The precepts for the article are wrong. And this picture is a bell jar void of air to demonstrate how 'sound science' can measure the fact that sound only travels when there are 'particles' to carry it. So, the words 'sound science' isn't really the best terminology to go forward with, but, let me use the words 'appropriate science.'
There is a common thread that runs through the grossly inappropriate 'press' both in the NY Times and The Washington Post. They attempt to 'reach back in time' as if nothing in Climate Science has changed to sophisticate its perfection, which allows them to 'discredit' the concepts put forward by the current administration.
The article in the NY Times likes the 'idea' of changing the approach to Climate Change. They want to state, that to perfect Carbon Sequestration is to solve the world's problems in regard to Human Induced Global Warming. It implies that if more money went into 'coping' with carbon dioxide emissions rather than 'changing' the manner in the way and the amount of CO2 emitted that the answer would be learned that would qualify a better government program.
That is grossly flawed. That approach would advocate in the long view that humans could emit all the CO2 they wanted so long as they could capture it and store it. Do you know what the planet would look like? If humans continued to destroy the biotic content of Earth, disregarded species survival and simply sought to make a 'sterile' world where humans could burn carbon fuels of one kind or another forever without inhibitions; there would be no humans.
The 'ideas' put forward in this article are simplistic and an insult to the intelligence of an entire nation, yet alone its scientific community. I guess "Wall Street" is a bit bent out of shape over regulations, huh?
Now, in the defense of The New York Times, there have been articles that explored 'technological' answer to 'saving Earth' given the fact the 'failure to cope' with reducing CO2 emissions by the USA has royally been abandoned over the last decade due to Republican Political Rhetoric rather than Appropriate Science.
They advocated orbital 'Earth Shields' that would cut down on the solar radiation that results in 'infrared' coming from Earth. They discussed other issues such as seeding the oceans and carbon sequestration as well. It isn't as though they haven't also discussed loss of the ice on the Arctic Ocean or alternative energies, they have.
The 'problem' with this article is 'Appropriate Science' and 'Appropriate Priorities' and the 'Opportunists' that still exist within the Political Spectrum that would take such 'coping technologies' and label them as forever the answer to American Economic Policies.
Any 'technology' that is purported to be able to 'solve' the Climate Crisis is not an appropriate priority for the USA or the global community. They are 'temporary fixes' that in the long run will FAIL and put all the CO2 back into the troposphere. Temporary fixes have their place in the discussion, however, without a change in consumer habits and the habits of those that produce energy and automobiles there is no reason to discuss any 'fix' for the CO2 pollution levels we now are witnessing of Earth.
At issue is the 'manner' in which Carbon Dioxide is treated 'legally' in our legislature and the courts of law of the USA. It needs to be classified under The Clean Air Act and reported as a danger gas at high levels in The New Source Review. Dangerous levels need to be defined and enforcement to those levels needs to be established and NOT just enforcement that is over three decades old and amounts to a 'slap on the wrist.' Which is the case with most of our environmental laws and policies, including, The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. What was significant enforcement 'back in the day' is virtually nothing now and in many instances is simply 'figured' into the cost of business.
When the NY Times reported on 'technologies' that could 'stem' the encroachment of Human Induced Global Warming, it was correct. The issue is dire and while the economy overshadows everything these days, the 'change' in energy sources and salvaging of Detroit are all part of an environmental initiative by this administration. There is going to be a change in energy sources in the USA to the economic boom of the American Consumer whom will have more disposable income. The new car market should reflect consumer demands for environmentally responsible vehicles and not just limited choices that burn fossil fuels.
To prove how 'dire' the issue of Climate Change has gotten there was a recent publication by one of the scientists that received the Nobel Prize as a member of the IPCC, Professor Chris Field (click here). There is just 'no way' a responsible President of the USA can look the other way.
In regard to 'exploring' all venues of intervention beyond the American Consumer issues is unrealistic. Choices have to be made and the ones that have the best return on investment in 'knowing' there will be change and not 'guessing' there will be change is the focus of the Obama Administration. Appropriately so.
Just as with the economic stimulus that is prioritizing the change in the country, these jobs that are being saved and created will contribute to increased wealth in the USA and will provide more of a Treasury in time that will allow for more exploration into 'Earth saving' technologies and venues. We are on a 'timeline' to change and not just a 'flash in the pan' dumping of money into the economy as has been the habits of Republican administrations in the recent past. This is change that will last and insure the futures of children and the sovereignty of their nation.
Global warming 'underestimated' (click here)
The severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed, a leading climate scientist has warned.
Professor Chris Field, an author of a 2007 landmark report on climate change, said future temperatures "will be beyond anything" predicted.
Prof Field said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had underestimated the rate of change.
He said warming is likely to cause more environmental damage than forecast.
Speaking at the American Science conference in Chicago, Prof Field said fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected.
"We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously in climate policy," he said.
Prof Field said the 2007 report, which predicted temperature rises between 1.1C and 6.4C over the next century, seriously underestimated the scale of the problem.
He said the increases in carbon dioxide have been caused, principally, by the burning of coal for electric power in India and China.
Wildfires
Prof Field said the impact on temperatures is as yet unknown, but warming is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace and cause more environmental damage than had been predicted.
He says that a warming planet will dry out forests in tropical areas making them much more likely to suffer from wildfires.
The rising temperatures could also speed up the melting of the permafrost, vastly increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, Prof Field warns.
"Without effective action, climate change is going to be larger and more difficult to deal with than we thought," he said.
