‘Keep the science as science’ on climate change
Reducing emissions is an important climate change issue. (Credit: Michalis Famelis.Some rights reserved.)
Susan Solomon is a senior scientist with NOAA and a leader of the working group on climate trends for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
At a recent science meeting, Earth & Sky asked Solomon when leading world governments might begin to heed the IPCC reports and take major action to reduce greenhouse gases.
Susan Solomon: Well I think it’s important to recognize that science can only go so far. It’s very difficult to decide on a scientific basis how much risk is acceptable. People who enjoy sky diving have a different view of risk than I do, but I can’t tell them they’re wrong and I’m right. I think the key point though is that in this issue, as in all issues, science is an input, it’s a very important input.
Solomon added, though, that governments are listening to scientists on climate change.
Susan Solomon: Also, there’s some real political issues. And they involve such things as whether the developed and developing countries both participate in reducing emissions, whether the developed world pays for the developing world to develop. This obviously now raises a whole host of political issues that go way beyond the science. So, I would prefer to keep the science as science, and for everyone to recognize that there are other issues involved in this. We have a societal choice to make here, as a planet, and science will do the best it can. But we also have to participate as citizens and as governments.
Thousands of scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Solomon was one of 25 scientists who represented the IPCC at the Nobel award ceremony in Oslo, Norway in late 2007. Earth & Sky asked Solomon about the IPCC’s most important messages to the world.
Susan Solomon: I think the key messages that have been broadly reported already, namely that it’s very clear that our planet is warming. ‘Warming is unequivocal’, were the words that we used. And we chose them very carefully. There’s no question that the planet is warming up. And the evidence is very strong that most of the warming is very likely, with odds of nine out of ten based on a very careful assessment, most of the warming is very likely from increasing greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases are coming mainly from fossil fuel burning.
What effects does she think this warming might have?
Susan Solomon: I think the next several years will see an increased rate of evidence that it isn’t just temperature that’s changing, that rainfall is also being affected would be a very important conclusion. Because a few degrees of temperature, of course, is a serious issue. A 10 or 20 percent change in rainfall is life or death for agriculture. So particularly in very dry areas, places like Africa where there isn’t much in the way of irrigation, it’s basically rain-fed or it doesn’t happen. Changes in rainfall will have potentially a very, very large impact. So those are the sorts of things that are being looked at very carefully and are clearly matters for concern.
Susan Solomon on climate change
Listen to the 6-minute EarthSky Clear Voices for Science podcast.
NEW! Find related content with Sphere
Susan Solomon believes that water does not freeze at 32 degrees if enough people believe so! Sorry, only GOD can change that.
Do people actually believe in this? That we were causing climate change and we should try to stop it. How much money you waste on all this research. Whu dont you use it on the poor and people who actually need help. If you want money to stop global warming earn it yourselves. Dont beg people for it and try to scare them into this. Thats why I believe this is just a scam. I know if someone wants to accomplish something they dont beg people to help them, they work their butts off. You guys are saying give us money and support us so we can stop global warming. People like Bill Gates work hard during their lives to be succesful and then you guys come and ask if he can give you money to stop global warming.
Dear A.P. Garcia, Bob and others in the Earth & Sky community,
Let me be the first person to say “thank you” here to Dr. Susan Solomon for her fine scientific work. In a world in which political ideology and economic expediency so regularly “trump” good science, it means a lot to me when scientists fulfill their responsibilities to science rather than “cave-in” to whatsoever is fashionable, socially agreeable, politically convenient and most economically rewarding.
Once again, many thanks and good wishes to Susan Solomon.
If I am understanding what Dr. Solomon is communicating so well, then it appears that the family of humanity is beginning to come face to face with a myriad of growing global challenges — air pollution, sea and land contamination, global warming, peak oil/water/soils, diminishing global supplies of grain, overfishing, the dissipation of Earth’s scarce resources, desertification, deforestation, acid rain, urban sprawl and autoban congestion are examples — the sum of which could soon become unsustainable, given a finite planet with the relatively small size and make-up of Earth. What Dr. Solomon is reporting and what people generally appear not yet to see clearly enough is that these looming threats to human wellbeing and environmental health can be directly related to the current huge scale and anticipated growth of skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers.
That is to say, the unrestrained increase of per-capita consumption of limited resources, the unbridled global expansion of human production/distribution capabilities, and the rapid rise of numbers of Homo sapiens worldwide are occurring synergistically and could be fast approaching a point in history when these distinctly human, global “over-growth” activities are unsustainable.
With gratitude to all the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates in the IPCC, and especially to Susan as well as to the stellar leader of the IPCC, Professor Rajendra Pachuari, with whom I and others had lunch two weeks ago, I remain
Sincerely,
Steve
Susan Solomon, YOU are one of my heroes.
Dear Dr. Solomon, Walt Reid, Bob Engleman, Norman Myers, Bill Calvin, Caroline Ash, Bob Watson, Hamdallah Zedan, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, John Bongaarts, Paul Demeny, Carl Haub, Richard Cincotta, Richard Bilsborrow, John Cleland, Wolfgang Lutz, Anne Whyte, Nafis Sadik, Joe Chamie, Judtith Bruce, Shashi Tharoor, Jane Menken, Henk Simons, Barney Cohen, Ted J. Gordon, Barbara Mensch, Michael Renner, Jonathan Nash, Mark Halle, Stephen Mills, Jeffrey Barber, Amory Lovins, Mark Collins, Steve Sawyer, Bjorn Lomborg and Christine Jalleh,
Perhaps one or more of you can be of assistance by commenting on the observations that follow.
A large part of what worries me is this: the family of humanity appears not to have more than several years in which to make necessary changes in its conspicuous over-consumption lifestyles, in the unsustainable overproduction practices of its big-business enterprises, and in its overpopulation activities. Humankind may not be able to protect life as we know it or to protect the integrity of Earth for even one more decade.
If we project the fully anticipated growth of increasing and unbridled per-capita consumption, of rampantly expanding economic globalization and of propagating 70 to 75 million newborns per annum, will someone please explain to me how our seemingly endless growth civilization proceeds beyond the end of year 2012.
According to my admittedly simple estimations, if humankind keeps doing just as it is doing now, without doing whatsoever is necessary to begin modifying the business-as-usual course of our gigantic, endless-growth-oriented global economy, then the Earth could sustain life as we know it for a time period of about 5 more years.
It appears to me that all the chatter, including that heard in most “normal science” circles, of a benign path to the future by “leap-frogging” through a ‘bottleneck’ to population stabilization, and to good times ahead in 2050, is nothing more than preternatural, wishful and magical thinking.
Unfortunately, even top rank scientists have not found adequate ways of communicating to humanity what people somehow need to hear, see and understand: the reckless dissipation of Earth’s limited resources, the relentless degradation of Earth’s frangible environment, and the approaching destruction of the Earth as a fit place for human habitation by the human species, when taken together, appear to be proceeding toward the precipitation of a catastrophic ecological wreckage of some sort unless, of course, the world’s colossal, ever expanding, artificially designed, manmade global economy continues to speed headlong toward the monolithic ‘wall’ called “unsustainability” at which point the runaway economy crashes before Earth’s ecology is collapsed.
What could be looming before humanity is the potential for some kind of inadvertent global destruction, the likes of which only Ozymandias has seen.
What do any of you think about the predicament that appears, at least to me, before humanity in these early years of Century XXI?
Always, with thanks,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
Dr Salmony, Two questions— 1. What field is your area of expertise and from where did you earn your Ph.D.?
2. What solution have you devised for this so called horrific population explosion you and your like minded friends are so concerned about? “What is worrisome to me” Sound familiar?
It appears that you and your cronies are presenting a solution mirroring that of many state game management agencies. Shall we have open season on Humans until the population and food supplies reach equilibrium. Is this what your are suggesting? Who gets to determine the selection criteria for the hunter and the hunted. Are you going to plant food plots developed by Mossy Oak Biologic to lead the hunted to the kill. Who will issue the licenses Doctor. When you are done thinning the herd, What will you do to dispose of the 3 billion corpses that no longe fit into your master plan.
Have you ever gone back and read one of your posts on human population and sustainability. Of course you have you narcissistic oaf. It reads like a national spelling bee study guide. You use thousand dollar words to impress the lesser educated just so you think to yourself “boy they are really going to think Doc Salmony is brilliant when they read this”. You are more inclined to care about seeing your name in print than you care about human sustainability and “overpopulation”. Isn’t this why you continually post back to back messages without waiting for a response?
You know Squat about how the world works. You’re pissed off at President Bush, and you gnash your teeth just seeing his name here. Maybe you should take a stroll back in time and take a look at the great society, social security, welfare, and the like—you can’t blame that on Dubya. Maybe we should do away with medicine—Now that would kill off a few million of your fellow humans. My guess is that you are a pro abortion on demand advocate (another way to thin the herd). Maybe euthanasia is the means to justify your ends. Just what in the name of Jesus the Christ are you asking for DOCTOR SALMONY.
Steven Earl I suggest you take up a more benign hobby let say checkers or maybe cross stitch an leave the world and its population to it’s own devices.
Have a wonderful evening
Mike M, FDAH, NRA, HDO, GOP
Dear Mike M.,
If you think it all right to do so, I would like to respond by making some specific proposals regarding what the human community might consider doing in the process of beginning to address and overcome the distinctly human-induced predicament that looms before humanity, even now visible on the far horizon.
1. Immediate, universal and free access to humane contraception is to provided to those who want this alternative;
2. Open access to family planning and health education is made available to everyone who chooses it;
3. The time for the economic and social empowerment of women is now.
4. As a means of accelerating the present downward movement in birth rates in some countries, a VOLUNTARY policy of one child per family would be initiated worldwide.
5. The many human beings who are suffering the unhealthy effects of obesity will share their over-abundant resources with many too many people who are starving.
6. Every effort to conserve energy and scarce material resources will be implemented.
7. Much more substantial economic incentives are necessary for the development of energy resources as alternatives to fossil fuels.
8. Overhaul national tax systems so that conspicuous per human over-consumption of Earth’s limited resources is meaningfully put at a disadvantage.
9. Humanity needs a modified economic system, one that is more completely subordinated to democratic principles and more adequately meets the basic needs of a majority of humanity who could choose to live better lives with lesser amounts of energy and natural resources.
10. Overall, what is to be accomplished is a fair, more equitable and sustainable distribution of the world’s tangible (e.g., food) and intangible (e.g., education) resources, as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Steve
Is the (mis)perceived,‘absolute necessity’ for endless economic growth at least one of the root causes of humanity’s current global environmental challenges?
Does the “Tower of Babel” scale and rampant growth of the leviathan-like global political economy appear to be approaching the point of its unsustainability on a planet with the relatively small size and make-up of Earth?
Are people in overdeveloped countries dissipating Earth’s limited resources faster than the planet can restore them for human benefit?
Are large-scale industrial enterprises primary polluters of the air and water, and largely responsible for laying waste to the land upon which coming generations will rely for their survival?
Are the consumption, production and propagation activities of the human species threatening to irreversibly degrade the ecology of our planetary home?
Are these potentially catastrophic occurrences happening synergistically and, also, primarily outcomes of colossal, unbridled economic globalization?
As ever,
Steve
PS: If any of the above questions are ‘answered’ affirmatively, is there not the likelihood of a complex, distinctly human-induced predicament in the offing that the family of humanity will need to acknowledge, address and overcome very soon?
“Does the “Tower of Babel” scale and rampant growth of the leviathan-like global political economy appear to be approaching the point of its unsustainability on a planet with the relatively small size and make-up of Earth?”
This makes absolutely no sense- “relatively small size and make-up of Earth? RELATIVE TO WHAT? — Please share— You obviously must be relating to some other extraordinarily massive earth-like planet in a parallel universe somewhere capable of sustaining human numbers exponentionally larger than our blue marble.
Are you truely concerned about the planet’s sustainability- or are you useing this venue advance a personal agenda againstlarge businesses. If you are so concerned with the degradation of earth, where you believe the big business and government are the bad guy, I would hope that you would choose one of the two suggestions that follow.
1. Put action where your self-perceived intellect is and remove from your life all material articles that have been MANUFACTURED. Now that would really STICK IT TO THE MAN!. Consequently, I hope you enjoy the caribou clothing and stone wheeled bicycle. It’s probably pretty tough to chisel-out e-mail on a marble tablet as well.
2. Place your name on a ballot and run for office. Surely someone with your intelligence could convince other leaders that your radical ideology is the only path to survival of our species.
Somehow all your diatribe about this nonsense sound like some drunken bistro banter had over a couple bottles of overpriced Zinfindel.
Dr. Salmony, do you advocate a Global Government that subordinates all other governments?
Here’s what the human gets under the Salmony Plan:
Bed— Palm frans
Transportation— Foot
Shelter— Palm frans or cave
Light— Sun and fire (only if no trees are hurt in the process)
Food— nuts, twigs, berries, coconuts, wild game and fish (only if no fish or game are injured in the process)
Drink— Water (only if no water is consumed in the process)
This sounds like something that everyone around the globe can aspire to.
Get to it —good doctor— convinceus.
You know— you could have saved tremendous personal energy by just saying you are completely disenfranchised with everyone and everything and adamantly hate the current presidential administration and all to do with corporations.
I bid you (liberalis cepha rectumis) a fond farewell
“Does the “Tower of Babel” scale and rampant growth of the leviathan-like global political economy appear to be approaching the point of its unsustainability on a planet with the relatively small size and make-up of Earth?”
This makes absolutely no sense- “relatively small size and make-up of Earth? RELATIVE TO WHAT? — Please share— You obviously must be relating to some other extraordinarily massive earth-like planet in a parallel universe somewhere capable of sustaining human numbers exponentionally larger than our blue marble.
Are you truely concerned about the planet’s sustainability- or are you useing this venue advance a personal agenda againstlarge businesses. If you are so concerned with the degradation of earth, where you believe the big business and government are the bad guy, I would hope that you would choose one of the two suggestions that follow.
1. Put action where your self-perceived intellect is and remove from your life all material articles that have been MANUFACTURED. Now that would really STICK IT TO THE MAN!. Consequently, I hope you enjoy the caribou clothing and stone wheeled bicycle. It’s probably pretty tough to chisel-out e-mail on a marble tablet as well.
2. Place your name on a ballot and run for office. Surely someone with your intelligence could convince other leaders that your radical ideology is the only path to survival of our species.
Somehow all your diatribe about this nonsense sound like some drunken bistro banter had over a couple bottles of overpriced Zinfindel.
Dr. Salmony, do you advocate a Global Government that subordinates all other governments?
Here’s what the human gets under the Salmony Plan:
Bed— Palm frans
Transportation— Foot
Shelter— Palm frans or cave
Light— Sun and fire (only if no trees are hurt in the process)
Food— nuts, twigs, berries, coconuts, wild game and fish (only if no fish or game are injured in the process)
Drink— Water (only if no water is consumed in the process)
This sounds like something that everyone around the globe can aspire to.
Get to it —good doctor— convinceus.
You know— you could have saved tremendous personal energy by just saying you are completely disenfranchised with everyone and everything and adamantly hate the current presidential administration and all to do with corporations.
I bid you (liberalis cepha rectumis) a fond farewell
Steve, I read with dismay your 10 points you posted in reply to another here and I have to say that Karl Marx would be proud of you. I strongly disagree that the Earth is running out of resources for the sustainability of the human race. I’ve said before that science and agriculture research is constantly developing new methods to improve upon the yield of crops and animal products for human consumption. In the last few weeks I learned that in Australia, researchers have almost perfected a variety of cotton which produces a greater yield with less water than the current varieties and should be widely available in the next few years. This would mean that cotton could be cultivated in areas where low water supplies have made the growth of that crop impossible. The effects of that use of the land would mean more jobs, more fiber production for sales, more meal and oil from the milling process leading to a greater food supply. Capitalism would then encourage wise management of resources. We don’t want to kill the goose, we like the golden eggs! They have already developed pest resistant cotton varieties so far that in the last 10 years they have reduced pesticide use by over 80%! This is just one example.
Free enterprise and open markets must be allowed to determine the growth of industry and agriculture. It MUST NOT be put into the hands of an “Authority”. I’ve stated before that all points of view must be considered here concerning the stewardship of this great place God has allowed us to live in, and the dogmatic railings of environmentalists are not the only way to go, nor are the milk it for all you can get greedmonger business ways. There have also been reports that China is considering changing its “one child” policy because there are not enough able bodied people coming up to fill the ranks of the present population. Your voluntary scheme of a similar nature would face the same problems. If a Communistic dictatorial body directed the population of the world to control it’s growth, not only have we surrendered our liberty, which is something to be treasured more than gold, but the human race faces disaster and complete annihilation if disease or the natural events that happen daily should take the lives of large numbers of people. We have progressed a long way in the last two centuries as far as technology goes toward granting us an unsurpassed quality of life. People are living longer, healthier lives in developed countries and that technology is slowly making it’s way into other areas of the world. Don’t put our future into the hands of a committee. Look at the U.N. It is one of the most disjointed wasters of ALL resources in history! Remember that God not only blessed us with this Earth, He also blessed us with the minds and bodies so that all may share in the fruits of it. I don’t mean this to sound like an even distribution. You yourself have a degree and I suspect that you may make more money than I who do not have a degree. That is OK, you obviously have studied and worked toward your position in life and probably deserve what you get. It doesn’t matter that some may seem more blessed than others, we must be thankful for what we have. Our Earth was built so that God could take pleasure in it’s creation and in it’s inhabitants, and contrary to some beliefs, He is still in control, no matter how great we percieve ourselves to be.
Yeah you guys think we started global warming when Earth has warmed up and cooled down many times before in human history. Thats HUMAN history not the EARTHS history. The Earth was very warm about a thousand years ago. That is Vikings settled greenland. In fact they were able to sustain livestock such as sheep. In fact England had produced is own grapes. That is 30 degrees above todays limit for grapes. Then the Earth went into a cooling period. When Washington crossed the delaware river it was frozen. When was the last time the Delaware river froze? What caused warming ing and cooling trends before industry and the carbon dioxide we produce today? Along time ago people blamed witches and Jewish people for the cooling period. Now people blame carbon dioxide today and yet the question is how did Earth warm up and cool down before industrilization? The Earth cools and warms at its own pace. Man just let the Earth do its thing. Dont lie to people.