Cherry Picking Climate Catastrophes: Response to Conor Clarke, Part II
WUWT Guest Post by Indur Goklany
Conor Clarke at The Atlantic blog, raised several issues with my study, “What to Do About Climate Change,” that Cato published last year.
One of Conor Clarke’s comments was that my analysis did not extend beyond the 21st century. He found this problematic because, as Conor put it, climate change would extend beyond 2100, and even if GDP is higher in 2100 with unfettered global warming than without, it’s not obvious that this GDP would continue to be higher “in the year 2200 or 2300 or 3758”. I addressed this portion of his argument in Part I of my response. Here I will address the second part of this argument, that “the possibility of ‘catastrophic’ climate change events — those with low probability but extremely high cost — becomes real after 2100.”
RESPONSE:
The examples of potentially catastrophic events that could be caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming (AGW) that have been offered to date (e.g., melting of the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheets, or the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation) contain a few drops of plausibility submerged in oceans of speculation. There are no scientifically justified estimates of the probability of their occurrence by any given date. Nor are there scientifically justified estimates of the magnitude of damages such events might cause, not just in biophysical terms but also in socioeconomic terms. Therefore, to call these events “low probability” — as Mr. Clarke does — is a misnomer. They are more appropriately termed as plausible but highly speculative events.
Consider, for example, the potential collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS). According to the IPCC’s WG I Summary for Policy Makers (p. 17), “If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m” (emphasis added). Presumably the same applies to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
But what is the probability that a negative surface mass balance can, in fact, be sustained for millennia, particularly after considering the amount of fossil fuels that can be economically extracted and the likelihood that other energy sources will not displace fossil fuels in the interim? [Remember we are told that peak oil is nigh, that renewables are almost competitive with fossil fuels, and that wind, solar and biofuels will soon pay for themselves.]
Second, for an event to be classified as a catastrophe, it should occur relatively quickly precluding efforts by man or nature to adapt or otherwise deal with it. But if it occurs over millennia, as the IPCC says, or even centuries, that gives humanity ample time to adjust, albeit at a socioeconomic cost. But it need not be prohibitively dangerous to life, limb or property if: (1) the total amount of sea level rise (SLR) and, perhaps more importantly, the rate of SLR can be predicted with some confidence, as seems likely in the next few decades considering the resources being expended on such research; (2) the rate of SLR is slow relative to how fast populations can strengthen coastal defenses and/or relocate; and (3) there are no insurmountable barriers to migration.
This would be true even had the so-called “tipping point” already been passed and ultimate disintegration of the ice sheet was inevitable, so long as it takes millennia for the disintegration to be realized. In other words, the issue isn’t just whether the tipping point is reached, rather it is how long does it actually take to tip over. Take, for example, if a hand grenade is tossed into a crowded room. Whether this results in tragedy — and the magnitude of that tragedy — depends upon how much time it takes for the grenade to go off, the reaction time of the occupants, and their ability to respond.
Lowe, et al. (2006, p. 32-33), based on a “pessimistic, but plausible, scenario in which atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were stabilised at four times pre-industrial levels,” estimated that a collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet would over the next 1,000 years raise sea level by 2.3 meters (with a peak rate of 0.5 cm/yr). If one were to arbitrarily double that to account for potential melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, that means a SLR of ~5 meters in 1,000 years with a peak rate (assuming the peaks coincide) of 1 meter per century.
Such a rise would not be unprecedented. Sea level has risen 120 meters in the past 18,000 years — an average of 0.67 meters/century — and as much as 4 meters/century during meltwater pulse 1A episode 14,600 years ago (Weaver et al. 2003; subscription required). Neither humanity nor, from the perspective of millennial time scales (per the above quote from the IPCC), the rest of nature seem the worse for it. Coral reefs for example, evolved and their compositions changed over millennia as new reefs grew while older ones were submerged in deeper water (e.g., Cabioch et al. 2008). So while there have been ecological changes, it is unknown whether the changes were for better or worse. For a melting of the GIS (or WAIS) to qualify as a catastrophe, one has to show, rather than assume, that the ecological consequences would, in fact, be for the worse.
Human beings can certainly cope with sea level rise of such magnitudes if they have centuries or millennia to do so. In fact, if necessary they could probably get out of the way in a matter of decades, if not years.
Can a relocation of such a magnitude be accomplished?
Consider that the global population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion this year. Among other things, this meant creating the infrastructure for an extra 4.3 billion people in the intervening 59 years (as well as improving the infrastructure for the 2.5 billion counted in the baseline, many of whom barely had any infrastructure whatsoever in 1950). These improvements occurred at a time when everyone was significantly poorer. (Global per capita income today is more than 3.5 times greater today than it was in 1950). Therefore, while relocation will be costly, in theory, tomorrow’s much wealthier world ought to be able to relocate billions of people to higher ground over the next few centuries, if need be. In fact, once a decision is made to relocate, the cost differential of relocating, say, 10 meters higher rather than a meter higher is probably marginal. It should also be noted that over millennia the world’s infrastructure will have to be renewed or replaced dozens of times – and the world will be better for it. [For example, the ancient city of Troy, once on the coast but now a few kilometers inland, was built and rebuilt at least 9 times in 3 millennia.]
Also, so long as we are concerned about potential geological catastrophes whose probability of occurrence and impacts have yet to be scientifically estimated, we should also consider equally low or higher probability events that might negate their impacts. Specifically, it is quite possible — in fact probable — that somewhere between now and 2100 or 2200, technologies will become available that will deal with climate change much more economically than currently available technologies for reducing GHG emissions. Such technologies may include ocean fertilization, carbon sequestration, geo-engineering options (e.g., deploying mirrors in space) or more efficient solar or photovoltaic technologies. Similarly, there is a finite, non-zero probability that new and improved adaptation technologies will become available that will substantially reduce the net adverse impacts of climate change.
The historical record shows that this has occurred over the past century for virtually every climate-sensitive sector that has been studied. For example, from 1900-1970, U.S. death rates due to various climate-sensitive water-related diseases — dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid, other gastrointestinal disease, and malaria —declined by 99.6 to 100.0 percent. Similarly, poor agricultural productivity exacerbated by drought contributed to famines in India and China off and on through the 19th and 20th centuries killing millions of people, but such famines haven’t recurred since the 1970s despite any climate change and the fact that populations are several-fold higher today. And by the early 2000s, deaths and death rates due to extreme weather events had dropped worldwide by over 95% of their earlier 20th century peaks (Goklany 2006).
With respect to another global warming bogeyman — the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (AKA the meridional overturning circulation), the basis for the deep freeze depicted in the movie, The Day After Tomorrow — the IPCC WG I SPM notes (p. 16), “Based on current model simulations, it is very likely that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century. The multi-model average reduction by 2100 is 25% (range from zero to about 50%) for SRES emission scenario A1B. Temperatures in the Atlantic region are projected to increase despite such changes due to the much larger warming associated with projected increases in greenhouse gases. It is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the 21st century. Longer-term changes in the MOC cannot be assessed with confidence.”
Not much has changed since then. A shut down of the MOC doesn’t look any more likely now than it did then. See here, here, and here (pp. 316-317).
If one wants to develop rational policies to address speculative catastrophic events that could conceivably occur over the next few centuries or millennia, as a start one should consider the universe of potential catastrophes and then develop criteria as to which should be addressed and which not. Rational analysis must necessarily be based on systematic analysis, and not on cherry picking one’s favorite catastrophes.
Just as one may speculate on global warming induced catastrophes, one may just as plausibly also speculate on catastrophes that may result absent global warming. Consider, for example, the possibility that absent global warming, the Little Ice Age might return. The consequences of another ice age, Little or not, could range from the severely negative to the positive (if that would buffer the negative consequences of warming). That such a recurrence is not unlikely is evident from the fact that the earth entered and, only a century and a half ago, retreated from a Little Ice Age, and that history may indeed repeat itself over centuries or millennia.
Yet another catastrophe that greenhouse gas controls may cause is that CO2 not only contributes to warming, it is also the key building block of life as we know it. All vegetation is created by the photosynthesis of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, according to the IPCC WG I report (2007, p. 106), net primary productivity of the global biosphere has increased in recent decades, partly due to greater warming, higher CO2 concentrations and nitrogen deposition. Thus , there is a finite probability that reducing CO2 emissions would, therefore, reduce the net primary productivity of the terrestrial biosphere with potentially severe negative consequences for the amount and diversity of wildlife that it could support, as well as agricultural and forest productivity with adverse knock on effects on hunger and health.
There is also a finite probability that costs of GHG reductions could reduce economic growth worldwide. Even if only industrialized countries sign up for emission reductions, the negative consequences could show up in developing countries because they derive a substantial share of their income from aid, trade, tourism, and remittances from the rest of the world. See, for example, Tol (2005), which examines this possibility, although the extent to which that study fully considered these factors (i.e., aid, trade, tourism, and remittances) is unclear.
Finally, one of the problems with the argument that society should address low probability high impact events (assuming a probability could be estimated rather than assumed or guessed) is that it necessarily means there is a high probability that resources expended on addressing such catastrophic events will have been squandered. This wouldn’t be a problem but for the fact that there are opportunity costs associated with this.
According to the 2007 IPCC Science Assessment’s Summary for Policy Makers (p. 10), “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” In plain language, this means that the IPCC believes there is at least a 90% likelihood that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (AGHG) are responsible for 50-100% of the global warming since 1950. In other words, there is an up to 10% chance that anthropogenic GHGs are not responsible for most of that warming.
This means there is an up to 10% chance that resources expended in limiting climate change would have been squandered. Since any effort to significantly reduce climate change will cost trillions of dollars (see Nordhaus 2008, p. 82), that would be an unqualified disaster, particularly since those very resources could be devoted to reducing urgent problems humanity faces here and now (e.g., hunger, malaria, safer water and sanitation) — problems we know exist for sure unlike the bogeymen that we can’t be certain about.
Spending money on speculative, even if plausible, catastrophes instead of problems we know exist for sure is like a starving man giving up a fat juicy bird in hand while hoping that we’ll catch several other birds sometime in the next few centuries even though we know those birds don’t exist today and may never exist in the future.
Cherry Picking Climate Catastrophes: Response to Conor Clarke, Part II
Posted by Indur Goklany
Conor Clarke at The Atlantic blog, raised several issues with my study, “What to Do About Climate Change,” that Cato published last year.
One of Conor Clarke’s comments was that my analysis did not extend beyond the 21st century. He found this problematic because, as Conor put it, climate change would extend beyond 2100, and even if GDP is higher in 2100 with unfettered global warming than without, it’s not obvious that this GDP would continue to be higher “in the year 2200 or 2300 or 3758”. I addressed this portion of his argument in Part I of my response. Here I will address the second part of this argument, that “the possibility of ‘catastrophic’ climate change events — those with low probability but extremely high cost — becomes real after 2100.”
RESPONSE:
The examples of potentially catastrophic events that could be caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming (AGW) that have been offered to date (e.g., melting of the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheets, or the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation) contain a few drops of plausibility submerged in oceans of speculation. There are no scientifically justified estimates of the probability of their occurrence by any given date. Nor are there scientifically justified estimates of the magnitude of damages such events might cause, not just in biophysical terms but also in socioeconomic terms. Therefore, to call these events “low probability” — as Mr. Clarke does — is a misnomer. They are more appropriately termed as plausible but highly speculative events.
Consider, for example, the potential collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS). According to the IPCC’s WG I Summary for Policy Makers (p. 17), “If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m” (emphasis added). Presumably the same applies to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
But what is the probability that a negative surface mass balance can, in fact, be sustained for millennia, particularly after considering the amount of fossil fuels that can be economically extracted and the likelihood that other energy sources will not displace fossil fuels in the interim? [Remember we are told that peak oil is nigh, that renewables are almost competitive with fossil fuels, and that wind, solar and biofuels will soon pay for themselves.]
Second, for an event to be classified as a catastrophe, it should occur relatively quickly precluding efforts by man or nature to adapt or otherwise deal with it. But if it occurs over millennia, as the IPCC says, or even centuries, that gives humanity ample time to adjust, albeit at a socioeconomic cost. But it need not be prohibitively dangerous to life, limb or property if: (1) the total amount of sea level rise (SLR) and, perhaps more importantly, the rate of SLR can be predicted with some confidence, as seems likely in the next few decades considering the resources being expended on such research; (2) the rate of SLR is slow relative to how fast populations can strengthen coastal defenses and/or relocate; and (3) there are no insurmountable barriers to migration.
This would be true even had the so-called “tipping point” already been passed and ultimate disintegration of the ice sheet was inevitable, so long as it takes millennia for the disintegration to be realized. In other words, the issue isn’t just whether the tipping point is reached, rather it is how long does it actually take to tip over. Take, for example, if a hand grenade is tossed into a crowded room. Whether this results in tragedy — and the magnitude of that tragedy — depends upon how much time it takes for the grenade to go off, the reaction time of the occupants, and their ability to respond.
Lowe, et al. (2006, p. 32-33), based on a “pessimistic, but plausible, scenario in which atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were stabilised at four times pre-industrial levels,” estimated that a collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet would over the next 1,000 years raise sea level by 2.3 meters (with a peak rate of 0.5 cm/yr). If one were to arbitrarily double that to account for potential melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, that means a SLR of ~5 meters in 1,000 years with a peak rate (assuming the peaks coincide) of 1 meter per century.
Such a rise would not be unprecedented. Sea level has risen 120 meters in the past 18,000 years — an average of 0.67 meters/century — and as much as 4 meters/century during meltwater pulse 1A episode 14,600 years ago (Weaver et al. 2003; subscription required). Neither humanity nor, from the perspective of millennial time scales (per the above quote from the IPCC), the rest of nature seem the worse for it. Coral reefs for example, evolved and their compositions changed over millennia as new reefs grew while older ones were submerged in deeper water (e.g., Cabioch et al. 2008). So while there have been ecological changes, it is unknown whether the changes were for better or worse. For a melting of the GIS (or WAIS) to qualify as a catastrophe, one has to show, rather than assume, that the ecological consequences would, in fact, be for the worse.
Human beings can certainly cope with sea level rise of such magnitudes if they have centuries or millennia to do so. In fact, if necessary they could probably get out of the way in a matter of decades, if not years.
Can a relocation of such a magnitude be accomplished?
Consider that the global population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion this year. Among other things, this meant creating the infrastructure for an extra 4.3 billion people in the intervening 59 years (as well as improving the infrastructure for the 2.5 billion counted in the baseline, many of whom barely had any infrastructure whatsoever in 1950). These improvements occurred at a time when everyone was significantly poorer. (Global per capita income today is more than 3.5 times greater today than it was in 1950). Therefore, while relocation will be costly, in theory, tomorrow’s much wealthier world ought to be able to relocate billions of people to higher ground over the next few centuries, if need be. In fact, once a decision is made to relocate, the cost differential of relocating, say, 10 meters higher rather than a meter higher is probably marginal. It should also be noted that over millennia the world’s infrastructure will have to be renewed or replaced dozens of times – and the world will be better for it. [For example, the ancient city of Troy, once on the coast but now a few kilometers inland, was built and rebuilt at least 9 times in 3 millennia.]
Also, so long as we are concerned about potential geological catastrophes whose probability of occurrence and impacts have yet to be scientifically estimated, we should also consider equally low or higher probability events that might negate their impacts. Specifically, it is quite possible — in fact probable — that somewhere between now and 2100 or 2200, technologies will become available that will deal with climate change much more economically than currently available technologies for reducing GHG emissions. Such technologies may include ocean fertilization, carbon sequestration, geo-engineering options (e.g., deploying mirrors in space) or more efficient solar or photovoltaic technologies. Similarly, there is a finite, non-zero probability that new and improved adaptation technologies will become available that will substantially reduce the net adverse impacts of climate change.
The historical record shows that this has occurred over the past century for virtually every climate-sensitive sector that has been studied. For example, from 1900-1970, U.S. death rates due to various climate-sensitive water-related diseases — dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid, other gastrointestinal disease, and malaria —declined by 99.6 to 100.0 percent. Similarly, poor agricultural productivity exacerbated by drought contributed to famines in India and China off and on through the 19th and 20th centuries killing millions of people, but such famines haven’t recurred since the 1970s despite any climate change and the fact that populations are several-fold higher today. And by the early 2000s, deaths and death rates due to extreme weather events had dropped worldwide by over 95% of their earlier 20th century peaks (Goklany 2006).
With respect to another global warming bogeyman — the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (AKA the meridional overturning circulation), the basis for the deep freeze depicted in the movie, The Day After Tomorrow — the IPCC WG I SPM notes (p. 16), “Based on current model simulations, it is very likely that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century. The multi-model average reduction by 2100 is 25% (range from zero to about 50%) for SRES emission scenario A1B. Temperatures in the Atlantic region are projected to increase despite such changes due to the much larger warming associated with projected increases in greenhouse gases. It is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the 21st century. Longer-term changes in the MOC cannot be assessed with confidence.”
Not much has changed since then. A shut down of the MOC doesn’t look any more likely now than it did then. See here, here, and here (pp. 316-317).
If one wants to develop rational policies to address speculative catastrophic events that could conceivably occur over the next few centuries or millennia, as a start one should consider the universe of potential catastrophes and then develop criteria as to which should be addressed and which not. Rational analysis must necessarily be based on systematic analysis, and not on cherry picking one’s favorite catastrophes.
Just as one may speculate on global warming induced catastrophes, one may just as plausibly also speculate on catastrophes that may result absent global warming. Consider, for example, the possibility that absent global warming, the Little Ice Age might return. The consequences of another ice age, Little or not, could range from the severely negative to the positive (if that would buffer the negative consequences of warming). That such a recurrence is not unlikely is evident from the fact that the earth entered and, only a century and a half ago, retreated from a Little Ice Age, and that history may indeed repeat itself over centuries or millennia.
Yet another catastrophe that greenhouse gas controls may cause is that CO2 not only contributes to warming, it is also the key building block of life as we know it. All vegetation is created by the photosynthesis of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, according to the IPCC WG I report (2007, p. 106), net primary productivity of the global biosphere has increased in recent decades, partly due to greater warming, higher CO2 concentrations and nitrogen deposition. Thus , there is a finite probability that reducing CO2 emissions would, therefore, reduce the net primary productivity of the terrestrial biosphere with potentially severe negative consequences for the amount and diversity of wildlife that it could support, as well as agricultural and forest productivity with adverse knock on effects on hunger and health.
There is also a finite probability that costs of GHG reductions could reduce economic growth worldwide. Even if only industrialized countries sign up for emission reductions, the negative consequences could show up in developing countries because they derive a substantial share of their income from aid, trade, tourism, and remittances from the rest of the world. See, for example, Tol (2005), which examines this possibility, although the extent to which that study fully considered these factors (i.e., aid, trade, tourism, and remittances) is unclear.
Finally, one of the problems with the argument that society should address low probability high impact events (assuming a probability could be estimated rather than assumed or guessed) is that it necessarily means there is a high probability that resources expended on addressing such catastrophic events will have been squandered. This wouldn’t be a problem but for the fact that there are opportunity costs associated with this.
According to the 2007 IPCC Science Assessment’s Summary for Policy Makers (p. 10), “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” In plain language, this means that the IPCC believes there is at least a 90% likelihood that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (AGHG) are responsible for 50-100% of the global warming since 1950. In other words, there is an up to 10% chance that anthropogenic GHGs are not responsible for most of that warming.
This means there is an up to 10% chance that resources expended in limiting climate change would have been squandered. Since any effort to significantly reduce climate change will cost trillions of dollars (see Nordhaus 2008, p. 82), that would be an unqualified disaster, particularly since those very resources could be devoted to reducing urgent problems humanity faces here and now (e.g., hunger, malaria, safer water and sanitation) — problems we know exist for sure unlike the bogeymen that we can’t be certain about.
Spending money on speculative, even if plausible, catastrophes instead of problems we know exist for sure is like a starving man giving up a fat juicy bird in hand while hoping that we’ll catch several other birds sometime in the next few centuries even though we know those birds don’t exist today and may never exist in the future.
“Spending money on speculative, even if plausible, catastrophes instead of problems we know exist for sure is like a starving man giving up a fat juicy bird in hand while hoping that we’ll catch several other birds sometime in the next few centuries even though we know those birds don’t exist today and may never exist in the future.”
Perfect. Really couldn’t have said it better.
Climate Change is billions of years old.
Never has the Earth not undergone Climate Change.
“Probabilities do not exist.” Bruno De Finetti .
A probability may become a reality at some point of course, but I really wish people would stop acting as if a probability was a certainty, instead of merely a statement of the state of our knowledge. I suppose that’s too much to ask for, tho.
If we burn all our fossil fuels, we might reach 550 – max 700 ppm atmospheric CO2, probably in the 550 – 600 ppm range, assuming that emitted CO2 is absorbed in current proportions (about 50% absorbed, 50% to the atmosphere.)
Well put together argument Indur. This link http://www.vr.se/webdav/files/Webbtv/VET0010/Player/default.htm?http://www.vr.se/webdav/files/Webbtv/VET0010/Ondemand/090511/cue_0004.asx&http://www.vr.se/webdav/files/Webbtv/VET0010/Ondemand/090511/
Demonstrates to my thinking just how unsure the scientific community are of their facts and more inportantly how they should conduct themselves.
There are two aspects of this catastrophism, one is in reality the projection of a part of the american society. We acknowledge that there has always been several churches or rather sects which have proclaimed and forecasted, several times, fortunately unsuccesfully, all kinds of armageddons, and which have reached so far as to commit mass suicide.
One different case is that of the IPCC, produced by a section of the United Nations, being its nature to obey and follow evidently political purposes of a well paid international bureaucracy that, being unconciously aware of its incapacity to survive in a free and competitive world, voluptuosly desire nothing less than to govern and rule over the free world, as an insane psychological compensation, and in order to attain that objective they have invented a wide array of organizations which are meddling in the internal affairs not only of countries but of individuals.
LOL, AWG is a total hoax, end of story……
In a year or so the headlines might read, not enough food to go around, global cooling limiting food production. Let’s hope and pray this is NOT the case.
Typo above, it’s AGW
“Spending money on speculative, even if plausible, catastrophes instead of problems we know exist for sure”
If you’d investigate the cause of those problems we know exist for sure (I’d like to hear more about them by the way) you’d come to the conclusion that it’s the same thing causing Global Warming, if it were to exist. The whole world runs on the concept of infinite exponential economic growth, but the system isn’t infinite. That’s what’s driving the increase of global problems such as water scarcity, top soil erosion, financial bubbles, ocean de-alkalinisation, and in some cases even the hunger Mr Goklany mentions.
I thought the problem with Global Warming is that by the time you know it exists for sure you are much too late to do anything about it and as a consequence you will suffer great economic and societal damage. It’s all about risk assessment, isn’t it?
If Conor Clarke is wrong, some damage will be done for sure, but it will be peanuts compared to the damage the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has done, for instance.
If Indur Goklany is wrong, GDP will be the last thing people worry about.
It is in fact highly plausible that the ice sheet mass balance will remain negative for millenia.
* the raditative forcing from e.g. CO2 will remain for a long time after emmisions are stopped.
* The surface of the greenland ice sheet is as cold as it is because it is ~3 km above sea level. Once it thins the surface will get warmer and the mass balance more negative. This positive feedback will be hard to stop once it gets started. Ice sheet models show that the ice sheet will not grow back under current climate if you remove it.
I will also note that there is evidence that during a climatically stable period of the Last Interglacial, sea level suddenly rose by 2-3 m withing a few centuries (Blanchon et al, Nature 2009). It shows that we must consider the possibility of a catastrophic ice sheet collapse to be plausible.
It’s the tragic record of alarmism.
They scare the hell out of people and untill today non of the predicted catastrophic events ever happened.
So, don’t worry be happy one should say!
No directly. The alarmists have a political agenda which is Global Governance and population control. In fact they have planned to reduce world population at a “sustainable” level of 2 billion.
Their method of choice (see Holdren file, the current Science Secretary of the Obama Administration) is GENOCIDE:
From Lord Christopher Monckton:
Genocide Is Real Aim of Global Warming Swindle
June 7, 2009—British influential Lord Christopher Monckton said in a June 2 interview with 21st Century Science & Technology that the cabal’s intentions in promoting the global warming fraud, was never about the climate but was always about setting up world government.
Lord Monckton also reiterated his view that the motive for promotion of the triple frauds of global warming, biofuels, and the DDT scare, is the genocidal
reduction of the world population, especially in Third World nations.
Lord Monckton has special authority in stating this. His grandfather played a key
role in arranging the 1936 abdication of that chief symbol of Britain’s Nazi-loving aristocracy, King Edward VIII, as part of the effort by anti-fascists to crush the Hitler project in Britain.
Monckton said that the global warming cabal will use the Copenhagen Climate Summit, scheduled for December 2009, to turn the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change into an enforcement body for world government.
“They are not frankly particularly worried about whether they get a deal on who should cut global emissions by how much,” Monckton said. “It is not, and never was, about that.”
Monckton also restated his view that the global warming scare is the third
genocide being committed against the world’s population.
He said people are already dying, all over the world, of starvation caused by the biofuels scam, which came out the global warming scare. The other two genocides that Monckton speaks about are:
(1) The banning of DDT which has so far caused the deaths of 40 million, and has left millions more, mostly children, still infected with malaria.
(2) The failure to properly respond to the AIDS pandemic, by use of well-established public health measures, including universal testing, and isolation and treatment of the carriers. This intentional genocidal policy has led to 25 million deaths worldwide, and at least 40 million inflected.
Monckton’s horrifying estimate of the number of persons infected with the HIV virus is only a published estimate by the World Health Organization. The extent of the HIV
infection in the world population is not known since there is still to this day resistance to a policy of universal testing for the HIV virus in the general population.
In a presentation to the Third International Conference on Climate Change, hosted in Washington, D.C. by the Heartland Institute June 2, Monckton pointed out that the key to the victory over the cabal pushing world governance lies in the United States. Monckton said: “In the end, it will be here, in the United States, that the truth will first emerge. … Not in Europe, for we are no longer free. …
It is here, in this great nation founded upon liberty, that the battle for the world’s freedom will be won.”
Excellent, Mr. Goklany.
Regarding real threats with dire consequences, upon which mankind (or the appropriate segments thereof) should devote time, intelligence, and effort, this from my energy blog dated March 27, 2009:
“Is it true that many environmentalists consider the impact of humans on the environment to be the single most important issue the world currently faces? No doubt, there are many in that camp who would agree. But that leaves off the more important questions, doesn’t it? Questions like attacks from terrorist groups, threats from new diseases, threats from impacts of asteroids, threats from major solar eruptions, threats from super volcano eruptions, and the cataclysmic threat from the sudden breaking away of a portion of the Hawaiian island that will result in a titanic tsunami of more than 1000 feet height. The relative impacts of each of the threats listed above would show that impact [of humans] on the environment is not nearly as important as the others. “
see http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/03/intro-environmental-science-versus.html
Neven (08:28:51) :
You must know a few things to understand the facts:
-Global Warming theorist argue that the CO2 causes green house warming.
But:
-CO2 it is not black in color.
-CO2 is the gas YOU exhale (about 900 grams a day)
-CO2 is the gas plant BREATH and without it vegetation would disappear.
-CO2 is HEAVIER than air, so it can not go up there, where your imagination puts it to provoke any “green house effect”.
-The air, the atmosphere, can not hold heat as you probably suppose. It holds only 3227 times less than water, so, again, there is no such a “heat piggy bank” you imagine, anywhere in the atmosphere.
-CO2 is only a TRACE gas in the atmosphere: The 3.8 PER TEN THOUSAND of it.
-Our planet it is not covered with glass, so heat irradiates to the open space.
-Last but not least: They have cheated you. Why?. Try your best to determine why….but your pocket and your family will realize it soon.
Worrying about what may happen 200+ years in the future is absurd. “If present trends continue” is a sign of total ignorance. Apart from death and taxes, trends never last long. Far more likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster will take a dump on D.C. (alas, probably wishful thinking)
Spending money on problems that do not exist takes resources away from very real problems. We need reliable and economical energy. Wind and solar cannot deliver that now and may never be able to. Fresh water. We have it, but poorly managed in many countries. Many of the problems stem from bureaucratic governments trying to solve problems that don’t exist.
Fixing that may not be possible.
Spending money on speculative, even if plausible, catastrophes instead of problems we know exist for sure is like a starving man giving up a fat juicy bird in hand while hoping that we’ll catch several other birds sometime in the next few centuries even though we know those birds don’t exist today and may never exist in the future.
That’s a keeper if there ever was one.
I suppose when climate scientists get university tenure or a government job-for-life, they are issued a gold standard measuring device for determining earth’s absolute sea level that works backward and forward for millions of years. Those of us not so anointed are only able to determine sea levels with respect to some point of land which often tricks us by either rising from or subsiding into the sea.
In terms of its life cycle, the sun will eventually expand to engulf the Earth before it collapses in death. What are we doing about that?
Neven,
the abatement of CO2 emissions to the level that IPCC mandate is required to prevent their modelled run away global warming scenarios is far from trivial. The brute fact, unsurprisingly not mentioned by those advocating such draconian abatement, is that, with todays technology, it means putting GDP growth into negative.
The UK economy has reduced its CO2 emissions per 1000 dollar of GDP since 1990 from 0.65 tons to 0.42 tons but at the cost of a steep decline in manufacturing and a shift into services. This was not part of some grand strategy, you understand, it just happened. However this cannot go on any more as everyone acknowledges manufacturing is too low. The next step is to replace cheap and reliable coal/gas generated power to expensive and unreliable wind power, with all that portends for energy costs for the remaining manufacturing base. Going still further, energy use will have to be decoupled from the economy, returning to a pre industrial era.
The starving man could easily be the gambler. Only, the Global Climate Catastrophists are gambling with yours and my own existence. They’ve nothing better to do with their own lives, so they risk others.
A good, thought-provoking contribution. As I see it, possible problems posed by any changes in climate over the next 100 years or so will be small compared with the ecological consequences resulting from the rapidly growing human population itself. Competition for water, mineral and biological resources and for living space are already significant in some regions. Increasing rates of habitat degradation and resource loss on a continental scale (e.g. rain forests, African Sahel, marine zone) will surely bring greater adverse impacts than climate ‘problems’ well before 2100. Removal of forests and other land cover is now considered to reduce rainfall and increase surface temperature over wide areas. Consequential risks of regional conflict have been foreseen. All this is well known, yet world states seem loathe to tackle these looming and predictable threats in a co-ordinated global manner. Instead, they are allowing themselves to be distracted, instead, by the far-off ‘catastrophes’ predicted by AGW theorists . The demographic problems are already happening.
Here’s an interesting video. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/03/cherry-picking-climate-catastrophes-response-to-conor-clarke/#comments
Town hall meeting. Congressman TIM BISHOP (D, NY ) PROTEST, SETAUKET, NY, getting raked over the coals on Cap & Trade, and Health care.
Conner, If I were you, I wouldn’t worry about it.
As a bit of perspective, the geographic center of North America is in North Dakota, very close to the Canadian border. The geographic center of Eurasia is probably quite similar. I suspect that all species will be able to migrate and adapt quite well should significant AGW occur 100, 200 or 1,000 years from today.
I also note that your study did not extend to 9,000,000,000 AD when the sun is expected to be a burned out hulk.
There are some serious solar effects left out of your analysis.
I will bet serious money that I am the first one on this thread to even raise the question.
I will also note that there is evidence that during a climatically stable period of the Last Interglacial, sea level suddenly rose by 2-3 m withing a few centuries (Blanchon et al, Nature 2009). It shows that we must consider the possibility of a catastrophic ice sheet collapse to be plausible.
And the Yellowstone Caldera could go at any time.
Or the New Madrid fault could slip.
The whole world runs on the concept of infinite exponential economic growth, but the system isn’t infinite.
Growth can go on for a very long time if we keep making things smaller.