Climate change will make the subway 'dangerously hot'

[chakk]

As far as I can see the facts are pretty much solid on sea level rise. The projections are for 4 to 6 inches by the end of the century. The CO2 concentration numbers are going up. It is a reasonable assumption that reduction in rate of CO2 production wherever it is getting produced by whatever will reduce the rate of growth of CO2 concentration. So human beings can play a part in that, irrespective of whether they are or are not responsible for the current state.

In the face of this, those that insist that nothing needs to be done are playing some kind of a game possibly with themselves.

And as far as receding glaciers go, I have seen that personally in the Himalayas and the Alps over 4 decades. So I am pretty sure that the question is not "if" but it is "when", unless the trends change dramatically somehow.

Of course when someone insists on believing one or two outliers with some claimed scientific credentials instead of the massive majority in the profession, well, that is indicative of something too. Just IMHO of course.

The key phrase in this statement is that reducing production of CO2 emissions will reduce the RATE OF GROWTH of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. NOTHING that has been proposed to date or is realistically being considered as feasible will reduce the GROWTH of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Modeling work that I have seen -- some of which my former employer financially sponsored and I managed before I retired 12 years ago -- indicates that reducing global annual emissions to the rate that existed in 1927 will be required to stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentration at 550 parts per million (twice the pre-Industrial level, with today's concentration being about 400 ppm on an annual average). 1927 emissions were about one-tenth of what they are today, globally. Achieving that would require all countries currently emitting more than 1% of the global total -- there's about 20 of those -- would have to reduce their annual emissions to zero, and all of the other countries would have to hold their emissions constant at current annual levels. To keep atmospheric concentrations at today's levels, those little countries would have to, in addition the 20 "zero emitters", reduce their emissions by about half of what they currently are.

 

[jis]

So the conclusion is we should donothing? I guess at some level that might make sense.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[chakk]

So the conclusion is we should donothing? I guess at some level that might make sense.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

Who said anything about doing nothing? I am simply saying that one should not be surprised if modest efforts to reduce emissions do not produce detectable changes in either climate or the rate at which greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere.

But it also appears that much more effort needs to be made in preparing for what may well be inevitable changes in climate. And society should spend some significant efforts on identifying where those changes would produce really bad outcomes, and take substantial steps to attempt to mitigate those bad outcomes before they happen.

But to even suggest that ALL changes are preventable ("if only we all would just reduce our net emissions to zero") is, in my opinion, both naive and dangerous, and could well violate a few of the laws of thermodynamics. If that were the true plan of attack, then we might as well go back to burning all suspected witches and warlocks at the stake to save Mankind from the Evils of Satan.

In the meantime, I will continue to ride Amtrak when I can as an alternative to driving myself alone across country in my auto or flying in a half-empty jet plane. I do draw the line at riding on a bus for more than 4 hours at a stretch.