Check This Out - On Climate

Here are two articles using the MAGICC (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change) model for global warming to examine the potential effects of the Waxman-Markey legislation (cap and trade). The “baseline” (if we do nothing) prediction is an increase of 4.5 0C from 2000 to 2100.  The first article examines the change in predictions if the goals of Waxman-Markey are met in the US.  The second article shows what happens if various other parts of the world also play along. 

It’s important to note that this has nothing to do with “not believing” Global warming or being a “global warming skeptic”.  This analysis assumes that global warming will occur, and allows the user to see how changes in human behavior affect it. 

Article Part 1:

Article Part 2:

 The skinny: if US meets Waxman-Markey goals (reducing our CO2 emmissions by eighty percent) the global temperature change is reduced a whopping two-tenths of a degree (0.2 0C).  It turns out that having other “industrial” nations play along doesn’t help much either - unless Asia is included.  Kinda puts the cap-and-trade debate in perspective.  I just hope that the effects on the economy are as negligible as the effects on the planet.

The point is not to go for expensive, self-abusive, symbolic gestures that will end up having little if any impact.

One Response to “Check This Out - On Climate

  • 1
    May 26th, 2009 13:47 Check this link out (it’s a PDF file). Integrated Fast Reactors (IFR’s) - aka “breeder reactors” are pretty stinkin cool and, if we only had open minds, could solve most of our energy and carbon production problems. They could supply the world’s power needs for the next century or more just by using up already existing nuclear WASTE that we currently are storing (all uranium mining could cease). The link explains some of the nuclear physics involved, and also refutes the urban myths about proliferation and terrorist attack risks that critics often site as reasons not to use IFRs. Just thought I’d add this, but we are in the age of “hope” now and sensible ideas are verboten (not that sensibility was in vogue during the Bush years, mind you).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.