Earthsky Interviews
Private: Climate scientist: “I don’t see a catastrophe”
02-06-2007 - Earth
div(intro). In the past few years of climate controversy, John Christy has been a voice of skepticism about the catastrophic impacts of human caused global warming. Last week, Earth & Sky made a blanket appeal to scientists, asking for their response to the Feb. 2 announcement by the Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change (IPCC). All “26 scientists”:http://earthsky.org/article/50989/20-scientists-speak who responded agreed with the IPCC that global warming is a real human-made problem. For another perspective, we then asked Dr. Christy for his statement. He provided the following.
Humans are having an impact on the climate which adds on to the changes that occur naturally. The human activities that are responsible include: the massive changes we’ve introduced to the land surface (urbanization, agriculture), extra dust these changes have kicked up into the air, extra aerosols from burning everything from forests to dung to coal as well as the extra greenhouse gases produced from our need for energy.
Energy demand will grow because the benefits to humans are tremendous and vital. Consider that – in the year 1900 – the energy technology supported 56 billion human-life-years. Today that number is over 430 billion human-life years, a spectacular 8-fold increase! Some of those extra life-years are mine as a grandparent who is able to watch his grandson grow in a world where such an experience is now the norm rather than the exception.
My opinion is that plans to suppress energy production in the hopes that the climate can be managed are misguided and will not be effective anyway because:
1. Those U.S. proposals that are likely to be seriously considered deal with such relatively small amounts of global CO2 emissions that their impact on the global climate will be too small to detect with confidence.
2. The observing system we have now is not able to discern the relative climate impact of these proposals.
3. The climate cannot be predictably managed with such proposals given the uncertainty of natural variations.
For example, to make a 10 percent dent in CO2 would require 1000 nuclear power plants and this would still not make a measurable difference on whatever the climate will do anyway.
Are we ready for that?
And, from the datasets we produce and follow, I don’t see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what should be correctly identified as “plant food”. Now, as time goes on, we will decarbonize energy as more clever methods are discovered (burning carbon is rather quaint when you think about it). This is the history of wealthy, innovative and democratically-accountable societies with access to affordable energy.
I’m full of optimism about the continued growth of wealth and health around the world. This wealth will create cleaner environments even in countries where persistent poverty has destroyed too much habitat and fouled too many rivers.
My comment has nothing to do with this program,but still it is about space travel.
Looking at NASA astronaut Lisa Mowak’s police mug shot showing her fatigued,haggard face and scraggly hair,my heart felt ache.I want to say a few words about this incident.
1. Astronaut or not,she is a common person,like you and me.We all have our happiness and worries,so does she.Astronauts are not robonauts.
2. This incident should not affect Mrs.Nowak’s selection as the next astronaut to fly.And I personally hope she can show others that she is still one of the best.
3. I hope her family will keep intact.
This is Mr.Lu Ning from China.
As I read Dr. Christy’s comments, he seems not to disagree with the IPCC’s findings. Instead, he makes the reasonable point that people won’t compromise their living standards to solve the problem. On the other hand, the non-visibility of an oncoming catastrophe does not mean one isn’t coming.
But the solutions to global warming also offer other benefits: less air pollution and lower trade deficits, plus less involvement with governments whose values are different from ours.
Doing three things could cut our fossil-fuel use in half: converting electrical generation to renewable and nuclear; doubling the fuel-efficiency standards for personal vehicles; and heating buildings with solar heat, heat pumps, and district heating. These technologies are currently available. More reductions could be made as other technologies (hydrogen, for example) become available.
It seems to me that the fact of global warming combined with the health and economic benefits of moving away from fossil fuels makes a strong incentive to move aggressively.