I thought of a potentially interesting follow up to Karen Street’s post last week on climate change skeptics and deniers.
For those who are skeptics/deniers, I’m interested in the answers to the following questions:
1. What evidence/findings/research would convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that large scale, potentially catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming is occurring? Note: I’m assuming that it doesn’t have to be something as extreme as a Day After Tomorrow scenario!
To unpack, no one doubts that the earth warms and cools over time, and that humans may have something to do with it, in principle, at least. However, when we say “global warming”, what is usually meant in the contemporary context is large scale warming, warming that is dangerous for the planet (or at least its human inhabitants), and anthropogenic warming. Thus, when I say “global warming” in this post, that’s what I mean: large-scale, potentially dangerous/catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming. Let’s call this the Worst Case Scenario, or WCS for short. To unpack some more: In 1., I say “beyond a reasonable doubt”, since outside of mathematical proofs, that’s probably the best one can come to “proving” anything. One other thing that might be good to add to 1. is not only what would convince you of the WCS beyond a reasonable doubt, but who could do so–or would it matter? In other words, would it have to come from a conservative source, or from the conversion of a former denier? Or would the solidity of the evidence be sufficient, regardless of origin?
Or is it possible that nothing would convince you? One might argue that on the scale of a human lifespan, global warming can’t be demonstrated or disproved, either one. There is evidence that some of the Ice Ages had an onset period of less than 400 years, and I’ve read some evidence that some effects may have been felt within a single human lifetime, so I think global change can be faster than most of us think. Still, slowness of change is at least a theoretical argument one might make. Short of that, a “nothing will convince me” stance would seem to be unscientific.
Now:
2. Assuming that whatever necessary information has in fact convinced you beyond any reasonable doubt of the WCS–that is, massive, possibly catastrophic, wide-scale, anthropogenic global warming–what is the appropriate response?
To unpack: Assuming the WCS, would the correct response to be to depend on the actions of individuals and market-based solutions; or might involuntary steps taken by government action (e.g. banning certain types of appliances, government mandates, etc.) be necessary?
It seems to me that if there’s even a small chance of such a devastating WCS, there ought to be at least theoretical contingency plans. Also, even if there is disagreement as to whether the WCS is on its way, it seems that mitigating some of the possible human-based factors would be a good idea. Analogy: you get an abnormal result from your yearly checkup. They do some more work and send it off to the lab. You think there’s probably nothing major wrong; but does that mean you don’t even consider getting more exercise, eating better, etc.?
Anyway, I’d be interested to see the thoughts on these questions.
It’d be an interesting thing to get some straight answers to the first question. I tried asking Gary Fouse that one, only to be met with some nonsense about Al Gore or something.
“1. What evidence/findings/research would convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that large scale, potentially catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming is occurring? ”
I would put it this way.
1. Catastrophic – means average temperature increase of at least 15C (okay, maybe 10C) in the time span of next 50 years at the longest.
2.Beyond reasonable doubt – means that it is proven within known laws of physics that adding contemporary amounts of CO2 (we can add CO2 growth given today’s rates) could lead the planet as big as Earth to warm up to the extent shown in #1. Note: you are not allowed to use unscientific feedbacks to fit the data…
“Analogy: you get an abnormal result from your yearly checkup. They do some more work and send it off to the lab. You think there’s probably nothing major wrong; but does that mean you don’t even consider getting more exercise, eating better, etc.”
It makes sense to eat better and exercise even without any abnormal results. What is proposed tody to destroy the entire Western (and Japanese) economy in order to deal with a crisis which is predicted ignoring the laws of physics.
My understanding–and I am willing to be corrected–is that even at the coldest points in the Ice Ages the average global temperature changed by only about five degrees Celsius or so, and that at Earth’s hottest points in previous geological epochs the global average temperature was no more than eight to fifteen degrees higher than it is now. Thus, your criterion–even for natural climate change–seems to be impossible to meet. You’re saying that you’d have to have a change greater than any observed before faster than has ever been observed before. Which is fine, but it’s more or less in the “nothing will convince me category”. I’d also say that even much lower global temperature changes than you mention would have results that most people would consider catastrophic.
As to your question below, I make no claims of being a climate scientist, and I’d probably say I’m convinced by a preponderance of the evidence, which is less than “beyond a reasonable doubt” but still significant. The consensus of almost all climatologists is more compelling to me than it is to you. I’m not interested in debating it here since I don’t have the time to do the research. In any case, I don’t think there’s evidence of some massive conspiracy by climatologists to dupe the world, as many seem to think.
You’re saying that you’d have to have a change greater than any observed before faster than has ever been observed before. Which is fine, but it’s more or less in the “nothing will convince me category”.
My good Turmarion,
This is a peculiar statement, at least to me.
To the contrary, to me it would seem to me that a change no more than has been observed before no faster than has ever been observed before – that is, less phenomenal than the criterion quoted above you have summarily dismissed as the “nothing will convince me category” – would be most likely to be most credibly a natural phenomenon recurring, whereas the threshold you dismiss – greater than any observed before faster than has ever been observed before – would be most likely to draw attention as something new, previously unseen, suspiciously extra-natural, and therefore most likely to be anthropogenic in origin.
One could of course argue in good faith about what range of deviation from historical norms might or should be considered by any rational person as noteworthy. Unfortunately, you have not (yet) made anything approaching that argument, at least insofar as specifically anthropogenic change is concerned; you do, however, refer to “results that most people would consider catastrophic”, specific cause and potential remediability of the catastrophic, anthropogenic, non-anthropogenic, or otherwise not clearly defined.
Perhaps you mean to unpack and elaborate these criteria and distinctions further.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Analogy: It’s 1963, the Surgeon General’s report on smoking hasn’t yet come out, and Al and Bob are arguing about the effects of smoking. Al is skeptical that it’s really bad for you; Bob points out the increasing epidemiological evidence. Al continues to be skeptical. Finally, Bob says, “So what would convince you?” Al says, “If it is shown that 99% of smokers start developing lung cancer after ten years of smoking with a 99% mortality rate, I’ll believe it.”
This is obviously absurd as not even the most vehement anti-smoking advocate would–or could–argue that such results occur. However, they don’t have to. Strong correlation has been repeatedly and amply shown between smoking and cancer (as well as plenty of other nasty diseases). Unless it’s something like “being at the epicenter of a nuclear blast” or “being shot in the face five times with a twelve-gauge shotgun at one inch” or “drinking a quart of potassium cyanide”, there’s not a 99% correlation of any action with death or ill-health. Thus, selecting such a criterion is a willful refusal to accept standards that anyone else would consider quite reasonable.
Put it another way: To require a standard that’s impossible or highly unlikely to achieve and to pretend that such a standard is reasonable is to imply either stupidity, bad research, or bad faith on the behalf of those who make claims based on a weaker–but still valid–correlation.
Likewise, to require a level of temperature change that has never happened in Earth’s history, as far as I can tell, on a likewise non-existent time frame is to imply that anything else is either a fluke, a natural fluctuation, or a scam.
One could of course argue in good faith about what range of deviation from historical norms might or should be considered by any rational person as noteworthy.
Which is exactly my point: Deviation on a scale that has never occurred as the only acceptable “range of deviation” seems to be as extreme as requiring that 99% of smokers die of lung cancer within ten years as the only basis on which one will believe a correlation of the two. To boil it down even further, I refer to Lance’s elegantly short post below. I’m not particularly interested in arguing specific parameters, as it’s outside my field and I don’t have the time to do so. My point is that contra what Hyphenated-American says below, I’m not seeing any information that indicates changes of global average temperature of much more than ten, maybe at the most fifteen degrees Celsius ever have occurred. Even the changes in the Carboniferous Era and the end of the Cretaceous were less than that, and the change in the Ice Age–something I think “most people would consider catastrophic” were it to recur–was only about half that.
Whether in fact the observed temperature increases are a “change no more than has been observed before no faster than has ever been observed before” and not something to be concerned about or not is a disputed point. As I said, the preponderance of the evidence seems to me to be in favor of AGW, but there’s still a lot we don’t know. Of course, complex systems–stock markets, weather patterns, climate, etc.–are often sensitive to sudden gigantic shifts as the result of seemingly minute changes (chaos theory and all that). My fear is that we might argue about the climate for decades inconclusively until something as massive as HA wants to see does happen; at which point our goose may be cooked and it may be too late.
With luck I’ve got about 30-40 more years, so I may see if it was all a false alarm (which would be good–I’d rather be wrong about a bad possibility than right!), and I probably won’t see the worst if it wasn’t a false alarm. Some here may not have children or other descendants, or other loved ones who will live on after their own death. Such people may have the attitude, “Screw it–not gonna affect me or anyone I care about.” That’s anyone’s choice, and after one’s own death it won’t matter, temporally, anyway. I think it would be a little sad to have no one who might live after oneself, on whose behalf one might wish a slightly better world; but that’s not my call. I, and others here, including deniers/skeptics, do; and at least we should all give some thought to leaving them a livable world.
I also notice HA says, “Any process that takes longer (let along much longer) than 50 years is beyond our technological horizon.” That’s less than a human lifetime; but I guess there’s no point planning for pesky eventualities when our kids and grandkids can deal with it, huh?
In any case, I’m not interested in specifically arguing global warming. I’m interested in the specific questions I posted originally and how deniers/skeptics would answer them. Lance isn’t a denier, I assume; HA, to his partial credit answers the first question (though he doesn’t say what we should do if AGW on a really bad scale were proven to his satisfaction, which was question 2); and while JMK has some interesting things to say, he doesn’t really respond to either question. Nor do you, for that matter. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if anyone does.
My good Turmarion,
Rather than take your long elliptical detour with you, allow me simply to cut across the infield and stay with the point you and I both made to begin with: variations not outside historical variations are variations not outside historical variations, and variations greater than historical variations are therefore, by definition, unprecedented – unlike variations not outside historical variations.
If perchance you had simply become tongue-tied and misspoke yourself when you framed this tautology in the curiously outraged way you did which I previously quoted above when I first joined this thread, just say so. Otherwise, I shall take that to be what you intended to say.
It still remains unclear at any given point whether you are talking about and asking your specific questions about what you already consider to be catastrophic non-anthropogenic global warming or about what you already consider to be catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. What you appear to be doing is alternating between the two, naively or deliberately, as the utility to do so strikes you.
The effective result of your not distinguishing between non-AGW and AGW combined with your pre-determining what threshold is to be considered catastrophic (while keeping wholly to yourself exactly what that predetermined threshold for ‘catastrophic’ is), though, is to render your challenge rhetorical rather than genuine.
As I pointed out to our good Karen, yours, like hers, then, thereby becomes only a challenge to apostates to justify their apostasy, not really any sort of genuine query.
I would expect you to get a variety of responses and non-responses to such an enterprise.
Unless those concerned with global warming, A or non, and with mitigating its ostensible effects are in a position to unilaterally impose their solutions on all, learning to sell their interests and concerns to those not yet interested or convinced might be an option to consider.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Okay, I can see your confusion now. Let me try to help you…. ;)
“Strong correlation has been repeatedly and amply shown between smoking and cancer (as well as plenty of other nasty diseases).”
This example shows some confusion – there is a whole world of difference between effects of smoking on millions of people (due to distribution, the effects are probabilistic) and effects of CO2 emmissions on one planet (deterministic). Now, surely, there are error margins for our predictions for the planet, but these can and will be narrowed down the more we know and understand.
Moreover, you still don’t see the point that I was trying to make – I was attempting to estimate what would be the catastrophic temperature change – and after adding the timeframe to take into account our technological growth, I narrowed down the criteria. In fact, my criterion was rather narrowly and carefully defined. I am sorry if it was too much… ;)
“I’m not particularly interested in arguing specific parameters, as it’s outside my field and I don’t have the time to do so. ”
If you were not interested in arguing specifics – why did you then write the post in the first place? That made you look silly, to put it mildly.
“As I said, the preponderance of the evidence seems to me to be in favor of AGW, but there’s still a lot we don’t know.”
Well, after you make a strong statement like that, you need to present it – and the evidence must include the actual criteria on why you consider the AGW leading to catastrophic results for mankind. I am all attention.
“Some here may not have children or other descendants, or other loved ones who will live on after their own death. Such people may have the attitude, “Screw it–not gonna affect me or anyone I care about.”
This was not my point, of course, but granted, I did not explain it properly. So let me be clear. Our technology develops rather quickly (you can check out the last 100 years of progress in physics and technology to see how much we achieved). It makes no sense to destroy our economy because of fears of what MAY happen 100 years from now – it will make our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren much worse – not better.
“I also notice HA says, “Any process that takes longer (let along much longer) than 50 years is beyond our technological horizon.” That’s less than a human lifetime; but I guess there’s no point planning for pesky eventualities when our kids and grandkids can deal with it, huh? ”
My point is simple – we CANNOT plan for eventualities 50 years ahead, because we cannot predict anything that far. It’s not the question of good will – it’s the question of our ability to predict our future. For example, in 1955 (les than 60 years ago), Asimov (a professional physicyst) in his novel “End of eternity” talked about computers of the future (far future) that still used paper cards to enter data. His “I Robot” (from 1950) talked about robots – and transitors (in the far future) were all the rage. Anyone who knows anything about technology would tell you that predicting 5 years ahead is difficult, 10 years – impossible and 50 years is laughable.
“In any case, I’m not interested in specifically arguing global warming. ”
You wrote a post to argue specifically about global warming. Apparently, our posts made you rethink this – I presume because the subject proved to be a tad more complex than you expected.
Anyway, answering your second question is easy – if indeed we are looking at the catastrophic global warming, then we need to make a strong case to all countries involved. If some countries (say, China) refuses to lower down the CO2 emmissions, then we will have no choice but to nuke it and destroy their CO2 emmitting industry beyond repair. After this, we need to do this to all other countries that refuse to lower down CO2 emmissions. Of course, you may find that this “solution” also has a high potential of leading to catastrophy, but then, you asked the question – and I hope you can find a better solution. Tell me, what is it?
“Put it another way: To require a standard that’s impossible or highly unlikely to achieve and to pretend that such a standard is reasonable is to imply either stupidity, bad research, or bad faith on the behalf of those who make claims based on a weaker–but still valid–correlation.”
That’s what you get when you talk about planet-sized catastrophies. If you wanted to talk about some mild changes to the climate, I would have come up with much more probable scenarios.
“Likewise, to require a level of temperature change that has never happened in Earth’s history, as far as I can tell, on a likewise non-existent time frame is to imply that anything else is either a fluke, a natural fluctuation, or a scam.”
I believe 10C temperature differential has happened in the past. 50 years is definitely a short time frame. But if you are trying to say that climate change is driven by humans, and the results of that would be catastrophic – it’s silly to complain that my conditions exceed natural climate change.
H-A says: “That’s what you get when you talk about planet-sized catastrophies. If you wanted to talk about some mild changes to the climate, I would have come up with much more probable scenarios.”
If “planet-sized catastrophies” means we’re all in danger of dying, and “mild changes to the climate” means we have to adjust our heating and air conditioning bills a bit, there’s a wide range in between that. For instance, climate change sufficient to put the Maldives under water and require its entire population to relocate (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-17/world/maldives.underwater.meeting_1_maldives-climate-change-sea-levels?_s=PM:WORLD) would arguably be “catastrophic” for a lot of people, but would still leave plenty of people who, to whatever degree they’re affected by that climate change, find it considerably less catastrophic than the people in the Maldives do.
I think it would take less than a 10C differential to send the Maldives under water.
Countries vary considerably in their vulnerability to climate variations: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2010/Resources/5287678-1255547194560/WDR2010_BG_Note_Fussel.pdf
There’s also the question of how large a planet-sized problem would count as a “planet-sized catastrophe.” Suppose that species go extinct more or less throughout the world. What percentage of species going extinct would count as a planet-sized catastrophe? Would losing, for example, cheetahs, bald eagles, and maple syrup be enough, or do you consider the economic consequences of reducing greenhouse gas emissions severe enough that you’d want to lose more species to consider anthropogenic climate change comparably severe?
Finally, if you set a particular degree of temperature change as your bar for concluding that we’re facing catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, how much of that measure is selected because that’s what you think would be required to prove that the climate change is anthropogenic, and how much because that’s what you think would be required for the climate change to be catastrophic. Turmarion appears to be arguing that 10C is way more than would be required for climate change to be catastrophic, while H.M. Stuart appears to be arguing that it’s a reasonable bar to prove that climate change is anthropogenic. Perhaps we might separate out the “what level of climate change would be catastrophic” portion of the question from the “what would be sufficient proof that greenhouse gases are likely to cause that level of climate change” portion.
while H.M. Stuart appears to be arguing that it’s [10C] a reasonable bar to prove that climate change is anthropogenic.
My good Lynn,
H.M. argued nothing at all involving any defined temperature. Please retract your suggestion that I did.
H.M. only pointed out the bizarre ironies involved in this statement which Turmarion made in response to H-A’s answer to the question Turmarion posed:
You’re saying that you’d have to have a change greater than any observed before faster than has ever been observed before. Which is fine, but it’s more or less in the “nothing will convince me category”.
Those arguments lie above.
Questions still unanswered though critically relevant to Turmarion’s post and the comments to it include these:
On what do we base our belief that we can control global climate at all? Why do we believe we can make a global climate problem better rather than worse?
Are we speaking of historical, natural global warming, new, unprecedented anthropogenic global warming, or are we playing bait-and-switch between the two as it suits our purposes?
Are we interested in catastrophic warming, regardless? If so, what defines that value? If less than catastrophic, at what point do we propose to begin, where do we propose to take exactly what actions, to exactly what ends, and why, beyond the obvious, perennial urges we cherish as a species to dominate and fuck over those not of our tribe?
If we are talking about historical, natural global warming, not new, unprecedented anthropogenic global warming, why exactly would we wish to assume the specific cost burdens which may be involved in addressing anthropogenic global warming specifically if it is not actually a significantly contributing cause rather than to put our resources into more broadly adaptive efforts across the board which do not potentially threaten the very economic resource base we theoretically propose to utilize to address the problem in the first place?
If, however, one is assuming that unprecedented anthropogenic global warming rather than historical, natural global warming is the case without actually admitting it or making a case for it, then proceeding directly to curb and curtail perceived sources of AGW makes perfect sense, regardless of the ultimate consequences overall.
Why do we appear to be more interested in factional, ideological personal lifestyle options to address these issues in lieu of those that are nothing of the sort, such as simply planting trees and other biomass, nature’s original carbon cycle governors? Which are we more interested in, providing a long term, optimal biosphere, or seizing the opportunity of real or perceived crisis to partisan ends?
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
“H.M. argued nothing at all involving any defined temperature. Please retract your suggestion that I did.”
Fine, I’ll retract that statement. I have no desire to mischaracterize your position. If I reframe my statement to say that your response to Turmarion appears to concern the “anthropogenic” part of Turmarion’s question, while Turmarion’s response to H-A appears to concern the “catastrophic” part of the equation, and that the two things need to be disentangled, would you consider that framing of the discussion fair?
My good Lynn,
Yes, fair enough. The issue(s) presented contained a number of indiscriminately conflated elements, the disentangling of which would appear necessary, at least to me.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
I think you’re intentionally misreading me, but let’s get basic.
1. I think that it is fair to characterize a change of as little as five degrees Celsius to the average global temperature to be catastrophic. I base that on the evidence that changes as small as that have sufficed in the past to cause ice ages and mass extinctions, both of which I think are reasonable to call “catastrophic”. Anyone who wishes to disagree that these are catastrophes–as HA apparently does–is free to do so; and I’m free to say that if they think an ice age isn’t a catastrophe, they have a weird definition.
2. If such a change occurrs within, say 250 years, I’d say it’s of immediate concern. Yes, that seems like a long time, but historically it’s an eyeblink; and it’s plenty of time for massive overpopulation (as Edward has pointed out) with concurrent increases in energy use, polllution, and and the anthropogenic part of global warming. Given the record so far on speed of response to environmental challenges (in which respect I’d partially agree with HA), one might argue that action now for possible consequences on such a timeline would be none too soon.
3. Since I think a five degree change would be catastrophic–and less than that, perhaps as little as three or four, might be very bad, I reiterate that in my view HA set a bar far too high for “catastrophic warming” by insisting on 15 degrees Celsius–an extent that has rarely if ever happened since the Carboniferous Era, at least–as a minimum level for what he considers necessary proof for him. As Lynn points out, between “planet-sized catastrophes” and “higher cooling bills” is a lot of space, and you’re making a false dichotomy by saying that my rejection of HA’s criterion boils down to alarmism over climate as usual.
In light of this, let me reformulate my questions:
1. What kind of evidence, and from whom, would you find sufficient to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least by preponderance of the evidence, that a temperature change of 5 degrees Celsius (about 9 degrees Fahrenheit) within 250 years or less, is in the offing? For reference, I’d note (from here) that depending on the projection you pick, it is possible that there will be an increase of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit–about 1 to 5 degrees Celsius, the latter of which is my criterion–by the end of the century, a mere 82 years.
Also, if an increase of that great occurrs, it really wouldn’t matter if it’s anthropogenic or not, as the negative results would be the same. Nevertheless, let’s add
1.a) What would convince you that such change as mentioned above is, say, preponderantly (50% +) anthropogenic?
2. Assuming that you could be so convinced of 1 (whether or not 1.a) holds), what actions should be taken?
Hopefully this clarifies everything.
Googling “five degrees Celsius causes ice ages and mass extinctions” brings us this
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120201094923.htm
and similar articles containing language closely associating 5 degrees Celsius, ice ages, and mass extinctions.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
I’m not quite sure what point you’re making with the linked article, but I do appreciate the fascinating article, which I’ve bookmarked; and I also appreciate that the sites the search you mention do seem to support the idea that a change of as little as 5 degrees C in the global average temperature can indeed produce enormous–one might even say catastrophic–reults. I’m not sure that was your intention, but thank you nonetheless. Also, if the suggestion is that we ought to plant more trees, I’m all with that. I’ve got plans to plant at least three, maybe more, in the next few months.
My good Turmarion,
In the absence of your bothering to cite anything at all to substantiate any of the claims upon which you are framing your questions, I Googled the language you used and offered this one as the most likely source you were referring to, given the mirror similarity between the language used in the article and the language you subsequently used above.
I believe all readers will find the information circumscribed within the article used to justify your claim that 5 degree Celsius changes in mean global temperatures can cause ice ages and mass extinctions useful.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
If I had the time, and more regular Internet access, I could find any number of sites. As I think I’ve said, that’s not what I’m interested in doing. We here could cite site against site, researcher against researcher, all day long and probably not agree. What I asked–what I think is more interesting, and what very few have actually answered yet–is exactly what criteria the deniers/skeptics would consider acceptable, and if such criteria were met, what if anything should be done, and by whom.
I would defend this much: If anyone takes the time to do the research, one kind find in a very large number of sources, studies, etc. that the temperature change (global average) in the ice ages was about 5 degrees C. I think most people would think that ice-age-level changes would be catastrophic. People might quibble with what consitutes “catastrophic”, but I think my claims about the amount of average temperature chage during the ice ages is very well substantiated (no one has stepped forth to refute them yet). As I said, there are many constraints on my time right now and my Internet access will be spotty for about a week, so, assuming that most of us here have enough skills to do research on their own, I don’t see the need to mount a huge defense of any given climate change issue. To do so doesn’t strike me as relevant to the questions I asked. Which, I might point out, no one but HA has yet actually spoken to.
Is anybody even saying that’s going to happen or is happening?
In other words, something needs to happen that nobody says is happening in order to convince you that what they’re saying is happening is happening.
Riiiiiight.
That’s like me saying that I’ll believe in Christianity when Thor kills a Frost Giant right in front of my eyes.
Based on historic data, an increase in temperature less than 10C and/or slower than 50 years cannot be seen as catastrophic for the mankind. For one, the Earth has seen temperatures more than 10C aas it is today – and the flora and fauna was even more diverse than today. Any process that takes longer (let along much longer) than 50 years is beyond our technological horizon.
Now, if you disagree with my statements – you are free to explain why.
HA, During the last glacier era, the Poconos were under about 5,000 feet of ice. I really doubt that my humble abode would be livable in that condition. At that point in time, the global climate was something like 5 or 6 degrees centigrade cooler than now. To me, that sounds pretty catastrophic.
Ed, I can feel your pain. Surely, a 10C change won’t be a walk in park – but my point is – it won’t be a catastrophy. Moreover, if we indeed try to limit the CO2 emmissions according to the UN plans, we will get an economic catastrophy.
Maybe the issue is what we mean by “catastrophe”. I think that the level of changes that would be involved in the level of temperature change that is an Ice Age would be “catastrophic”. I think most people would. Apparently you wouldn’t. That was my point–you seem to have a very high bar for what you consider “catastrophic”. It’s like if one said, “Hey, you lost your job, your wife left you, and you got diagnosed with cancer–but at least that’s not a catastrophe! A real catastrophe would be if your city got totally destroyed by nuclear bombardment, killing you and everyone in it!” See?
“Maybe the issue is what we mean by “catastrophe”. I think that the level of changes that would be involved in the level of temperature change that is an Ice Age would be “catastrophic”.” (T)
.
.
You seem to insist on using your own projections.
Both the (discredited) CRU and the (less so) IPCC have projected a 2°F to 11.5°F rise by 2100….hardly definitively “catastrophic.”
As much conjecture as such projections are (and they ARE mere conjecture…could be more…could be less), what’s even LESS certain is mankind’s role in, AND man’s ability to ameliorate such a temperature rise via any significant human action (or in the Luddites of the Left’s case “inaction”…as they’d like mankind to apparently to nothing, no manufacturing, no motorized transport, no government activities, etc).
EVERYONE who’s studied this issue has had to consider that there are inexorable natural causes that mankind almost certainly CANNOT adjust. No one has proposed any breakdown that could be termed as “accurate” (ie. 24% mankind, 76% nature, or 34% mankind, 66% nature). We simply “DON’T KNOW.”
Moreover, global political consensus is non-existent on this issue. Brazil, China and India, among others, INSIST on their right to develop.
I personally don’t think the industrialized West has the guts to confront them and “force the issue.” After all, NO ONE interfered with OUR development.
AND I don’t think we’re gonna find the guts any time soon.
So, what to do???
Since there’ve been few practical ideas coming from the Left (closing “energy wasting government agencies” isn’t the answer by itself, although I and many Libertarians would probably see it as a “pretty good start”), perhaps we should look elsewhere for real IDEAS?
Given the BRICs will develop come what may, the rest of us seem cemented into a defensive position.
For instance, we might be better served spending our money on building up sea walls in anticipation of the 2″ rise in sea levels and taking on other defensive positions, perhaps.
11.5 degrees F is almost 5 degrees C. As to whether a change that much–if it happens, for I agree that there are a lot of unknowns involved–in eighty years is catastrophic or not, well, our kids and grandkids–and maybe a few of us, if we see the beginnings–will find out, right?
I agree that there’s a lot we just don’t know; but if things do take a turn down a worst case scenario, our knowledge or lack thereof won’t alter the facts that bad things happen, will it?You’re also right about the developing world; but if their development leads to results that make the world less habitable for everyone, then all their desire not to be interfered with or charges that we’re hypocritical won’t make things better, will it? What doth it profit a man if he gain the world, and lose his planet?
As to ideas, I agree that we need some, and the sooner the better. Nobody anywhere on the political spectrum seems to be coming up with many, though–and that’s not good.
Don’t you know Thor killing Frost Giants is what ended the last Ice Age? ;) Heck of it is, that would actually be better science than a lot of stuff floating around on the right….
Aha!!! So all we need to do is to shoot Thor and allow some of the Frost Giants to start working again in order to reverse the warming effects? I say, go for it. At the same time, maybe they can cart some fresh water up from the Antarctic for those areas in Africa suffering from dangerous drops in fresh water access.
Problem…solved!
No, let’s just wound Thor and tie him up for awhile, until things cool back off. We might need him if Loki invades…. ;)
The liberal line over AGW that I’ve always heard is that “Most governmental activity must cease in order to rein in carbon emissions.”
I’ve honestly yet to see any political arguments (liberal or Conservative) that call for reining in private sector commerce, farming, commercial fishing, ranching, mining, etc. They could exist, I just haven’t come across them.
In fact, I’ve seen far more arguments put forward by the Chinese, the Indians and other developing nations that they WILL NOT allow the USA & Western Europe to stunt their vital economic growth via policies based on AGW. Those nations seem very adamant that they WILL NOT rein in their own development for the sake of the already developed world. . .and who can blame them?
Right now. . .right THIS very minute, China is the world’s largest Co2 emitter. They don’t appear to be ready to change their ways. . .and thank goodness, as our own economy would crash if they did. More and more leaders in England and other parts of the English-speaking world are also beginning to rethink massive restrictions and expenditures to combat AGW. The EU’s budget commissioner (Janusz Lewandowski) expressed sever doubts back in 2009.
We do know that for 98% of the past 600 million years average global temperatures exceeded current average temps. The average temp over that period was appx 72 degrees F compared to the current 57 degrees F average.
One problem facing ALL of us is that there is simply NO readily available substitute for fossil fuels (gasoline & diesel). There is no other fuel source that is so easily stored, transported and contained. Moreover, most “alternatives” use a LOT of hydrocarbons in their production, whether it’s the plastics used to house batteries and “fuel cells,” or the energy/fuels needed to transport alternative energy sources from one place to another.
Worst of all, even if mankind could somehow magically and immediately reduce our carbon emissions to zero, nature seems to be conspiring against us. The slowly increasing brightness of our Sun (appx. 1% per 100,000 years) brought on by the gradual enlarging of the Sun’s hydrogen burning core, will eventually ensure that earth’s temps sore well above those of earth’s warmest earlier periods.
The only possible answer SEEMS to be MORE technology.
I DO NOT agree with those liberals who seem to see no role for government in any of this. While the private sector must lead the way in new energy innovation and new delivery systems, governments should have a vital role to play.
After all, every new and emerging technology tends to have its own perils, not initially seen. More and NEW technologies will always find solutions for the problems brought on by older technologies, and newer technologies will always be needed to combat the problems brought on by the previous round of “miracle technologies.”
The liberal line over AGW that I’ve always heard is that “Most governmental activity must cease in order to rein in carbon emissions.”
I DO NOT agree with those liberals who seem to see no role for government in any of this.
I’m rather puzzled. The argument is usually made that liberals want too much government action, especially of a type that intrudes into the private sector. I’ve never heard any liberals or liberal journals or websites that say “most governmental activity must cease” in order to affect AGW.
I haven’t seen that T.
Although I might define “liberal,” somewhat differently than some people.
For instance, in my view both Bill O’Reilly and Bill Maher are “liberals,” as both oppose the death penalty, both believe “Big Energy Companies are price gouging,” both support a “Guest Worker program” for illegal/undocumented migrants, etc. I think BOTH are also innately anti-Corporatist, that is opposed to the partnering of business and government. . .I am in disagreement with both of those people on ALL those issues.
Now, considering that, “The (U.S.) federal government is the nation’s single largest energy consumer and energy waster. In 2006, the federal government consumed approximately 1.5 quadrillion Btu (quads) of energy at a cost of $18 billion. This is 1.5% of all energy used in the U.S. American taxpayers pay about $4 billion annually just to heat, cool, and power the 500,000 federal buildings and facilities,” (SEE: http://ase.org/resources/federal-energy-productivity) and that other governments around the world follow precisely that same model of inefficiency, there’s no question that ANYONE truly serious about dealing with AGW would first look to dim the lights (both literally and figuratively) on government.
There’s no “wall” between business and government today. That partnership has evolved over a century and is now firmly cemented in place. Clarence Darrow was NOT accusing governments of wrong-doing when he noted that, “Government is the tool by which the strong despoil the weak,” he was merely noting a practical consideration.
I’ve known and accepted that my entire life and vehemently oppose all who’d look to change that. Those who consider what Darrow observed to be “a monstrosity,” are too often monsters themselves.
Government’s primary purpose is to protect the “natural order,” which is to make sure that, as the Hatfields of W VA. might put it, “Them’s that gots, wind up those that keeps.”
JMK,
You have mentioned a couple times that your reading supports only an increase of 2 degrees C (about 3.5 degrees F) from the current warming cycle and that that change will not have much adverse impact. This article in Scientific American http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/06/two-degree-global-warming-limit-is-called-a-prescription-for-disaster/ seems to indicate otherwise. I kept wondering where you had arrived at the 2 degrees change. I suspect it is from the various panels recommendations that would attempt to limit warming to only 2 degrees. If CO2 is a factor in climate change as many scientists believe, the hope of 2 degrees C appears to be flimsy at best since it would require world wide decrease in CO2 elimination beginning in 2012.. oh yeah, that is this year.
It appears that our best hope at this juncture is that CO2 has nothing to do with climate and that whatever is causing the change will cease and desist. Please note that 50M years ago at a time when there was no ice, the seas were 70 meters higher than now. Of course, few believe that all of the ice will melt.
“I kept wondering where you had arrived at the 2 degrees change.” (ETH)
.
.
I’ve carefully considered your objection and have come to the conclusion that your confusion is NOT my fault.
I didn’t “arrive” at any specific number at all.
I DID link to an EPA site on Future Climate Change. (http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html)
I believe that site’s available in two of my posts above (look at it when you get the chance. I believe it will alleviate your confusion).
That report says the same thing the IPCC says; “Average global temperatures are expected to increase by 2°F to 11.5°F by 2100…”
I also never asserted that “We don’t know how much of the GW we’re witnessing is due to mankind’s actions and how much is due to nature.” Virtually EVERYONE who has studied that has said that. I’ve merely agreed with that view, given the available data.
For my part, I can certainly assert that the more data/information we gather, the more variables and challenges we’ll become aware of, because that appears to be a mathematical directive – I’ve called it, “Expanding Variablity.”
How much GW is due to nature?
I know that (“the father of Climatology”) Reid Bryson believes it to be negligible, while I’ve put the number as high as “POSSIBLY” 20% man-made, but like anyone else’s estimates in this regard it’s completely unsubstantiated.
I will note that Milutin Milankovitch, a Serbian mathematician working during the 1920s theorized that the changes in the Earth’s orbit lead to variations in the amount of solar radiation reaching the atmosphere, causing ice ages and warming cycles.
Milankovitch noted that there are three types of orbital changes. First, the orbit of the Earth is not circular, but elliptical, and the eccentricity of this ellipse varies over a 100,000 year cycle.
Second, there is a tilt or obliquity to the Earth’s axis relative to the plane of the solar system, and this cycles over a period of 41,000 years.
Third, at any given obliquity, the Earth’s axis is wobbling like a top over a 21,000 year cycle and this is called precession.
Since its inception, the Milankovitch theory has been tested and refined by hundreds of investigators. “One landmark article (Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton, 1976), compares the Earth’s climate history to its orbital history and concludes that the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle has been the predominant driver of the ice ages, although precession and obliquity do explain some climatic variance. The authors do not specify how changes in the delivery of solar radiation to the atmosphere translate into changes in climate: “We avoid the obligation of identifying the physical mechanism of this response…”. This is not a failing of the authors; rather it reflects the current limits of scientific knowledge.” (SEE:
Milankovitch found that between an ice age and a warm period there is generally a difference of 5 degree Celsius in average global temperatures. “Yet the change in solar energy reaching the Earth due to orbital eccentricity accounts for only a .15 degree Celsius temperature change. The rest of the 4.85 degree C temperature change is thought to be due to climatic feedback effects,” but there isn’t a full understanding of just how these work. Given that, I would not be at all surprised if my own estimate of GW being “possibly 20% man-made” being found to be excessive. . .the percentage of warming due to mankind’s actions may be much lower, given this AND the fact that the Sun IS getting brighter. . .& HOTTER (by appx 1.24% per year).
AGAIN, Brazil China, India and other developing nations REFUSE to limit their growth/development and the industrialized world lacks both the WILL and the wherewithal to “force the issue on these much more “rough and tumble” nations.
Common sense would appear to dictate that our ONLY pragmatic options (given the recalcitrance of the BRICs) is a combination of “defensive measures (building up sea walls, etc) and MORE technologies.
You state, “AGAIN, Brazil China, India and other developing nations REFUSE to limit their growth/development and the industrialized world lacks both the WILL and the wherewithal to “force the issue on these much more “rough and tumble” nations.” By that reasoning, I guess we are fully justified should we decide to bomb the hell out of New Mexico someday soon. After all, a number of countries do that sort of thing to their citizenry.
I am not indicating that we should consider behaving as others behave. I am stating that it is incumbent upon us to behave and live in a responsible manner so as to set an example and standard for others to follow.
I really could care less what your estimates or assertions are as to the effects of human generated CO2. I really do care what our government and our industrialists believe and how they proceed in decisions. At this point, I am not only disappointed but fear for the world in which my great grandchildren will live.
Our government and industries are one in the same, ETH.
Corporations control ALL the governments of the developed world and have for quite some time.
The very recent unification of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/efe93494-a9a3-11e1-a6a7-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=crm/email/2012529/nbe/ExclusiveComment/product#axzz1wxfEvzMp) cements that global Corporatist alliance. It doesn’t matter at all what any individual politicians think/believe, nor even what any individual CEO’s think/believe. . .NOR even what any scientists at the CRU or on the IPCC believe, they ultimately will say (and believe) precisely what their benefactors (within the Rockefeller-Rothschild complex) instruct them to believe.
AGAIN, I DID NOT make personal assertions (I linked to the prevailing numbers…you mightn’t have had the time to look at them). . .there are NO/ZERO credible researchers who believe, for instance, that the preponderance of the GW we’re witnessing is man-made. There is much (unsubstantiated on both sides) debate over the percentages researchers believe man or nature attribute to GW. As I dutifully noted, the “father of climatology” (Professor Reid Bryson) believes man’s input is negligible. . .as I said, I disagree (with reservations) with Professor Bryson.
I’d be VERY cautious as to what I’d say vis-a-vis the U.S. or anyone else directly intervening with (ie. “bombing” any of the BRICs”). . .I was fortunate to have been born in the U.S., but spent considerable time in my youth in Corsica and Northern Italy and 3 years in my early adulthood in Chile, (what was then) Rhodesia and Chile again. . .my primary allegiance is sadly NOT with the USA. It is with another entity I have long familial ties to.
If such an event were to occur (ie. the USA taking aggressive action against Brazil, for instance) I’d find myself in the uncomfortable position of supporting Brazil’s interests. I believe the global Corporatist alliance would also make such interference inadvisable.
We are all globalists now.
The issue isn’t temperature reduction.
ONLY naive dolts believe that.
The issue is the short-term hiking of energy prices (increasing profits) for Big Energy…among the biggest Corporate benefactors of the governments of the developed world AND perhaps even some serious population reduction, as the industrialized world finds itself with far less need for the existing army of unskilled/low-skilled workers. THAT’S all well documented too; (http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Ripoff-Business-Government/dp/0471789070/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339719297&sr=8-1&keywords=the+big+ripoff)
Same question applies to you…
What actual evidence convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that large scale, potentially catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming is occurring?
There certainly has been a rise in global temperatures, H-A, whether it’s “potentially catastrophic, or not,” is questionable. Man’s role in it is also questioned. The UW-Madison professor emeritus, often referred to as “the Father of Climatology,” Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies has steadfastly opposed the idea of anthropogenic global warming, so have many others and more of the scientific community has moved toward Bryson’s view than the reverse, ALTHOUGH, many initially far fewer scientists questioned man’s role than do now.
There’s also been a lot of misinformation – deliberate, or not. For instance, the UN’s Climate study estimated a worst case scenario ocean rise of appx 2″ by 2100, which Al Gore misrepresented as 20″ in a documentary. . .perhaps an “honest mistake.” It IS very possible that Gore DID NOT overcome early dyslexia as well as I did, of course it could also have been a deliberate falsification for impact.
For better or worse, (I say better, many other thoughtful people say worse) we have a virtually global Corporatist alliance. EVERY Western European nation, Japan, the USA, Canada (the “Developed World”) have Corporatist governments. Governments that are partnered with industry.
As automation has increased, the need for cheap labor (and therefore large populations of humans) has decreased. Ultimately this issue is NOT about bringing earth’s temperature down, but bringing earth’s population DOWN.
IF AGW was the issue would our “alternatives” STILL require the massive use of petroleum products (ie plastics, rubber)? Would one of the main alternatives being touted to replace fossil fuels (Fuel Cells) be one that gives off water vapor – the primary and most abundant greenhouse gas?
Earth’s energy needs are rising along with the development of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China). The most promising fuel that can be transported, stored and contained is algae-based fuels, but none of the alternative fuels currently available are ready to replace the fossil fuels we ALL rely on.
At this point, the adage, “When the oil goes, the people go too,” remains very true. Big business and big governments have already set a course, one which seems to lead to a world with a LOT less people.
Lots of comments, and I see some confusion in the discussion. Here is a partial list:
• Some seem to believe that change at a rate less than has occurred naturally cannot be anthropogenic. Rather, those who say that what is occurring is natural need to provide a natural explanation (Earth is moving towards the sun?) and evidence that such an explanation would lead to observations (temperature increase is larger in the winter and at night). The rate of climate change has nothing to do with the cause.
• Some seem to believe that anything natural is OK for us, or has been OK for us in the past, or will be OK for us in the future. If temperatures on Earth at the time of the dinosaurs was natural, then it is OK for the temperature to return to that level. Yet humans and most other species evolved in times that were relatively cooler. The crocodile would do fine and its habitat would likely expand in a warming world, but humans would find the temperature of much of Earth unbearable (eg, the hottest day of the year in eastern North America could be 18-22°F higher at 4°C increase, which could occur as early as 2060-70, prediction made before Germany and Japan reduced their use of nuclear). Many plants in tropical rain forests are near their threshhold. This doesn’t count that gajillions of dollars of infrastructure exists, and we can’t all pack our bags and move to the interior of Alaska, where temps will be OK, but sunlight inadequate, and besides, change there is messing up their infrastructure.
• 2°F is the low end of the temperature increase that would occur if atmospheric concentrations of GHG remained at 2000 levels. I don’t know about the 11.5°F number, but the current projection by IPCC is that we are on a path that will lead to a 6°C change. There will be more detail about range in the IPCC reports due out next year, but generally, they tend to look like 6°C best guess, range from 5.5 – 10°C.
• Some are looking for a catastrophe. World Health Organization says >150,000 died from climate change in 2000, from disease, landslides, floods, and starvation. Heat-related deaths began occurring in great quantity shortly afterward (though in one episode in the late 90s, 6 people died from the heat in Berkeley. Berkeley????? Until the mid-90s, a warm summer day got over 70°F.) 35,000 died in Europe alone in the 2003 Eurasian heat wave, that killed many more animals. 56,000 died in Russia in 2010 from heat and pollution from burning forests and peat. Both events are thought likely due to climate change. What do you define as a catastrophe?
• Some don’t like the problem if they don’t like the solutions. OK, most fit in that category, and most appear to dislike one or more of the most important solutions to climate change.
Most of us define “catastrophe” as “lots of people like me dying horrible deaths at the same time.” Most climate change skeptics seem fairly indifferent to the extinction of animal species. It seems not to occur to them that anything that can kill off plankton, polar bears, and pandas could also do the job on people. Or that the cure for cancer might conceivable have been an enzyme found only in the liver of the passenger pigeon.