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.
Moncton’s not doing too well at gaining “my” respect.
He states that “Millions” are starving as a result of biofuels.
Where? Where are the millions that are starving due to a $0.01 Increase in the cost of a pound of, what is, basically, cattle feed?
If he’s That far “out to lunch” on something about which I know a little something, why should I believe anything he says about anything else?
[Reply: If you want to criticize him you should at least be able to spell his name. ~dbstealey, mod.]
bluegrue (15:42:21) :
Why don´t you try going to the nearest desert, in the middle of the summer, in t-shirts and shorts, and sleep there. Of course, if you are right you won´t need any sleeping bag or anything like that to be comfortably warm during the night.
Don´t forget to take with you a thermometer to check how temperature is kept by your CO2 in the atmosphere!
However, if you feel cold during the night, my advice is for you to write 10 thousand times the following sentence:
“I am a fool and I was cheated by those silly global warmers”
Robert (16:13:04) :
You won´t ever, never, be an architect. But, if you believe in what you say…why not beginning with you?…there will be one less and you´ll make a great service to humanity.
Robert (16:13:04) : “If all 6.8 billion people were in Texas. Each person would have a space of about 33 feet square (1000 square feet).”
Texas only has two dimensions? 🙂
As a lad of 20 I heard science fiction writer Isaac Asimov speak at the college I was attending. During the address he mentioned that humanity at the time made up about 1/X of all animal mass on earth (as I recall he put X at about 10,000). Thus to a first approximation human population could grow some 10,000 times, or well into the trillions, without exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth. Humans would live in high rise megastructures to reserve arable land for agriculture, and each would be topped with algae-growing vats fertilized by human waste, including bodies.
I wouldn’t want to file the Environmental Impact Report. 🙂
Jacob Mack (15:00:02):
So we’ll throw in Oklahoma. Happy now? We’ll keep Nevada for a spare. But we won’t need it, because the entire rest of the world will be unpopulated.
More Jacob Mack errors:
Appeal to Authority much, Jacob? You would do much better getting up to speed on WUWT, rather than being led by the nose by the propaganda outlets you named.
[I subscribed to the AAAS journal Science to Forbes, and to the Economist for three decades. I’ve seen Science and theEconomist change from reporting the news, to telling people what they should think.]
And BTW, you’re wrong about everything you mentioned above: global ice is not shrinking, in fact it is growing. Polar ice is becoming thicker. And the rest of your statement is not even debatable, it’s so mixed up and confusing. Anyone who makes the flat statement that “CO2 is most definitely a real danger” already has his mind made up. Contrary facts can be so unsettling to a [snip]. Right, Jacob?
But thanx for playing, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.
Reply: Please don’t accuse debate opponents of blind faith. ~ charles the moderator
Yes Gtrip, that is all me, what is your point? I have taken many other courses as well and I have advanced my degrees since those profiles, but I will give you a B for effort.
Well, I KNOW Corn, and Soybeans do “Extemely Well” with double the CO2 levels as are currently present in the atmosphere.
How do I “Know” that? Somebody, Actually, did an “Experiment.” Under “Real Life” Conditions.
http://soyface.illinois.edu/results/AAAS%202004%20poster%20Leakey.pdf
Imagine that; An EXPERIMENT. What’ll they think of next?
Gary,
Ol Isaac missed that one, I’m afraid. You remove the little “critters” from the soil, and we’d all starve within a year.
Smokey recap:
so all the major scientific journals and magazines are all wrong or lying. Never mind NASA, NOAA, Princeton AOS, MET, Nature AAS, PBS, and the BBC. The majority of college professors out there who are experts in such areas are also lying.
Oh and if you read other posts of mine here, Smokey, you will see I am not an alarmist either, but that by acquiring a well rounded education and making my own obersvations and reading of the actual research and experiments, I know CO2 cannot just keep going up w/o negative consequences… re-read some of my other posts first.
Thank you Charles, fair statement.
Question: Is the current inflammatory rhetoric on global warming necessary, given the exponential rise in renewable energy?
“According to a recent report released by the Worldwatch Institute, the renewable energy industry is “stepping up its meteoric rise into the mainstream of the energy sector”. The report, called REN21 Renewables 2007 Global Status Report, notes that capacities are growing rapidly as a result of more countries enacting far-reaching policies. For example, in 2007 global wind generating capacity is estimated to have increased 28 percent, while grid-connected solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity rose 52 percent.”
“So much has happened in the renewable energy sector during the past five years that the perceptions of some politicians and energy-sector analysts lag far behind the reality of where the renewables industry is today,” says Mohamed El-Ashry, Chair of REN21.”
http://www.energyrefuge.com/blog/the-rise-of-renewable-energy/
An older technology that remains useful is to pump water to a higher level and subsequently use the stored potential energy to generate electricity. Pumped hydro is a low-tech approach that been around since 1890, and works with 70-85% efficiency on all scales of magnitude. It is the most-used storage technique in the world. Information on pumped hydro is easy to find, and has been part of the debate on renewable energy for years, so when I hear the opinion that wind and solar energy are hopelessly intermittent, and will destabilize the power grid, I can’t help but think that selective ignorance is at work. The concept of pumped hydro storage has been given added versatility with new configurations using tunneling and “energy islands” that use seawater as the lower reservoir: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/3/61410/6465
Solar thermal and Stirling engines are other examples of older energy ideas being considered.
At this website the relative merits of energy storage have been organized: http://www.electricitystorage.org/site/technologies/
Electrochemical capacitors, or so-called “supercapacitors” or “ultracapacitors” have been branded a potentially “disruptive technology” for the 21st century.
Maxwell Technologies has driven the acceptance of supercapacitors into mainstream electronics design, with an eye on larger magnitudes of storage in the future. http://www.maxwell.com/
The focus of EEstor Inc. is not technically a battery, and redefines the concept of energy storage with a technology that generated tremendous interest:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:EEStore
The Holy Grail of photovoltaics is to mimic photosynthesis in plants. It has become reality with the Dyesol company: http://www.dyesol.com/index.php?page=HowItWorks
Free market forces will achieve what Cap and Trade will be unable to do. China’s legendary appetite for coal is tempered by the fact it is poised to become a major contender in the production of solar panels, and market analysts predict that in the near future the cost of electricity from solar generation will come close to or even become lower than that of power generation by coal.
The next decade will see cost-effective alternative energy, with the complexity of extracting the remaining petroleum reserves becoming prohibitive. Several groups are already developing plans and programs for recycling toxic materials used in manufacturing solar panels and batteries.
Bottom line, the production of man-made CO2, and therefore the alleged threat of AGW, will be a non-issue if we simply let technical innovation take it’s course in the research and development of renewable energy.
Jacob Mack (15:00:02):
“The all of the people could fit in texas myth continues. If all 6.8 billion people were in Texas. Each person would have a space of about 33 feet square (1000 square feet).”
Smokey, I never said this; you are quoting someone else, not me.
Jacob, you seem to need those consensus arguments to validate what you believe. TIME magazine pushed eugenics prior to WWII, along with many others. Do you agree with that consensus, too?
I wouldn’t have commented at all, except for your statement that “C02 is most definitely a real danger.” Name another molecule that is as harmless and beneficial as CO2 in the concentrations being discussed.
I challenge you to provide actual evidence to back up your claim. Please, no computer model “evidence,” just something falsifiable and reproducible. Provide some real world evidence that CO2 is a “real danger.”
Let us assume that Gavin et al are correct. Even so, the UN forecasts a peak of global population in 2050 (a very late date, compared to my own forecast). One would imagine a similar peak in GHG emissions, maybe sooner than that, maybe later. But there will be peak of emissions. After that, Mother Nature will eventually fix the GHGs. So, even if GHGs are the bogeyman Gavin et al claim, they will peak, then fall.
Now, let’s talk reality:
– Population peak much earlier (and possible rapid fall)
– GHG forcing well impacted by negative feedbacks
– Extra terrestrial forces are huge and presently reminding us we are a molecule on a elephant’s arse.
The permafrost is not melting. Current increases in methane are likely caused by rice paddy type production (these last two centuries have seen an amazing increase in rice production). There are ice core measures of methane that go back many 1000’s of years. It goes up and down. Current levels are nothing new.
bluegrue (14:37:09) :
Sooo, DDT was banned? Interesting. Google for “WHO DDT”, first hit:
Frequently asked questions on DDT use for disease vector control
WHO recommends indoor residual spraying of DDT for malaria vector control.
Oh, and keep in mind there may be a reason for not using DDT everywhere. Ever heard of pesticide resistance?
Bluey, you are either being disingenuous or abysmally ignorant. Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring was published in 1962, launching both the environmentalist movement and a political campaign against DDT. The issue wasn’t harm to humans (sheesh, you can even EAT small quantities of DDT with no ill-effect) but rather the purported thinning of eggshells in wetland birds. DDT was effectively banned in the 1970s and malaria, which was damned near eliminated, roared back to life and killed millions in the third world, particularly infants. Hawks, eagles and egrets were more important than the children of Africa and Asia. Bluey, if you can’t sense my contempt…
CodeTech (14:59:55) :
paulm:
Which catastrophes due to climate change are happening here and now?
I remember not too long ago the “consensus” was that the drought in Australia was caused directly by the magic molecule.
I was really interested in this story by the ABC, Australia’s BBC on the result of the flood waters of far N. Queensland as they travel down the tributaries to lake Eyre.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/lake-eyre/
So IMO this bird and wildflower plague that is infesting these inland rivers and lake Eyre is a result of global warming, funny how the ABC isn’t reporting it that way.
Quote:”Jacob, you seem to need those consensus arguments to validate what you believe. TIME magazine pushed eugenics prior to WWII, along with many others. Do you agree with that consensus, too?” end quote–
No, not at all, I look at the climate reports and weather reports for one. I also look at satellite images, ice core data, tree ring data, and I review and reproduce the actual matheamtical analyses used in the papers and reports. The math used in recent papers like the Mclean paper was not used correctly and as such falsifies itself. As far as consensus, well, I do believe in a series of connections between evidence. In science experiments and observations must be repeatable a number of times before they can become validated. Also in most of science like climatology, statistical analysis is indispensable; margins for error, error analysis, degree of correlation, all of these are very important in measuring such a vast and complex system, like global climate. I do want to add, however, that the actual global circulation models do include the laws of physics and the actual explnation of global warming by anthropogenic means is all in line with the actual physics and chemistry. So, while correlation does not equal causation we are dealing in just hand waving and speculation either. Take a visit to the doctor as an example. The doctor finds that you have a high BP of 160/100…there is of course no gurantee that you will ever have a stroke or heart attack or even if you end up having one, it may be many decades before you have one, yet, the “risk factor,” is present. Now add to that high cholesterol and/or triglycerides and you have a trifecta…the same can be said the interactions of water vapor, CO2 and CH4.
There is certainly scientific consensus that high bp and high ester–triglycerol, fatty acid levels in the blood increases likelihood of a cardiac event or cerberal stroke. The same is true of the postive interactions and net impacts of CO2, CH4 and water vapor. The evidence of the characteristics of these compounds can be found in: Chemistry, Matter and Its Changes Brady and Senese, Physical Chemistry and Advanced Inorganic chemistry authored by Peter Atkins, or on such sites like:http://netbnr.net/loc.html?http://search.live.com/results.aspx%3Fgo%3DSearch%26q%3Ddfein%253A%2520liklihood%26form%3DCPNTLB.
Let us not forget that CO2 also reacts with H20 and froms carbonic acid which is not good at the levels we are discussing now.
Here as well:Avoiding dangerous climate change By Hans Joachim Schnellnhuber, Wolfgang P. Cramer, N. Nakicenovic, Ed, Great Britain. Dept. for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Tom Wigley, G. Yohe, Ed.
One minore correction: “So, while correlation does not equal causation we are ‘NOT’ dealing in just hand waving and speculation either. Damn keyboard did not put in n-o-t.
The issue wasn’t harm to humans (sheesh, you can even EAT small quantities of DDT with no ill-effect)
When we were cleaning out my aunt’s house for sale, we happened on a bag of DDT. So of course I had to eat a spoonful. (When possible, I put my money where my mouth is.) Rather tasteless, actually. I was expecting a salty flavor.
And of course it’s no threat to birds (or any other non-arthrodpods), whatever, especially if modern pesticide usage methods are applied.
I will be patient, but I saw my rebuttal post to Smokey who challenged me to find evidence here, then it disappeared, but I will be patient; I am sure it will reappear.
SteveSadlov (18:41:46) :
Let us assume that Gavin et al are correct. Even so, the UN forecasts a peak of global population in 2050 (a very late date, compared to my own forecast). One would imagine a similar peak in GHG emissions, maybe sooner than that, maybe later. But there will be peak of emissions. After that, Mother Nature will eventually fix the GHGs. So, even if GHGs are the bogeyman Gavin et al claim, they will peak, then fall.
Now, let’s talk reality:
– Population peak much earlier (and possible rapid fall)
– GHG forcing well impacted by negative feedbacks
– Extra terrestrial forces are huge and presently reminding us we are a molecule on a elephant’s arse.
Steve, You are right,
World population will peak short term (within 15 years) and we certainly are a molecule on a elephant’s arse.
No information presented by the current UN is correct.
They are only after money and power to turn our world in a slaughter house (again).
Obama was handpicked for the job to line up the USA to accept their treaties.
“Spreading the wealth”, you get it?
Fact is that our political establishment is in a process which will seriously jeopardize the Free World and betrayal their populations.
The Russians, the Chinese the Indians and a number of crack pot Nations obsessed with nuclear proliferation have there own agenda.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
SteveSadlov (18:41:46) :
Ahhh, Steve, have you got a link to that UN population estimate? I’ve been anticipating world population decline in the mid-21st century, but I’ve not analyzed the data. Pretty sloppy, I know…. but 2050 sounds much too soon… China is not yet stabilized, India is even farther off, and most of Africa has not yet passed through the demographic transition. Just getting clean water to those populations will have a marked effect on infant mortality and their population structure. They’ll pass through the transition much faster than the West did, but 40 years? If you’ve got the link, it will save me time… otherwise, I’ll have to dig. I hate digging.
Jacob Mack (18:22:22) :
“so all the major scientific journals and magazines are all wrong or lying. Never mind NASA, NOAA, Princeton AOS, MET, Nature AAS, PBS, and the BBC. The majority of college professors out there who are experts in such areas are also lying.”
I think you are confusing a few things. Keep in mind there are “official positions” at many of these places. That does not mean that a majority agree with those positions. And, yes they are wrong. They have put too much trust in a science that is just beginning. This is not the first time this has happened.
Do you really believe that climate scientists are so much smarter than scientists in other fields? Take solar scientists for example. Most of them thought cycle 24 was going to be another big one. Looks like they were wrong. How is that possible? How about medical research. Since you are young you probably weren’t around for all the predictions of cures for cancers, diabetes, etc. that came out in the 1970s. Looks like they were wrong too. How is that possible? Not only that but these predictions were carried in all the media and pretty much accepted by the very same institutions you mentioned.
The fact is our technological prowess is not nearly as great as many think. This is particularly true of massively complex, non-linear systems … you know, like weather and climate. The research is just beginning.
Finally, do you really believe that anyone would be predicting the climate 50 years from now if their jobs depended on it? Climate scientists have a free pass to say just about anything they believe with little need for caution. I’m sure most of them believe what they are saying, just like the medical researchers of the 1970s. The fact that CO2 absorbs and radiates energy is just the beginning of the story as you will find out over time.
Once you’ve lived a little longer and get to see all the wrong predictions for yourself you will wonder how you could have been so naive.
What is the likelihood that the IPCC doesn’t have enough information to be making predictions with a 90% likelihood about climate and its effects 100 years from now?
More than 90%, I’d bet.