Is Global Warming Unstoppable? - University of Utah News Release: November 22nd, 2009. Is Global Warming Unstoppable?
Theory Also Says Energy Conservation Doesn't Help Nov. 22, 2009 - In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions - the major cause of global warming - cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day. "It looks unlikely that there will be any substantial near-term departure from recently observed acceleration in carbon dioxide emission rates," says the new paper by Tim Garrett, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences. Garrett's study was panned by some economists and rejected by several journals before acceptance by Climatic Change, a journal edited by renowned Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider. The study will be published online this week. The study - which is based on the concept that physics can be used to characterize the evolution of civilization - indicates: "No," he says.
A Multi-Scale Approach to Coping with Climate Change and Other Collective Action Problems. A Multi-Scale Approach to Coping with Climate Change and Other Collective Action Problems The Challenge of Climate Change No country can solve the global climate change problem by acting alone.
If only one country in the world tried to solve climate change—even one of the wealthier countries of the world—this would be a grossly inadequate effort. On the other hand, waiting for a single worldwide “solution” to emerge from global negotiations is problematic. Considerable disagreements exist even among the major states as to how large a reduction in emissions is required,1 as witnessed in the December 2009 negotiations in Copenhagen. Major debates exist over a number of key issues related to achieving efficient and fair mechanisms at a global level. In addition to the problem of waiting too long, solutions negotiated at a global level, if not backed up by a variety of efforts at national, regional, and local levels, are not guaranteed to work well. The Weakness of Empirical Support.
Wake Up, Freak Out - then Get a Grip (Tipping Point Ahead) Wake Up, Freak Out - then Get a Grip from Leo Murray on Vimeo.
It turns out that the way we have been calculating the future impacts of climate change up to now has been missing a really important piece of the picture. It seems we are now dangerously close to the tipping point in the world's climate system; this is the point of no return, after which truly catastrophic changes become inevitable. The coming climate panic? One morning in the not too distant future, you might wake up and walk to your mailbox. The newspaper is in there and it’s covered with shocking headlines: Coal Plants Shut Down! Airline Travel Down 50 Percent! New Federal Carbon Restrictions in Place! Governor Kicked Out of Office for Climate Indolence! Sometimes change is abrupt and unsettling. Shaking your head, you think: What just happened?
With a non-binding agreement coming out of Copenhagen at the same time that atmospheric CO2 creeps above 390 parts per million, it’s possible that a new feeling might soon gain prevalence in the hearts of people who understand climate science. In the same way that paleoclimate records show evidence of abrupt climate changes, we think it’s increasingly possible that policy responses to climate change will themselves be abrupt. The backlash is brewing in the form of increasingly strident comments from respected and influential people.
That’s a big problem.