Heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are building up so high, so fast, that some scientists now think the world can no longer limit global warming to the level world leaders have agreed upon as safe.
Yes carbon dioxide is getting higher. So the worst is going to happen. Screw the polar bears, we're going to drown:
Scientists can't say exactly what levels of greenhouse gases are safe, but some fear a continued rise in global temperatures will lead to irreversible melting of some of the world's ice sheets and a several-foot rise in sea levels over the centuries — the so-called tipping point. ...
"Over the next several centuries, Greenland slowly melts away," Weaver said.
Several foot rise over several centuries? Let's call it 3 feet and 3 centuries to take the worst case of "several." That's one foot per century. Or 1.2 inches per decade.
The "end is nigh" isn't what it used to be, apparently. Watching grass grow is an exciting spectator sport compared to that.
Maybe it is just me, but I could buy a seaside home and pay off a 30 year mortgage before the sea rose 4 inches. If I've done the math right. Maybe me and my neighbors could pitch in and buy a 6" sea wall to buy us a couple more decades. And maybe our society will be so much richer in 1, 2, or 3 centuries that we'll be better able to afford adaptation to the rise.
If it happens. Because it isn't "science" that tells us that we have a problem:
While scientists can't agree on what level of warming of the climate is considered dangerous, environmental activists have seized upon 350 parts per million as a target for carbon dioxide levels. The world pushed past that mark more than 20 years ago.
Which will obviously kill us all since we've already experienced global warming:
Temperatures have already risen about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since pre-industrial times.
Oh, 0.8 degrees Celsius? That doesn't seem that bad, does it? But the results! Surely the results of that and future increases will kill us all, right? Because we won't be able to stop the rise before we go 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 Celsius) warmer.
"There's very, very little chance," Prinn said. "One has to be pessimistic about making that absolute threshold." He added: "Maybe we've waited too long to do anything serious if two degrees is the danger level."
Oh. "If two degrees is the danger level." If. Science doesn't say. "Activists" have seized on it. Like they seized on 350 parts per million as the safe upper limit.
Again, maybe it is just me, but I'm thinking that a lot of people worried about flooding from global warming have an image in their mind of a tidal wave sweeping away the Statue of Liberty one day, as they go about their business without a care in the world. One moment you're sipping your latte and the next? Wham! Swept away and dead. Damn those Deniers!
In reality, we have time to adapt. Centuries for the worst case that they say we face. We even have plenty of time to panic, if you really want to. I mean, if you want to go by what the activists say.
UPDATE: There is a reason people could have an overly dramatic view of the science:
“I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story,” a civil servant wrote to Phil Jones in 2009. “They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”
Having elevated global warming to the most dramatic, urgent and over-riding issue of the day, bureaucrats, NGOs, politicians and funding agencies demanded that the scientists must keep the whole bandwagon rolling. It had become too big to stop.
Politicians wanted reasons to spend and control. And so-called scientists gave it to them. Who in turn made sure the money was there to keep that story going. There's plenty of shame all around, here. That is undeniable. Tip to Instapundit on the story.
UPDATE: This is in regard to the Climagegate 2.0 email dump that Delingpole mentions here. Delingpole says the most embarrassing email is one where a scientist resorts to song to celebrate the Nobel Prize. Yes, it is awful. My contribution to the award--a poem--is much better. Heck, if it is song you want, my Al Gore song is better, too, if I say so myself.
