The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

BH mischaracterizes FACT, climate effects

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Guest Columnist:

Stop America's 'green scare' (December 10, 2007)
Greek sexuality misconceptions unfair (December 6, 2007)
Security fee shows UWPD's prejudice (December 6, 2007)
Vote Democrat, vote equal LGBT rights (December 6, 2007)
Free trade stagnates upward mobility (December 6, 2007)

by Guest Columnist

Thursday, October 26, 2006

On Tuesday, Oct. 24, and Wednesday, Oct. 25, students walking up Bascom Hill were led through a hypothetical progression of climate events caused by global warming as represented by a series of posters, culminating in a "solutions" poster featuring ways to help prevent such events from occurring. This event demonstrated the potential consequences of what tremendous evidence suggests to be human-induced global warming. More importantly, however, this event demonstrated to students that we are fully capable of reversing this climate trend. Unfortunately, The Badger Herald, after neglecting to discuss the event with a single member of our group, inexplicably chose to place a front-page photo with a single, blatantly antagonistic caption claiming that "students [were] bombarded with global warming 'solutions'…"

Such a knee-jerk reaction does nothing to further the dialogue on global warming. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and the Earth is warming rapidly. Despite tremendous amounts of evidence from a variety of fields that the recent warming is a result of human carbon dioxide emissions, is it possible that this theory could still be wrong? Yes. But what the evidence tells us is that this theory is the most likely scenario. And this most likely scenario involves the potential for catastrophic climate changes that, while not likely, becomes more and more likely as long as we continue to emit carbon dioxide. Thus, when we do not take action, we increase the risk we pose to life on Earth.

So what exactly is meant by "solutions" (this time without negative connotation) to global warming? Simple: Solutions are efforts to decrease this risk. If we can decrease this risk, we improve our chances for a stable climate future. And one of the easiest ways to decrease this risk is at an individual level: Conserve energy (turn off lights, etc.) and you will reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, thereby lowering the risk we face as a global community. Hence, if humans are indeed capable of causing global warming, we are equally capable of stopping it.

What's the moral of the story? Despite all of the squabbling over the science behind the issue, the bottom line is this: The need to take action is not a scientific issue, but is in fact purely a risk management issue. The stakes are too high for us to sit idle any longer.

Here is another way to think of it:

The large majority of homeowners have fire insurance. Do they expect their house catch fire in the future? Of course not; the likelihood of your house going up in flames is very low, perhaps 1-2 percent — in your lifetime. So why do people get fire insurance? Because a fire poses a major threat — it could potentially destroy everything you own, maybe even kill you.

Effectively, then, preventative action is our "global warming insurance:" We may not expect climate catastrophe to occur due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but simply because the potential exists, we have no choice but to take action to prevent it from occurring. And it is important to note that, in this case, if we don't take action we won't have the luxury of building a new house.

If you would like to discuss anything related to this topic or to my commentary, please e-mail me. Discussion is vital to informed public policy.

To get involved on campus with global warming, contact Dan Chavas for Global Warming: FACT or Maggie King for Big Red Go Green, at e-mail (maggieking@wisc.edu).

Dan Chavas (drchavas@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 6:22am):

The only practical thing to do is start a program to replace all carbon based power generation. Pebble-bed nuclear power plants would be good.

The universe generally runs on nuclear power.

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 6:52am):

Risk reduction necessarily involves trade-off analysis. The nominal potential hazard reduction from any given action should never increase the risk of other detrimental outcomes. For instance, nobody would "insure" their house against fire hazards by submerging it in a pool of horse manure?

Yet that is precisely what Global Warming activists would have us do. Their socialist agenda of energy curtailment proposals significantly increase the likelihood of social and economic collapse with catastrophic health, welfare and environmental degradation.

Moreover, there is no guarentee that their proposals for greenhouse gas reductions won't plunge the global climate into a new Ice Age.

For that reason, President Clinton's Senate unanimously rejected the Kyoto Protocol treaty when it was brought to a vote.

The science of Global Warming is simply not well enough understood to risk taking the kinds of draconian measures these radical Leftist insurance salesmen are selling.

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 12:54pm):

Years ago the chichen littles were all atwitter over the danger of global cooling.

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 1:24pm):

it's not going to matter. people like their cars, they want to drive their cars and they will be driving their cars. America was built the wrong way. All big shopping areas are located in the outskirts of the city as opposed to in the centre, like it is in the rest of the world. If you can't afford a car, you can't buy large quantities of groceries to save money, you can't go to the movies and you sure as hell can't go visit your aunt in Kenosha. This way, we can keep the poor poor and feed them stories of how if they just sweep 285043904 more hotel rooms, they will be able to get a car and all will be grand and dandy American dreamish. But for now, we need to take the car becasue its so hot o cold or over a MILE!!!! to walk and I just don't feel like it. And this is why America is not in the Kyoto treaty and why even the people who feel kinda bad about the greenhouse gases won't ever do anything about it. And why on earth are we so fat?

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 1:26pm):

"The universe generally runs on nuclear power."

True, but the closest natural nuclear reactor is 90,000,000 miles away.

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 1:39pm):

What happened to the pending Ice Age everyone was crying about in the 70's????

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 1:59pm):

Global warming is a liberal myth, along with Africa, racism, and the moon.

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 6:35pm):

"True, but the closest natural nuclear reactor is 90,000,000 miles away."

So, what's your point? Solar cells and wind turbines don't grow on trees either - they just won't provide enough power for a moder civilization.

Pebble beds are the way to go!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 8:50pm):

It wont let me post with my real name for some reason, but this is Dan Chavas, the author of the article.

There's no precedent to say that efforts to prevent climate change will "increase the likelihood of social and economic collapse with catastrophic health, welfare and environmental degradation." There is SO much we can do at such little cost--and in fact, perhaps at a profit. Britain increased economic output by 20% over the same period that it decreased carbon dioxide emissions by 20%. There is incredible business potential in this area. Furthermore, a large number of risk-reducing efforts that have an initial cost are in fact cost-effective within a few years. On the UW-Madison campus alone, a $2 million per-building investment to improve energy efficiency in many of our buildings will result in a $400,000 per-year-per-building savings. Thus, in only FIVE years, you get your money back, and the rest is pure profit. Another, simpler example is compact-fluorescent lightbulbs that can last 100 years, while regular bulbs that die in 5 years use 4 times the wattage and only save you $1 initial investment. Seems stupid NOT to buy the energy-efficient one, doesnt it?
The key barrier is NOT money, but in fact short-sightedness.
In any case, based on a comprehensive review of the current evidence, a probability density function plot of our future warming places the most likely warming at 4-5F by 2100, which, according to past warming events of similar magnitudes but over LONGER periods of time (i.e. the rate was slower than today's), resulted in massive climate shifts, mass extinctions etc. Thus, it's not even possible to calculate the value of such a risk (what's the price of the ecosystem and the social and political structures that humanity has created that would be threatened by worldwide water and food shortages due to climate shifts?), and thus there does not exist a reasonable price tag to which you can compare the relatively cheap efforts we would be making today and in the near future to try to curb global warming.

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 9:04pm):

And in response to the fear of an ice age in the 1970s: as we still see today, the media explodes over small stories like that. If you look at the data, there was a brief period of moderate cooling, but the overall trend is still that of strong warming. The 70s cooling period is believed to have been at least in part caused by aerosols (yes, aerosols can have a huge impact when we release tons and tons of them) released by coal power plants that were introduced just before the cooling period and then were required to be cleaned out as mandated by federal law because of the reognition of their potential hazards. The cooling period ended soon after.
In any case, even if that weren't true, the overall trend is still clearly rapid warming. The media blew it out of proportion in the 70s in a similar manner that it is blowing out of proportion the link between global warming and hurricanes today (this link is probably one of the LEAST well-documented of the possible consequences of global warming).
-the author

Anonymous (October 27, 2006 @ 6:28am):

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing - true. But association is not causation.

the Earth is warming rapidly - false. The mediaeval warm period was warmer than now, when Greenland had an agriculural economy.

Despite tremendous amounts of evidence from a variety of fields that the recent warming is a result of human carbon dioxide emissions - what evidence?
short term observations are extrapolated to produce scary computer scenarios. This is not evidence, it is fortune telling.

is it possible that this theory could still be wrong? Yes, latest scientific from Denmark Space demonstrates cloud effects of cosmic rays, equivalent to all the warming attributed to CO2 since pre-industrialisation.