Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Actually, immediate action is not required. It is desired, and I maintain that the overfocus on GHGs is not true environmentalism. If people want to go green, it takes a lot more than an obsessive over-focus on one aspect of how we pollute our world.
|
Where do you get this idea from?
Almost every recent scientific paper calls for immediate action to reduce GHGs. The reason is that new discoveries have shown that GHGs stay in the atmosphere much longer than previously thought, over 1000 years.
Most climate models are converging on the idea that we are approaching a safe limit of total atmospheric GHG emissions to level at 2 degree warming. In order to level we actually have to DROP our GHG emissions in parts per million to 450. In order to do so, taking all relevant carbon sink information we have about 450 Gt of emissions left to emit. Once that threshold is breached then we get into a new phase of warming above 2 degrees.
2 degrees warming is still significant by the way and will have significant costs. For one, with 2 degree warming we are committed to a sea level rise of at least 1 - 2 meters just based on thermal expansion. River deltas will be flooded. A higher degree of warming (above 2 degrees) will have untold consequences.
I suggest you actually read up on the latest scientific literature before loudly proclaiming that reducing emissions isn't an immediate priority.
Here's a good article to start:
Plattner, G.-K, R. Knutti, F. Joos, T. F. Stocker, W. von Bloh, V. Brovkin, D. Cameron, E. Driesschaert, S. Dutkiewicz, M. Eby, N. R. Edwards, T. Fichefet, J. C. Hargreaves, C. D. Jones, M. F. Loutre, H. D. Matthews, A. Mouchet, S. A. Mueller, S. Nawrath, A. Price, A. Sokolov, K. M. Strassmann, and A. J. Weaver, 2008: Long-term climate commitments projected with climate - carbon cycle models,
Journal of Climate,
21, 2721-2751.