The results will come as no surprise to many of us but it's good to see that James Hansen's new paper has been accepted by Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. There is no more prestigious journal. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/e ... al-warming
The conclusions of Hansen's latest paper are stark:
"Most remaining fossil fuel carbon is in coal and unconventional oil and gas. Thus, it seems, humanity stands at a fork in the road. As conventional oil and gas are depleted, will we move to carbon-free energy and efficiency - or to unconventional fossil fuels and coal?
... It seems implausible that humanity will not alter its energy course as consequences of burning all fossil fuels become clearer. Yet strong evidence about the dangers of human-made climate change have so far had little effect. Whether governments continue to be so foolhardy as to allow or encourage development of all fossil fuels may determine the fate of humanity."
The new paper by James Hansen is just the latest confirming that we are on the verge of crossing a tipping point into catastrophic climate change.
It seems implausible that humanity will not alter its energy course as consequences of burning all fossil fuels become clearer. Yet strong evidence about the dangers of human-made climate change have so far had little effect.
The second sentence makes sentence. Sadly, the first does not. It does not seem implausible that humanity will not alter its energy course. It seems entirely plausible that humanity will continue to burn fossil fuels so long as it remains economically worth while, in the short term, to do so. The reason this is plausible is because we are stuck in a giant version of the prisoner's dilemma, and this is only going to get worse as times get harder due to overpopulation, resource depletion and ongoing environmental degradation. It is entirely implausible that the governments of this world are going to get together to voluntarily and jointly decide not to burn fossil fuels because of the probable effect on the climate. Anyone who does not agree with this assessment does not understand political reality and human nature.
I think the sense of the first sentence is clear if one assumes that Hanson means it seams implausible given the assumption that folk take rational decisions based on the scientific evidence. He omits that part but takes it for granted that the reader understands as much, hence the qualification of the second sentence. One has to read the first sentence in the context of the second.
biffvernon wrote:I think the sense of the first sentence is clear if one assumes that Hanson means it seams implausible given the assumption that folk take rational decisions based on the scientific evidence.
But that would be a silly assumption. Even without the giant prisoner's dilemma, humans still fail at this at least as often as they get it right. An example (as if one were needed): the government can plaster "Smoking causes a horrible early death" all over cigarette packets, and people very quickly learn to ignore them.
Which is why Hansen thinks we are probably doomed, but he keeps plugging away at any glimmer of hope so that he can answer his grandchildren's question, "What did you do about it?"
