Hi 8° | Lo -6°

Letter: High price of climate change

More than 1,000 years of ice cores from Antarctica reveal that carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, was stable at a concentration of 280 parts per million.

However, starting with the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of this gas increased dramatically.

There is no question that this gas is not from natural means but is from burning fossil fuels. The only question now is who is going to pay the bill to repair the future impacts needed to offset the impacts of global warming.

Will it be the industries that have caused the problem or will it be the public?

The cost is going to be in the billions. For example, some areas of New York are going to build ocean flood gates and pumps to protect expensive buildings and their subway system.

The South and Midwest will face increasingly severe droughts and fires, which will require communities to either recycle wastewater or use expensive systems to desalinate ocean water to protect the nation’s food supply.

Currently, industries are funding politicians to convince the American public that the threat is imaginary.

Any politician who says he or she doesn’t believe in climate change is either lying or will say anything to protect their funding source.

To avoid the high future costs, people need to vote for politicians who believe in climate change before it is too late.

Unfortunately, we are playing with our planet’s thermostat.



Legacy Comments13

I view this climate thing from a much simpler perspective. There used to be wild, self-sustaining populations of brook trout in southern NH streams. Now there are not.

Will someone please explain to me how this great world wide hoax works. How come so many (97%) of scientists are in on it and who is the ring leader and what are they hoping to get out of it?

In the 70's the screamed about global cooling. then came Globull warming, then came Climate Change and their newest is Climate Disruption. Now that CO2 has been proven to NOT have all the forcing aspects they claimed we should expect a new name they call their massive world wide hoax that would make PT Barnum smile.

I am just curious what you base your "Now that CO2 has been proven to NOT have...." statement on? I get the opposite opinion from the statements. Call it cooling, warming, or disruption, it"s all the same thing in the end. The melting in the western Antarctic should be a wake-up call. I am just curious just what type of smoking gun people want, do we wait until Florida is under an ice berg? To dismiss the possibility in such an off-hand manner doesn't seem to be the most prudent course to take.

I suggest you actually read the antarctic story and come back with a retraction ( may a thingy like in 1000 years would amend your post) . while you are at it google the latest on the overestimation of the CO2 forcing.. You probably know the the global sea ice is at an all time high

Yes I know that the sea ice has returned but that particular piece of data is really irrelevant to the issue at had. As I am sure you know, since you had to skip over it to get to your sea ice data, that the true measure that has meaning is that of arctic ice. Arctic ice and sea ice are two different animals. Sea ice is a two dimensional measurement and comes and goes with the seasons. Arctic Ice is a three dimensional measure and this data has dropped significantly since 1980. As for the Antarctic story, no need to apologize. The melting was of Arctic Ice not sea ice. For a reference point in 2010 sea ice had rebounded significantly when measured in March, however it was so thin that May it had all thawed taking some Arctic ice with it. Nice try tho. What was I supposed to retract? I suggest you reread my post slowly, you never answered what proof you would require?

Antarctic / Arctic - seems like I see 2 different hemispheres in your posts - no sense debating a liberal they dont even know what hemisphere they are on. Quote above ..."melting in the western Antarctic" quote below it ...."Arctic Ice not sea ice."

OK I erred when I typed Arctic, so replace Arctic with Antarctic, happy now, it was late. I should have used the term multi-year ice. While the extent of the ANTARCTIC sea ice is expanding, the multi-year ice ( glaciers, ice sheets and ice caps) is what is steadily decreasing. Now for the Arctic, while Antarctic sea ice increased increased 3.7% in 2013, the Arctic saw a decline of 18% over the 1980-2010 mean. So was that more to your liking. So yes the continental ice in the western Antarctica continues to decline more rapidly than in the ice in the Arctic region. This is where the most concern arises since what we refer to as sea ice is usually 1-2 meters thick, while continental ice can be up to a 1000 meters. Spin it however you like.

As usual, you're confused, whether intentionally or not. Arctic sea ice extent is dramatically down from its long term average, and those who say it's not are relying on year to year changes that are relatively meaningless in comparison to longer term changes--which show a steady decline. Even more telling than ice extent is ice thickness--mass, which is in dramatic decline in the Arctic. The Antarctic is also losing ice mass--less quickly perhaps but still losing mass overall. Increases in ice extent in the Antarctic are due to changes in wind patterns and the persistence of an ozone hole, not a cooling planet. Recent news about the loosening of another portion of the W. Antarctic ice shelf illustrate the delusional nature of the deniers' claims. But we won't hold our breath waiting for a retraction from you about your latest inaccurate (to put it politely) post.

The more research I have done on the freshwater influx from melting ice to the oceans, the bigger a headache I am getting. For an elementary, thou worst case dramatization, introduction to the whole ocean current issue. One could view the movie Day After Tomorrow, yes it's Hollywood and overly dramatic and worse case, but the basic premise is sound.

None of the claims in this post by BPR/sail are accurate--I know,no surprise there. First: even in the 1970's, more scientists were concerned about and researching the effects of increasing CO2 on climate. Second: as has been pointed out here dozens of times over the years, it was Republican pollster/spinmeister Frank Luntz who urged the GOP to say "climate change" instead of "global warming" whenever the topic was raised. Third: It is false to claim that a lower sensitivity (forcing) to increasing CO2 levels has been "proven". Climate sensitivity to increases is thought to be between 2 degrees C. and 4.5 degrees C. Recently, some researchers have suggested the lower number may be the more accurate given the recent slowing in surface air temperature increases. But these researchers may not be accounting for the extra warming going into the oceans, nor for warming in the Arctic, where temperature data has been less abundant. Claims about lower climate sensitivity illustrate the denier tactic of cherry-picking information from one or few papers, to make claims that are unsupported by the science or the scientists.

Will it be the industries that have caused the problem or will it be the public? interesting question...will it be the industry that produced the electrical power or the people that used it? the company that produced the gasoline or the people that used it??

Well that is a break through, At least you admit their is a problem.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.