Climate change

[Aractus]

I'm interested in the disproportionate COST of reducing GHG's for perceived benefit. I think it's more important to focus on practical responses to the threats associated with regional climate change particularly in Africa and other regions with developing countries that will feel the effects of changes in rainfall patterns, etc. over time. In Australia it's not something we're going to experience such a problem for - the data shows that rainfall will not decline, but that it will shift higher in our continent - so we have to plan for that and have water policies that recignise that overtime our landscape will require using more land in the north for farming and agriculture, and perhaps less land in the south. THAT data is fairly reliable, I don't disagree with it, and I think it is the most important thing that needs to be addressed when it comes to climate change.

Remember the anthropogenic component of climate change is a combination of CO2, CH4, and NO. CO2 is - at most - 47% responsible out of the anthropogenic components (figures from NASA 2010). So even eliminating CO2 emissions world wide from fossil fuels only has a potential to reduce global warming by 47% - and if natural variation is contributing to the climate (which it probably is because we've been coming out of the little ice age and climate was rising before human activity started contributing, then the effect is even less still. CH4 is estimated to be 28% or so responsible out of the anthropogenic components. Higher CO2 levels, however, are great for most vegetation across the world; in fact it's estimated that by 2100 vegetation will have a 20% greater yield due to the increased CO2 levels when compared to pre-industrial levels. Most greenhouses set their CO2 level to at least 700 ppm; and many set it at 1000-1200 ppm. In the future we should be able to trap much of the CH4 associated with animal rearing, and that can then be used directly as fuel just like we use LPG (C3H8 and 4H10) at the moment.

[Thumpalumpacus]

AGW is most likely true.

Even if it is not, I prefer that we take a Pascal's Wager approach to the problem: it's better to over-estimate the danger and play it safe, than it is to underestimate it and play it fast-and-loose.

[Aractus]

And I'm saying there are more important needs for the health and wellbeing of our 10 billion people (by 2100) than the CO2 level - and those are water security; population resettlement; and food security. Those are the things I believe should be prioritised.

Not to mention I think that $90 million could have been much better allocated than chasing the dubious promise of a new form of energy. We could have spent that on foreign aid; on water security; on helping the disadvantaged in our country; or on plenty of other far more deserving causes.

[AFTT47]

I'm interested in the disproportionate COST of reducing GHG's for perceived benefit.

And I'm interested in the cost of eliminating my genital warts vs. the benefits. But I have no fucking idea how to proceed because I'm not a fucking physician. So do I consult my favorite politician or my banker? No, I discuss it with my fucking physician because he or she is the one who IS qualified. I'm not locked in to his or her opinion. I could discuss it with other physicians. But I'm not stupid enough to try and figure it out myself because I have the sense to realize I lack expertise in that area. And when every physician I solicit an opinion from tells me the same fucking thing, I have the sense to take their advice.

[robvalue]

I don't know enough about climate change to comment.

But can I ask what this has to do with your de-conversion? I'll take a guess:

Let's say the bible specifically said, "Humans will cause adverse climate change." All that would show is the people writing it got something right. It doesn't however validate anything else in the book, or tell you how they got it right. It could be a lucky guess, a good estimation, some magic spaghetti told them... just because they got it right, it doesn't mean their explanation for how they knew it is also true.

For example, let's say I guess at your birthday and I get it right. I do the same thing for hundreds of other people. It seems like I have access to information that seems impossible for me to have. If I say I'm getting the information from a magic teapot in another galaxy, does that mean I really am getting it from that teapot?

And that is giving the bible a lot of credit, it makes no such specific claims. It makes very vague statements that could be interpreted in so many ways as to fit almost any scenario.

[Foxaèr]

Of course the climate changes, with the seasons.

[Aractus]

I'm interested in the cost of eliminating my genital warts vs. the benefits. But I have no fucking idea how to proceed because I'm not a fucking physician. So do I consult my favorite politician or my banker? No, I discuss it with my fucking physician because he or she is the one who IS qualified. I'm not locked in to his or her opinion. I could discuss it with other physicians. But I'm not stupid enough to try and figure it out myself because I have the sense to realize I lack expertise in that area. And when every physician I solicit an opinion from tells me the same fucking thing, I have the sense to take their advice.

Right, so your reply is completely inconsistent. When it comes to climate change you want the climate scientists to be the ones to tell you what to do. But when it comes to a medical issue, you don't want to talk to the experts or scientists, instead you want to talk to a practising physician.

Climate scientists can give you the science. But as for policy advice, their perspective will be influenced by their field of expertises. In order to get a fair assessment you need an unbiased approach to assessing the information; and that's what you ask a committee to do for you. One that can fairly weigh up the options, give you a cost-benefit analysis (so yeah you're going to want an economist, and an accountant on your committee as well), and all the other information you need to make an informed decision. You don't just go to the climate scientists and get them to give you their opinion and then take that and form a policy - that would be a terrible way to respond to environmental concerns or other scientific-based issues that you may want to address with a targeted policy intervention. And THAT'S why you wouldn't use the IPCC report - it just doesn't have a broad enough input. It doesn't even consider projected outcomes of policy interventions - and if it did it would show just how ineffective targeted action towards CO2 reduction is in relation to reducing temperature long-term. It doesn't fairly weigh out the positive environmental outcomes against the negative outcomes. There's a lot of things it fails to address that are needed in order to make an informed policy choice.

In any case here's one of the experts (Judith Curry) testifying just last month in front of a USA House of Representatives Committee just last month:

http://youtu.be/rce5CeKOC0c

As you can see, she highlights the fact that that the USA President's climate plan is projected to reduce global temperature by just 0.03 - 0.1 degrees by 2100. I'll quote you part of her testimony:

"The climate has been warming since the 1700s, since the end of the little ice age. We don’t know what’s causing that warming in the 18th Century, in the 19th Century; it's not attributed to humans."

---

Why don't I give you the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that the world spends approx USD 1 trillion tackling climate change over the course of the 21st century; and when we get to the dawn of the 22nd century at 2100 we discover the Earth has warmed by 8 degrees Celsius anyway despite our efforts. As I mentioned in my previous post, this will mean great things for some parts of the world - but will be absolutely terrible for small vulnerable countries that have lost their annual rainfalls to other regions and will create the need to relocate around 10th of the planet's population (1 billion out of 10 billion people). So let's imagine that happens. Wouldn't we look back and say "why didn't we spend the 1 trillion on helping the world's most vulnerable people instead"?

[Red Economist]

Do climate scientist believe there is any imminent harm to human kind?

This depends on how you define "imminent". In our lifetime; no probably not. In the first, second or third generations after us, more likely. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a group of scientists and policy makers who are trying to put the big picture together. basically, scientists are working in their different specialisms and so there is no one scientist who can answer any one of these questions. there is also a major problem that policy makers feel that because they aren't scientists they don't have the right or ability to make decisions.
We have already had something between 0.5 and 1 degree of climate change already as the result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. the consensus is the about 2 degree by the end of this century is the upper limit which won't have major impacts on the planet and is within the level of tolerances. The two major variables in anticipating climate change are 1) climate sensativity and 2) what we do.
Scientists are basically trying to predict the weather; there are a huge number of variables and so they can't know exactly what is going to happen. Add on to this that we're not talking about what the weather will be like tommorow, but that we are studying the aggregeate of weather patterns (the climate) in the next 100 years, and you can see that any model produced is going to be uncertain.
At the moment we appear to be heading toward 4 degrees, which is catastrophic. We are already committed to about two to three hundred years of warming because of the gases aleready emitted working their way through the lags in the system. An additional factor is the possibility of feedback effects in which natural reserves of greenhouse gases, such as methane sinks in the siberian tundra are released and accelerate the process. Scientists are frightened of a 'butterly effect' in which the intial emissions then have magnified consequences as the ecological system responds to it. This is how people end up with worse case scenarios with runaway climate change.
There are (not suprisingly given the nature of the subject) very few studies which ask whether climate change poses an existential threat to the future of mankind. There was a study done which showed that the most likely problem is 'heat stress' (that average global tempratures rise to such an extent that it i) exceeds our biological tolerances and ii) exceeds our economic capacity to keep ourselves cool.
However, the more immediate threat is the climate change will have knock on effects on ecological systems which affect agriculture, fresh water supplies and fisheries. it these are threatened the total human population on the planet will exceed it's "carrying capacity" and 'contract'. the threat of extinction is unlikely, but depending on the time frame, the likelhood of the deaths of a very large number of people IS a problem we could face as a species over the next few generations depending on the severity of the warming. How many we don't know, but it will depend who you ask. the most alarmist will put it up in the hundreds of millions or billions.
Most models work study the next 100 years, but climate change will continueto unfold over the next couple of centuries. Nor can we reliably know how bad things would be before it happens. hence we have an ethical obligation to reduce emissions now. The problem is that the division of the world into nation-states and free markets emphasising corporate and individual inaitive can plasuibly work against such co-ordinated action. There are many climate change deniers who are libertarians but the irony is that by trying to stop action of climate change now, they actually make more extreme measures more probable further down the road.

Are the statistics shown in a fear mongering way just to sell newspapers?

To some extent yes. The most sensationalised fears of climate change get more airtime and that actually hinders the process of implimenting policies as people become fatalistic about the prospects of preventing it.

[Alex K]

I agree, I wouldn't call it butterfly effect, though.

[Iroscato]

Planet = fine after a few hundred thousand years of shrugging off the last traces of humanity.
Humanity = fucked six ways to sunday.

“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
Plastic… asshole.”