and Pleistocene Epoch was catastrophic to their way of life, of course it was just the beginning of theretofore unknown prosperity for humanity.
What makes me believe that is the science. I am not just taking other scientists’ words for it; I have studied the science myself, carefully examining the evidence. The bottom line is that more energy is reaching the planet (via sunlight) than is leaving it (via infrared radiation). Basic laws of physics say that as long as that condition continues, the planet will warm.
As for how much and how long it will take, this has been studied by tens of thousands of climate scientists, and I have read hundreds of their papers, again, with great care. This is not merely theoretical material; it is based upon thousands upon thousands of observations of what is happening in the world. You imply that the peoples of the Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods knew just as much about their world as current climate scientists know about ours, which simply makes no sense.
You say, “It’s just as probable that prosperity lies ahead.” The probability that prosperity lies ahead later this century is exactly zero. Please read the science.
Steve,
Whether the peoples of the Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods knew as much about their world as current climate scientists know about ours or not (and I certainly think a case could be made that they knew far more than some guy in a climate controlled building knows) does not change what happened, the earth warmed and humanity prospered.
None of the science that you’ve read says that nothing but catastrophe lies ahead. If what you are reading says that it is hyperbolic editorializing by doomsday cultists, it’s definitively not science.
Steve you wrote:
“Climate change does not happen overnight. But if you wait until its manifestations are completely obvious to everyone, it will be far too late to do anything about it. As it is, we are blowing past the UN’s upper limit on a global temperature rise that would not be completely disastrous.”
You are correct the climate changes over millions of years not in 12 years like some politicos want you to believe, or in 30 years like my HS science/geography teacher claimed (Europe under a sheet of ice by 2000).
It seems disingenuous for climate groups to make demands, set policy etc while taking in as many dollars as possible for hypothetical events they certainly can not really predict AND will certainly not be around to witness, if they actually take place. In other words by the time the climate noticeably changes you and I will not be around anymore and my great great great great…….. grand children will have adapted to their new reality.
The UN setting arbitrary global temperatures as “limits” is simply an attempt to control the conversation and an attempt to exert power over SOME sovereign nations, not science.
The hubris to declare that today’s climate is THE climate and the idiotic thought that we can actually preserve and control it, flies in the face of millions and millions of years of changes the earth has already experienced since it came to be (oh and look no humans around until recently).
Climate changes are slow and unstoppable and mankind has managed to stick around and adapt experiencing a brighter future every time. So forgive me if I do not participate in your hysteric doom and gloom.
The rate of climate change in the current world is unprecedented. It is about a thousand times faster than at any other time in the history of the planet. Why? Because we are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a huge and ever increasing rate. Currently, we are emitting about 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. That’s completely unprecedented, and that’s why it won’t take millions of years, or even thousands of years, to see results. The last ten years were the hottest ten years in recorded history. Parts of the ocean off the Florida coast recently exceeded 100°. That’s just plain crazy.
The events predicted are not “hypothetical” any more than the date of the next solar eclipse is hypothetical. All of this is governed by well-known laws of physics, and we understand how the climate works well enough to know what happens if we continue on our current course. Do you really think that you know more about this subject than almost 90,000 climate scientists?
The vast majority of the people alive today will be around when the climate “noticeably” changes. Many of us have already seen such changes in everything from hotter temperatures than we have ever experienced to more powerful storms and wildfires. How often does a wildfire in western Canada cause thick smoke in New York City?
But if by “noticeably” you mean “catastrophic,” yes, I can still say that the vast majority of the people alive today will be around for that. The UN predictions are bad enough, but they are terribly out of date, as many negative climate effects have been discovered since the last UN report was released in 2019. And as has been reported by some of the best climate scientists, climate change is accelerating. You just have to look at some of the latest data curves to see that.
What makes you think the UN has set “arbitrary” temperature limits? If you examine their process at all, you will see that these limits were anything but arbitrary. Now it turns out that the more we learn about the complexities of the climate, the more we see how it responds to our polluting it, which means that it has become clear that the UN limits are actually far too generous. I only use them because they are universally accepted, but those who are at the forefront of climate science know that the world would be in deep trouble even if we stuck to the 1.5° limit, which we have now passed. (See Johan Rockström’s work, for example; you can easily find his video presentations of it on YouTube.)
I have no idea what you mean when you refer to the idea “that today’s climate is THE climate.” Our climate is quite unique, though it does share many similarities with the climates of past times. As for “the idiotic thought that we can actually preserve and control it,” please give a scientific reason why this is an idiotic thought. It was once thought idiotic to believe that the Earth revolved around the Sun, when anyone could easily see that it was the Sun that was moving around the Earth, rising and setting every day. It took scientists to discover the truth. More recently, just a hundred years ago, no one thought that a few pounds of uranium could generate the explosion of an atomic bomb – not even Einstein. Most people who even considered the idea thought it was ridiculous, or worse. And yet science developed the atomic bomb.
The rest of your post shows no knowledge of the science of climate change. If you can make scientific arguments backed by verifiable facts, please do. I’d be really fascinated to see you disprove the work of almost 90,000 climate scientists from all over the world.
As for “hysteric doom and gloom,” I assure you that I hold neither of these views. I am simply describing what the science shows, without judgment. I would strongly recommend that you study the science that led to the current predictions of climate change. Studying the scientific method in general and how it led to our current technological world would also be useful, as without such an understanding it is impossible to realize how science works, and why the scientific method is so important.
What we REALLY need is an Alaska RINO and Radical Leftist Extremism Emergency Response Commission! To root out all the globalist traitors within our state government, both Democrats (basically, all of them) and Republicans (maybe only half of those).
No.
Our state government has proven themselves to be largely incompetent.
We are broke.
The only thing hung we need is an Alaska DOGE!
“There has never been a time in the earth’s history when the climate was not changing.”
Actually the climate has been rather stable for about the last 11,700 years, which comprise the current Holocene geological epoch. That’s also about the length of time that human civilization has existed. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, which were 280 ppm at the beginning of the Industrial Age, are currently about 427 ppm – the highest they’ve been in 2 million years. Temperatures 2 million years ago were an average of 18° higher than they are today. That’s where we’re headed if we continue business as usual. (The temperature data comes from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.)
We left the Holocene decades ago, and the distance we have traveled since is many times the regular variations during that epoch. No humans were alive the last time carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere were this high, much less any human civilizations. We are only barely beginning to see the effects of that rise in carbon dioxide, which is increasing at an accelerating rate. To see what lies in store for us, read the landmark peer-reviewed paper, “Global Warming in the Pipeline,” by James Hansen.
For those people who think that this is all some sort of ideological thing, please check out the article “More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change,” published in the Cornell Chronicle. (Cornell is one of the best universities in the country, especially for science.) The first sentence of the article states: “More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.” The article also has a link to the peer-reviewed study in the journal Environmental Research Letters from which this data was taken. You can read that if you’re interested.
Scientists tend to disagree a lot about many things. But that 99.9% figure is right up there with the level of agreement of the validity of quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theory of relativity.
For those people who don’t believe in science, well, just wait a few years, or maybe even a decade. By then it will be quite obvious where things are heading. But it will also be too late to change the climate trajectory, as by then we will have passed what James Hansen calls the Point of No Return.
Steve peer reviewed consensus isn’t science. It is herd mentality opinion.
You wrote:
“More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”
This is patently false. The climate has changed for forever even when man did not exist yet. It is easy to manipulate results by factors you input into your computer modeling or survey.
Peer review is nice, but apparently circular thinking (I know there are more than .1% of scientist who disagree with this climate assertion) and as we have seen with Covid, if it doesn’t fit the mold it doesn’t get reviewed or printed. That’s not science, that’s manipulation of the narrative.
I further dispute your time line of “a decade” to the alleged point of no return. It is preposterous, speculative and not based in fact.
I suggest that you read some of these papers. They certainly aren’t all saying the same thing; duplicate papers don’t get published. Instead, some of them are addressing different aspects of climate change that when put together form a consistent picture. Others are providing new, supporting data for previously proposed theories. For detailed aspects of climate change, different papers may propose different mechanisms. Certainly, not everyone agrees on every detail. But the overall picture is consistent due to the overwhelming evidence.
Yes, the climate has been constantly changing since the formation of the planet. But since the emergence of complex life, it has never changed this fast. Even much slower changes have resulted in mass extinctions.
You say, “It is easy to manipulate results by factors you input into your computer modeling or survey.” What evidence do you have that this is happening? As for the computer models, the source code for the main ones is freely available. That makes it extraordinarily hard to hide biases.
And again, read the papers. Find some errors of logic or data. Does the author really sound like he’s making this stuff up? The vast majority of these authors are associated with prestigious universities or institutions. Would these places knowingly allow fraudulent work to be associated with them? And do you really think that this is happening all over the world?
As for my timeline of a decade, it is based on an updated version of one of the standard climate models. Climate response is delayed from its triggering event. This has been known for decades, and one thing it means is that even at the point of no return, things may be far from catastrophic. To say that this timeline is “preposterous, speculative and not based in fact” is simply an opinion, as you have provided no evidence to back up this claim. Where are the facts that disprove this timeline?
Finally, if climate science is so unsound, where are all the scientific papers demonstrating that?
Sorry I almost forgot you blew your own argument right out of the water with this:
“Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, which were 280 ppm at the beginning of the Industrial Age, are currently about 427 ppm – the highest they’ve been in 2 million years. Temperatures 2 million years ago were an average of 18° higher than they are today. That’s where we’re headed if we continue business as usual. (The temperature data comes from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.)”
So I guess climate change isn’t man made after all. Seems that all those high temperatures and carbon particles 2 million years ago did not turn our planet into a barren wasteland forever. Instead Earth and man’s ancestors did just fine….. just saying!
As is pointed out in many places in climate science, it isn’t the absolute temperature that is crucial, but the rate of change. Given enough time (more than ten million years or so), life can adapt to a changing climate, although many species will go extinct in the process. When the climate changes too fast, that’s when mass extinctions occur.
The climate is now change 1000 times faster than ever before. This is what concerns the experts. They know where this leads.
Okay Steve, you misunderstand where I stand. I have listened to outlandish climate predictions all my life and to date NONE of them have even remotely happened. (World’s end in 12 years comes to mind….oh wait 7 years now)
I also have a lowly opinion of scientists, as they change their minds regularly (remember eggs bad oh never mind eggs good or maybe eggs bad again). It is the nature of the scientific process to discover and invalidate previously held notions or so called facts, as technology and our understanding of our planet expands.
That being said I know climate is slowly changing all the time and over time. Species being unable to adapt is the story of our planet. To demand that OUR TIME is THE BEST time and requires preservation by all means, in my opinion is pure hubris and arrogance.
I dispute that we as people have the ability to influence the changing climate in any way OR more importantly are the cause for it. By all accounts the climate on this rock has changed since its inception, mostly depending on its position towards the sun or that random meteor strike you can’t do anything about (unless of course you are Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck)
So let’s for a moment assume your premise that climate change is bad (and not a natural occurrence) and look at it factually taking your example in the timeline.
IF climate evolution takes 10 million years (I am more inclined to go with a few billion years but whatever) and you claim that it is currently 1000 times faster. That means we will see a new climate establish over the next 10,000 years!
Considering the innovations and inventions in just the last 100 years, I give us a good chance of adapting with the times. All this current bellyaching is just a stab in the dark, supposition and speculation by people who depend on grants for their livelihood. So forgive me if I remain skeptical and place my faith in my great great great great……grand children to have the technology and ability to make it work in about 10,000 years.
Steve,
You do realize that when you say “just wait a few years, or maybe even a decade. By then it will be quite obvious where things are heading. But it will also be too late to change the climate trajectory” this same thing has been said decade after decade and the prophets of doom and yet decade after decade the prophesy hasn’t materialized. Not just regarding climate but rapture, peak oil, peak food production, peak population, etc., etc., etc. Peach it brother, spread the good word, spread the climate gospel far and wide…the end is nigh, repent sinners your time for judgment is now!!!
It’s true that a few people have made such premature climate predictions. But these people were not backed by the climate science community as a whole. However, once the climate science community convinced the UN of the seriousness and enormity of the problem, the studies produced by the UN (specifically, the IPCC – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) have been remarkably consistent and accurate. If anything, events are proving them to have erred on the conservative side. And the temperature changes we have seen over the decades were predicted by climate science decades ago, some by none other than Exxon. Google “Exxon climate change report 1977” for a surprise.
Steve,
Let’s be honest here, there have been more than a few dooms day the end is nigh environmentalist prophets who have been priven wrong time and time again, many of them with backing of large parts of those claiming to be a part of climate science. There are decades worth of such predictions by numerous people with backing by those claiming the same things you are prophesying here.
This is just another example of expanding government via a new agency, for a problem that does not exist.