Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Before I start, I’d like to remind readers that as a guest poster, the opinions I voice here are not those of Anthony Watts, and should not be taken as having been endorsed by Watts Up With That.
I am going to propose an idea based on my position as a Lukewarmer regarding climate change. I fully expect to get a lot of criticism from commenters here, and I welcome it. My idea is new (at least to me), and if it is a good idea it will be sharpened by your criticism–and of course, if it is rubbish, best to know quickly, right?
I think the debate on climate change needs some new ideas and criticism too. So blast away–but please bring your A game. I neither need nor want to see the equivalent of ‘you suck, dude.’
Families, businesses and yes, even governments, need to make plans for the future. Those plans used to include assumptions about the physical environment, although most of those assumptions were passive acceptance of the status quo. However, it is now difficult to make assumptions because various theories of climate change and its effects have people wondering if their homes will be threatened by sea level rise, drought, hurricanes or floods.
Because of the competing number of possible futures (the IPCC has many scenarios and many more have been pulled from the science fiction rack and offered up to us), people are somewhat paralyzed by too many choices. I think it is time to recognize that all of use engaged in the debate about climate change are not doing the rest of the world any favors. We are making their life more difficult because they cannot make plans with any confidence.
If there is one dataset that I trust regarding the Earth’s climate, it is the measurement of atmospheric concentrations of CO2. It has been freely available for examination, it is replicated by measurements in more than one site, and in my mind survived criticism from people such as the late Ernst Beck. I trust the numbers.
The numbers show that concentrations of CO2 were 315 ppm in 1958, when Mauna Loa started measuring. Concentrations now are 390 ppm. That is a rise of 19%. The central question in climate change is, ‘What is the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2?’ Is the atmosphere easily influenced by CO2, producing more water vapor and adding to temperature rise, or is the atmosphere largely indifferent? Despite protestations from both sides, the honest answer is we don’t know now, and we are not likely to know for another 30 years.
Temperatures appear to have risen globally, although the accuracy of the data is not yet fully determined. The rise since 1958 appears to be about 0.5 degrees Celsius.
If these were the only statistics available to us, we would quickly conclude that the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to all human-related activities might well be 2.5 degrees Celsius. This would lead to the supposition that, if concentrations of CO2 rise to about 600 ppm, which certainly seems possible, that the Earth’s temperature will rise about another 2 degrees C. Since it’s based on measurement of temperatures, it can be presumed to include all the effects we are having on temperatures, not just CO2.
And I am arguing, no–proposing, that we do exactly that. Attempts to refine models and measurements have been unsuccessful and have served to heighten suspicion and muddy the debate. I have seen very credible arguments for sensitivities that are both higher and lower, but these arguments are based on data or models that have much higher levels of uncertainty associated with them, ranging from differing ways of measuring tropospheric temperatures to analysis of varves from Finnish lakes.
I don’t see undisputed data that will allow us to do better than the 40 years of good data we have now. So I think we should provide a ‘rough and ready’ estimate of 2 degrees C climate change this century to the public, business and politicians, so they can start making plans for the future.
It should obviously come with an asterisk and error bars, and should be presented as ‘crude, but the best we can really do at this time.’ Much like earlier and simpler climate models have often done better in handling projections of future climate, our rougher and cruder metrics may serve us better for now.
We need to stop throwing sci-fi fantasies out as plausible outcomes. We need to provide a range of outcomes based on measurements that we trust.
We also need not to be distracted by elements of the debate that have only served a political purpose. Current temperatures are not unprecedented. There was a MWP and a LIA. Sea level is rising at 3 mm per year. The ice caps are not going to disappear this millenium.
None of that really matters. Temperatures are rising, and more quickly than they have often in the past. (Yes, they have risen this quickly on occasion.) It is the speed of change and the numbers of people those changes will affect that are actually of more concern than the total temperature rise. The people in developing countries are actually more vulnerable than the last time there was a big quick rise–hunter gatherers didn’t have homes and could just move out of harm’s way, and they were few enough in number that they would not have been labeled ‘climate refugees.’
So, I call for all those involved in the climate debate to throw down their weapons, embrace this practical solution as being of use to the rest of the world, climb aboard the Peace Train and sing Kumbaya. Right.
No, have a look at this–tell me if it’s remotely possible that the skeptic community could sacrifice its current temporary, but very real advantage in the debate and agree that a rough metric that acknowledges warming but puts sane boundaries on it would be of use to the rest of the world.
Again, I’d like to thank readers who have made it this far for listening to a different side of the debate in a forum where you are more comfortable seeing the failings of your opponents exposed. If you find the gaping flaw in my logic, my idea can die quickly, if not quietly. If you see merit in my proposal, any indication of such would be warmly welcomed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
given the current rate of CO2 increase we won’t reach 600 ppm until 2155 … so we are not talking about the “next century” but the next century and a half …
to act as if temperatures have risen steadily since 1958 is simply silly …
there is not clear correllation between CO2 and temperatures over the last century … none …
without correllation there can be no causation …
Okay, here’s my A-game:
I’m perfectly happy to hear the opinions, speculations, calculations etc of lukewarmers and moderates, (even though reading Judith Curry is a bit like swimming the butterfly in molasses, and Mosher scares me when he does his mantras.)
No probs with opinions, so long as the the agenda behind them does not consist of any or all of these three things:
1. Crappy energy supply bases on feeble “renewables” and supported by outrageous subsidies. (See Spanish solar, recent WUWT)
2. Industry-strangling carbon taxes, justified by the definition of carbon as a pollutant.
3. Emissions trading. Brainchild of Enron and Lehman Bros, this is probably the worst of all three outcomes. Scoundrels trading in a fragment of thin air.
You see, Thomas, if these are the outcomes of “lukewarmism”, it means that the moderates are more dangerous than the fanatics, since they want the same things as fanatics, but are more likely to keep their jobs.
There you have it: my A-game!
Come on Mr Lukewarmer, give it your best shot … EXACTLY what is the EVIDENCE that man has caused global warming ?
GaryM, you raise a lot of interesting questions. How would you answer them? Remember, I’m not only a Lukewarmer (hiss….), I am also a Democrat living in San Francisco. Can you tell me what conservatives are willing to listen to/ accept as reasonable/ work with?
Thomas, you say: “I just want to point out that I am proposing a 2 degree temperature rise this century from all causes, not just CO2.”
So you would accept a large part of that rise to be entirely natural it would seem. You want us to spend a megazillion $ to control the solar system based on a negotiation between pessimists and realists?
Not my best shot but a reasonable précis.
Regards & peace.
Alan Clark said: “Can we also then agree that the preponderance of evidence shows that C02 follows temperature? Could we further agree that the warming stopped 10 years ago?”
Yes, coming in and out of ice ages, CO2 trails temperature changes. That speaks to the incredible power of other forcings, such as the Milankovich cycles. We think we know which processes have caused CO2 to follow temperature changes coming in and out of ice ages.
That doesn’t mean that CO2 has no temperature effects of its own, nor does it mean that CO2 changes didn’t reinforce the temperature trends going in and out of ice ages — it just means that CO2 didn’t start those huge changes in temperature and everying that followed (glaciation, deglaciation, 350 foot changes in sea levels). CO2 isn’t nearly as powerful as Milankovitch cycles in causing temperature changes, but that doesn’t mean it’s effects are zero or negligible.
Yes, we can agree that warming stopped 10 years ago, and most of us will agree that it will likely start again.
There have been many articles, including those in WUWT, which posit that the flat to declining temperatures we saw after 1940 for several decades, and the flat temperatures we have seen in the last decade, are due to the downward cycle in the PDO. So the flat temps the last decade are likely part of a natural cycle, and do not mean that CO2 has no effects.
What Fuller is trying to get at is, what are the temperature effects of CO2a and other man-made emissions, and can we get at them empirically without using climate models? And what are the effects of temperature increases, e.g., sea level rise? As noted in one of my earlier posts, sea levels right now are rising at a pace of one foot per century. Not so horrific.
I’m lukewarmer like you, but I don’t see any rational scientific analysis that supports a 2C increase this century. You are attributing 100% of the warming since 1958 to CO2, which simply isn’t rational. Without going into all the details, it would seem more rational to suggest that the sensitivity of climate to CO2 doubling is about 1C, not 2.5C, and thus we have probably about a 0.65C warming to come if the doubling is completed. It could be more, it could be less, but that’s my betting man’s under/over. And of course, that doesn’t tell us what actual warming or cooling will occur, only to what extent it would be modified by CO2. If the natural cycle over the next century is a cooling one, we could end up having no warming at all. If it’s a warming cycle, we could warm as much as 1.5C. But it’s pretty hard for me to see a 2C warming. It’s not impossible, just an outlier, and not the happy medium guesstimate.
I’m not opposed to the principle you are trying to put forward, but the numbers do matter, and making a reasonable concession to greenhouse gases is quite reasonable, but it should be guided by actual science, and not by what, politically, we think the opposition or the public will be willing to accept.
Tom Fuller says
“So, I call for all those involved in the climate debate to throw down their weapons”
The weapon, or tool, we all need for the climate debate is the scientific method.
It is the warmists who have thrown that essential tool away, should try to find it again and then rejoin the debate.
The UK alone is already spending more than a billion a year on “saving the planet”, and on what basis? Some corporal Jones like academic who can’t even find his own data who doesn’t ever seem to have seen real Met Stations and the real conditions which clearly are affecting their readings.
As any good manager knows, before you bet the whole economy of the planet of some crazy scheme, you better make sure your facts are straight. So, what have they been doing for the last 30 years? They have been denying that there are any problems with the data when these are clearly worse than useless.
The world is not going to overheat overnight, it is just as likely that fossil fuel usage will reduce naturally as supplies become exhausted than that there will be any more temperature rise. Historical evidence shows that cold periods are the problem for humanity, not warm periods, so the precautionary principle says we don’t need to worry about warming … but we do need to worry about running out of energy or the climate turning colder.
So, before wasting another dollar/pound on this ridiculous scam, let’s spend some decent money getting the global temperature monitoring system which we can actually rely.
Spend the money on a system which no one can fiddle, no one can deny, and then let’s see whether the global temperature is really rising and/or those loonies at the Met Office, etc. can actually forecast the temperature in advance (not forecast what it was)
Late to the party. By now Mr Fuller’s article has been thoroughly deconstructed. But will he change his post-normal science-y based feelings? Will the scales fall from his eyes on the road to Damascus? Will the first glimmer of the scientific method send a tingle up his leg?
No. His mind is made up, and he wants us to take it on faith that CO2 drives the planet’s temperature, rather than following it.
Natural climate variability explains all of the observations. Nothing out of the ordinary is occurring; the wild-eyed arm-waving crowd goes from one frantic scare to the next, hardly able to catch their breath: Himalayan glaciers are disappearing fast, sea level rise is accelerating, Arctic ice has melted almost as much as in 2007, the “missing heat is hidden somewhere in the pipeline,” walruses are committing suicide, corals are bleaching, etc., etc.
None of it can be attributed to CO2, and even less to the ≈3% of CO2 emitted by human activity. There is no empirical evidence to support the CO2 conjecture, and alarmist scientists all scurry away from the scientific method like Dracula hides from the dawn.
Carl Sagan gives his version of the scientific method in his book:
There are more rigorous definitions of the scientific method than Sagan’s [eg: Popper], but Sagan’s will do fine here.
There is not one example of CO2 driving the climate that would pass Sagan’s scientific method. Not a single one.
Vukcevic asks a question up-thread that Mr Fuller cannot agree to, since his mind is already made up:
“You expect sceptics to reconsider their position, but are you willing to do the same?”
Skeptics will reconsider their position when testable, replicable, empirical evidence is produced, based on verifiable raw data. So far there isn’t any evidence that has survived falsification. Therefore, only true believers buy the story that CO2 is the temperature throttle for the planet.
What say you, Tom Fuller? Are you willing to be completely skeptical of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis, unless convincing evidence is produced to support it? Or are you only trying to convince us that your feelings must be right?
I thought real science was about getting to the truth – not some compromise because the models and the data are a bit fluffy. I don’t have a problem with saying there will be a 2c rise of the data supports it, but once you allow for the UHI problems and negative feedback from an increase in clouds it clearly doesn’t.
You forget.. All the temp data except probably recent satellite has been doctored, lost adjusted. there is probably NO significant warming/cooling sice 1880
Thomas,
While I appreciate the invitation to have a dialogue on the topic, rather than an argument, I am disinclined to agree with the your request to have the skeptic community…
“….sacrifice its current temporary, but very real advantage in the debate and agree that a rough metric that acknowledges warming but puts sane boundaries on it would be of use to the rest of the world.”
First, I think that there isn’t much chance that there would be agreement on such a metric. I just looked at the historical data from 1880 to 2010 and it looks a lot like a 0.7 +/- 0.2 degrees C increase with excursions each way over the time period. Like others have said, there is a problem ascribing the blame to CO2 in the earlier half of that series. There is also the logarithmic nature of the CO2 effect, if X ppm CO2 are added to X ppm CO2, and you get a Y degree increase, adding another X ppm will not produce another Y degrees, you pretty well have to go to 2X ppm increase, there is a diminishing return on CO2 investment.
I fear that giving up any advantage would be seen as a surrender in the eyes of the other side. I suppose you could try a little experiment and ask the AGW crowd the same question, ie: can we agree that the temperature over the next century won’t rise more that 1.6 degrees C. Not sure Hansen, Gore, et al would give it much consideration.
All that said, I think that we do stupid things to the environment and we should be more conscious of where we live, but that takes a certain level of economic security that some parts of the world don’t enjoy.
This is all politics. There is no scientific content here. You CANNOT try to settle a question in science in this way. Shonky science subverted to political ends. Eventually there will be a scientific verdict on this and it won’t be arrived at by compromise. The real world will render a verdict if nothing else. You can’t plea bargain with the laws of physics.
Your idea of using only measured increases is doomed by the impossibility of getting people to agree on the endpoints for making such a measurement. You have suggested looking at the increase from 1959 to now. But this is ridiculous because the size of the signal you are hoping to observe is completely swamped by natural climatic cycles and variations.
A slight improvement would be to look at temperatures over the last 3000 years (say) and determine the average and variation over 50 year periods over that time. Then look at the average over the last 50 years and see if it falls outside the natural pattern. If you do that you’ll find temperatures over the last 50 years are well within the range of natural variation. There is nothing detectably unusual about it – neither in absolute terms nor in terms of rates of change.
So what is all the fuss about? I can point to millions of people who were killed by starvation in the biofuels debacle. These are actual people who have died due to an ill considered environmental overreaction. I can’t point to a single life that has been lost due to the effects of `global warming’.
There is absolutely no evidence that a warmer world would be less pleasant to live in. Have you forgotten what the words ‘climatic optimum’ mean? It means conditions were more hospitable then.
In particular there are myths hiding in what you do not say. You implicitly assume warming is bad. The fact is that the predicted warming (assuming itu eventualte which I doubt) doesn’t come in the form of searing daytime temperatures and burning dry desert sands. It comes in the form of warmer nighttime temperatures, cloudy warm nights with less frost, more rain, less chilly winters and slightly longer summers. In other words the higher temperatures for the most part would arrive in ways that would not hurt and indeed that we would probably find quite benign. Then there is the possibility of a greening Sahara. And the certainty that higher CO_2 will lead to faster growing crops.
Look at the world as it was 100 years ago. Rather different to the world today yes? A comparison of what Shanghai looked like then and now should make my point. We adapted to that, we can adapt to a nicer warmer climate if we have to.
Tom – I like the discussion.
My contribution is the emerging reality that as far as we know (about CO2 life cycle and carbon sources) the carbon resources do not exist to be able to double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. People happily speak of CO2 rising as if there was some limitless supply of things to burn. This is simply not the case. There is a gaping hole in the theory that we can run the CO2 level up to 1000 ppm.
Unless petroleum resources turn out to be manufactured naturally under the Earths’ crust, I doubt we can ever top 540 ppm. Without putting real carbon resources on the table, we’re just whistlin’ Dixie.
We know from geologic history that global temperatures (and corresponding sea levels) never remain constant for long, and fluctuate widely in response to natural factors. Unfortunately, natural factors are poorly understood, and we currently have little control over them. At this point in time, we need to accept that even if we completely mitigate our own influence on the climate, natural factors will one day again shift global temperatures and sea levels dramatically in one direction or the other. The only thing constant is change.
Rather than spend inestimable fortunes trying to maintain the status quo, (knowing it’s an exercise in futility), we should ‘plan for change’:
1) Our Federal Flood Insurance program should be modified so that property owners have the option to be bought out as their homes and businesses flood. After they have been offered a buy-out, they can remain in flood prone areas if they wish, but at their own risk: without Federal Flood insurance.
2) We should also develop nuclear power to its full potential. If fast neutron reactors are perfected and put into use, they could burn high level nuclear waste accumulating at nuclear plants across the country and convert it into power. The resulting waste is only slightly radioactive for centuries as opposed to highly toxic for millennia.
3) There are many more ways to ‘plan for change’. I welcome other commenters to submit their ideas.
What are conservatives willing to work with as a starting position? I can’t speak for everyone but this sounds reasonable to me:
Waxman & Markley recalled, tarred and feathered.
Mann, Jones & Briffa, 8 – 10 in a federal facility.
Gore, banished from the planet.
Hansen, Appointed President for Life of Rwanda.
Thomas, I gotta say, my large respect for you has suffered a terrible loss with this posting.
You say:
Say what??? You might “quickly conclude” that, but you would be wrong. We have absolutely no reason to conclude that the sensitivity to “all human-related activities” is 2.5°C. We have no evidence to show whether human activities are responsible for none, some, much, or all of the warming. Your statement is contradicted by even the merest look at the evidence. You are just making things up out of the whole cloth, there is not a scrap of scientific evidence that you are right.
Your brilliant plan seems to be, let’s assume that humans are responsible for the warming, we’ll just pick a midrange value for the sensitivity and be done with all that nasty search for evidence … and you consider yourself qualified to comment on science? That is so far from a scientific viewpoint as to beggar belief.
Whether humans are responsible for the warming is the SUBJECT OF THE DEBATE. You can’t solve it by assuming for simplicity that humans are the cause of the warming, that’s a grade-schooler’s solution to the problem that does nothing but provide false certainty.
I have read some foolish suggestions regarding warming, but your suggestion takes the cake. It appears that you are so unable to deal with scientific uncertainty and lack of knowledge that to get rid of your nervousness about not knowing the answer, you are willing to assume that the AGW doomsayers are right and go on from there.
Look, Thomas, you may be all nervous about your uncertainty, and willing to accede to the other side’s unscientific claims to make it so you are not nervous.
Out here in the real world, however, we don’t care if you don’t like uncertainty, and I for one think that agreeing to the other side’s nonsense purely so your nervousness can be assuaged is not a brilliant plan, or even a good plan.
It is the dumbest plan I’ve heard in a while, and I am shocked and stunned that it is coming from you. Sometimes science simply doesn’t know the answer. When that is the case, the best plan is to say “We don’t know the answer”. However, climate scientists have by and large forgotten how to say that, so they say nothing or claim it is all understood.
Saying “We don’t know the answer, so let’s pretend that it is 2.5 so people can have some certainty”, however, is an idiotic, foolish, stupid, self-destructive plan.
OK. Kumbaya.
What now?
Somehow I miss the point of your post. Getting everyone to make an agreement on CO2 sensitivity? That’s only step 1 of a multistep problem.
The real problem is what, if anything, we should do about global warming.
All but the very most hardcore of skeptics agree that there is global warming. There are some significant differences of opinion (and “opinion” is really all we have at the moment) about the sensitivity of the climate system. I’m optimistic that over the next decade or so that we will dramatically increase our knowledge of the climate system and we will begin to both refine the estimates of sensitivity and to also get a better estimate on the uncertainty and the level of natural variations involved.
But even if a true consensus on climate sensitivity evolves, I don’t see any consensus on actions.
Thomas, you say that … “Temperatures are rising, and more quickly than they have often in the past. (Yes, they have risen this quickly on occasion.)”
I beg to suggest that you are wrong to assume any conclusion from this.
I quote from Professor Bob Carter… “Climate, it seems, changes ceaselessly in either direction: sometimes cooling, sometimes warming, often for reasons that we do not fully understand” (7 Apr 2007).
If there is a way forward on what we should do, I think it has to be expressed as a need for societies to be better prepared in general for climate variability from whatever cause, natural or anthropogenic. We know from history that many societies have been devastated by (natural) climate change, and some completely destroyed (read Fagan’s “The Long Summer” for examples).
Could a country/region cope with a multi-decadal reduction of 25% in precipitation? A 25% increase, which could make a 500-year flood a 25-year flood? Are we ready with new strains of crops if a region steadily warms or cools, or prepared to change what crops are grown?
Are we encouraging behavior that is too “close to the edge”, such as providing subsidized insurance to those who build right on the coast or in flood plains, or to farmers who try to grow frost-intolerant crops too close to the freeze line?
I believe that societies in general do a poor job of planning for low-probability (in the short term) problem events. If we were to do a better job of preparing for extreme weather events in general, it would probably take care of 90% of the potential problems of significant climate change, natural or anthropogenic.
thomaswfuller says:
October 20, 2010 at 2:03 pm
“I have no agenda and approach you with an open declaration of my own beliefs and policy preferences. ”
Please don’t take offence but I feel I have to keep on pushing you on your sincerity.
—“..open declaration of my own beliefs..”
When you first began your posts you told Anthony that you were a skeptic and were described as such on this site. You immediately began posting declarations of your lukewarm stance. On challenging your ‘skeptic’ tag, Anthony commented:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/14/the-joy-of-innovation/
Philip Thomas says:
September 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
“REPLY: Thanks for the reminder. Mr. Fuller said he was a skeptic, and is now a Lukewarmer. So I’ll make the change. – Anthony”
When did you stop considering yourself a skeptic? Why did you post for so long under the skeptic banner without making perfectly clear that this was incorrect? Do you think you obtained a better target demographic having been self-described as a skeptic?
I have already posted details of your links to a company that fishes for contact details of unwitting consumers on behalf of green technology companies, and your connection with large EC tenders, not to mention being a UK government green technology advisor. I feel that you are too close, financially, to the Green technology industry for you not to be scrutinised a little.
“I think we should provide a ‘rough and ready’ estimate of 2 degrees C climate change this century to the public, business and politicians, so they can start making plans for the future.”
How about we hire scientists, people with decades of training, to do this estimate? Why would a sane person rely on the rough guess of guy writing a blog for amusement? (http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/6/69/Fuller-Email-2010-01-14.pdf)
Or better yet, let’s close our eyes and ignore what is happening: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/caribbean-coral-die-off-could-be.html
“Temperatures are rising, and more quickly than they have often in the past. (Yes, they have risen this quickly on occasion.) It is the speed of change and the numbers of people those changes will affect that are actually of more concern than the total temperature rise. The people in developing countries are actually more vulnerable than the last time there was a big quick rise–hunter gatherers didn’t have homes and could just move out of harm’s way, and they were few enough in number that they would not have been labeled ‘climate refugees.’”
So, I call for all those involved in the climate debate to throw down their weapons, embrace this practical solution as being of use to the rest of the world, climb aboard the Peace Train and sing Kumbaya. Right”.
Nope,
Your assessment is wrong and your proposal doesn’t fly, it not only doesn’t fly, it’s disastrous in human terms.
1. For starters, your basic assessment on which you base your proposal is entirely wrong.
Nobody denies that during the latest warming cycle temperatures have been rising and nobody denies that CO2 levels have been rising.
However there is not a single indication that the latest rise in temperatures took place at any faster rate than previous rises during previous warm cycles.
2. Even if CO2 and AGW is real, the most effective way to deal with the effects of higher temperature is to adapt.
We have done this for the past centuries and this strategy is not only the cheapest, it is also the most effective. It’s a proven strategy so to say.
3. If we go the way you propose, hop on the train so to say and reduce the emissions of CO2 on a Global Level the consequences of these measures will be so severe that we really kill people. Not a few but hundreds of millions, mayby billions.
Why?
To make even the smallest dent in the current CO2 budget we would have to shut down our entire industry for the next decades. Think about it.
We are now in a clear cooling cycle that started 10 years ago, despite rising CO2 levels.
We have all the time in the world to observe, get the science right and continue our magnificent civilization without re-educating our populations and jeopardizing our economies.
Adaption is of all times and we are one of the most successful species in doing that.
This is a typical case where doing noting is better than doing something stupid.
I am looking forward to your to your luke warm views of my assessment.
You really have weird ideas.
Most of these posts are way off target. Obviously, like many here, I am sceptical that CO2 is a significant driver of global temps/cliamte change (disruption). Like many here, I suspect that we are in for a period of cooling whereafter we will be in for another period of warming. Leaving aside whether this is nothing more than natural variation, the point of the post was if temps were to rise by 2degC (for whatever reason) what should we do.
I think that AndiC (post at 12:57) has sought to address the question posed. The simple issue is whether a warming of 2degC is a problem. I think that with modest adaption, the answer is NO.
The so called vulnerable in developed countries cannot support themselves now. They are reliant on aid from the developed world. Even, if conditions worsen in the so called developing world, it won’t make much difference since the developed world should benefit from climate change and should be able to give more aid. The developed world for the main part will have longer growing seasons and can therefore ship more food to the developing world. It will also be wetter and again with distribution (and lets face it we can always desalinate sea water) water can be given to the developing world. The only possible problem would be sea levels but the fact is that sea level rise is not accelerating and any rise in sea level will be slow and adaption should be easy (coral isles have a self adapting facility, namely the coral grows faster than the sea level rise so the island does not sink).
Overall, NO real problem. For most, a warmer world will be beneficial. The West merely needs to distribute some of the gains that it will reap from having a warmer climate. The West can save money in not seeking to uselessly curb CO2 emissions and will therefore already possess some money with which to fund an increased distribution program. If food/water is properly distributed there is no reason to presume that there will be huge climate disruption migration.
PROBLEM SOLVED – JUST ADAPT TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY ADAPTION MAY TRULY BE REQUIRED – in the meantime, lets not get too overworked about what is a non problem.