Several scientists have published studies recently which indicate that “it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades,” to avert “a dangerous rise in global temperatures.” The studies show that we truly have a problem and that it will be incredibly difficult (impossible) to do something about it.

Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.

Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.

Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters put it as follows: “The question is, what if we don’t want the Earth to warm anymore? The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about.”

Let me add a question to that: can we prevent the world from warming more? Is that within our power? Isn’t ‘global warming’ natural, at least to a degree? If so, shouldn’t our goal be to limit human contribution to global warming, not to prevent global warming in itself?

I’m not a global warming critic, I believe it’s real, that mankind contributes to it, and that we should do something about it… but lets keep it in perspective.

Aside from that, it seems difficult if not impossible to do what these scientists want us to do. The reality of the matter is that “a goal of zero emissions appears well beyond the reach of politicians.” Not even European politicians are willing to support a plan as radical as this one. Simply because it’s probably (economically at least) impossible to achieve (no more carbon output).

The WaPo points out: ‘The Senate is poised to vote in June on legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions by 70 percent by 2050; the two Democratic senators running for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), back an 80 percent cut. The Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), supports a 60 percent reduction by mid-century.’

Senator Barbara Boxer commented: the new findings “make it clear we must act now to address global warming. It won’t be easy, given the makeup of the Senate, but the science is compelling,” she said. “It is hard for me to see how my colleagues can duck this issue and live with themselves.”

That’s all true, most of it at least, but - again - we have to realize that global warming is partially a natural phenomenon and that, as such, we can’t stop the earth from warming, at least slowly, even if we try. We can’t prevent Hurricanes from happening, we can’t prevent global warming from happening. We can prevent it from running out of hand, however, and we can reduce the impact we, human beings, have on it.

Somehow I don’t think that far-reaching goals and panicking words will solve this problem. A pragmatical and realist approach will. Lets not give fodder to those who deny the impact human beings have on global warming. And I fear that this is exactly what this article - and those scientists - does.

Dave Schuler:

I don’t think that nuclear power will provide a solution in the time required. It took 25 years to build the last nuclear power plant to come online in the U. S. I believe that a crash program to build nuclear power plants would meet with opposition so overwhelming it would make the reaction to our invasion of Iraq look miniscule, only with Bechtel playing the part of Halliburton in the anti-nuke protests.

I don’t think that alternative fuels will provide a solution in the time required. Nothing that’s being produced currently in the U. S. has the necessary efficiency and it takes 20 years to turn over the total vehicle fleet in the U. S.

Blue Crab Boulevard (I respect Gaius, but for some strange reason he and people like him seem to be unable to realize that global warming doesn’t mean that every single part of this earth will be warmer; some places, believe it or not, will be colder. That’s the kind of thing they taught me back in high school already, I don’t quite see why American conservatives seem to be able to grasp this fact - I believe it has something to do with the fact that the earth is, wait for it, round)

Meanwhile, in the real world, the northern hemisphere ice cover is running slightly below the 1979-2000 mean while the southern polar ice is running above that mean by a greater amount. The snow cover for the northern hemisphere is well above average. Erie, Pennsylvania received about 21 inches of snow over the weekend, almost as much as the 23 inches they had already received in March before the latest storm. Britain is currently being lashed by the strongest winter storm of the year with another one tracking in right behind.