Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

1950s less, 1980s more, 2010s less .... I doubt that I will still be around in the 2040s to see the Arctic sea-ice back to the amounts that it had in the 1980s but I will look down and smile...

 

Meanwhile, this sea-ice reference is still the best compendium for perusal.

 

http://wp.me/P7y4l-5Kc

[mike777]

So at this point we dont have the science to say it is very urgent...yet....

we agree that more measurement is warranted.

[dwar0123]

So at this point we dont have the science to say it is very urgent...yet....

we agree that more measurement is warranted.

The urgency is indifferent to our knowledge of it.

[mike777]

The urgency is indifferent to our knowledge of it.

 

 

Could not disagree more strongly.

 

With that said I want to measure it.

 

 

Urgency does indeed affect the pace of knowledge/innovation.etc in this case and in the vast majority of cases...see Aids...see a zillion other examples.

 

 

The pace of science is not indifferent to our knowledge/politics/urgency and many other factors.

 

The choice is never never between zero and one billion.

 

---

 

 

 

Given very urgent then you make a decision do 200 million die if choice one or one billion die if choice two...that is urgent.

[dwar0123]

Could not disagree more strongly.

The timing of the changes that would be neccesary to prevent the worst of the consequences of global warming is indifferent to our understanding of their neccesity.

 

If we have to reduce carbon emissions to a certain level by a certain date, that level and date don't change by us learning what it is. That level could be half the current rate within two years making the urgency hopelessly acute. Our ignorance and uncertainty doesn't change that.

 

Of course if al_u_card is right, there is no urgency. The point I am trying to make is that the urgency either exists or doesn't. The consequences are not going to be delayed by our ignorance.

 

Of course my example over looks the reality that the level and timing would in reality by a large range of different options with varing consequences. But by the time we learn the levels and ranges, all the reasonably good consequences could have requred action twenty years in the past. That is the insidious nature of this problem that humans are not naturally equipped to deal with.

[mike777]

with that said I want to measure it.

 

1) I want to agree on a standard of measurement(not me but you smart guys/gals)

2) I want to measure.

3) I understand this all might take time and debate....so be it.

 

I hope...me...I hope we have alot of time.....for innovation....

 

--

 

 

I dont know the answer

--

 

 

 

I strongly disagree....that urgency cant spur innovation yet you keep saying no it does not.

 

I quoted aids as just one example ..if you look there are many more.

 

You keep quoting only a tiny part of my posts.

[Al_U_Card]

There is certainly an urgent need to beware of people telling us to do something urgently without having provided the explanation or factual information concerning why we must act so urgently.

 

The science journal Nature warns against using weather extremes to connect to GW in their editorial. NOAA et al continue to deny any link between rising temperatures globally (the extent of which is well within human-historical variation)and those "extreme" meteorological events that occur on a seasonal basis. Atmospheric scientist John Christy's latest testimony before Congress goes so far as to caution against using weather events and records as a guide to climate change.Under oath.

 

 

Well-reasoned analysis of data, as always, saves the day. So, unlike Canute, we will watch the seas advance at 3 mm (or less) a year and confidently act accordingly regarding sea-side construction and infrastructure protection. What else are we saving ourselves from? Whither the bogey-man?

[blackshoe]

Two kinds of urgency. One, the rational, reasoned, we have to do X, which will take Y amount of time, and we only have Z amount of time left in which to do X. If Z is significantly greater than Y, then there is none of this kind of urgency. If Z is only a little greater (and maybe if it's a little less), this urgency exists. If Y is significantly greater than Z, then it's too late to do X, and we either give up, or find some other solution. Finding that may or may not be urgent in this sense, depending on the same kind of time constraint comparison. The other kind of urgency is the emotional 'OMG, we have to DO something, and we have to do it NOW!' This is independent of, and often occurs without, the first kind of urgency. It is the kind of urgency favored by demagogues, politicians, and people with personal agendas.

 

What we're seeing is the second kind of urgency. We don't have enough knowledge currently for the first.

[luke warm]

it's kinda like (to me) knowing that one day there will be an ELE, probably an asteroid... how urgent is it that we find a defense against it? nobody knows, though by some estimates we're long overdue... i personally think mankind is far more likely to go because of that event, or nuclear holocaust, then AGW

[Al_U_Card]

The comet/asteroid impact scenario is daunting and definitely catastrophic as well as hard to get the info in time to do anything about it.

 

The most recent list of PHAs

 

a close encounter of the worst kind

 

Near Earth Asteroids

 

Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs) are space rocks larger than approximately 100m that can come closer to Earth than 0.05 AU. None of the known PHAs is on a collision course with our planet, although astronomers are finding new ones all the time.

 

 

At the same site, you also get current solar weather and those CMEs could also be a catastrophic issue. (Carrington event, anyone?)

 

As far as the global effect of a few degrees C, plus or minus, and the glacial versus interglacial periods of our recent geological past, I know which one has been shown to be the most beneficial for humankind.

[Daniel1960]

Reading the previous posts, it is clear that the nature of the urgency is the biggest question. Therefore, I second Mike's statements that we need to continue to measure the effects of increasing CO2, in order to ascertain a climatic change, and an appropriate response. To spend large sums of money to do something that may reduce potential changes seems foolhardy, especially if we so not know whether the changes will be beneficial or harmful. The refernce to the Y2K bug is an excellent example of spending large sums on a perceived problem. We are still early in the game, with conflicting projections, and need to gather more information to determine out current path and the appropriate course of action. I am also leary of those who prject effects which are a factor of ten greater than what we have witnessed to date.

[PassedOut]

Instead of reacting with mindless fears about the effects of a carbon tax, let's look at how it works in actual practice: BRITISH COLUMBIAS CARBON TAX SHIFT: THE FIRST FOUR YEARS

 

The carbon tax has contributed substantial environmental benefits to British Columbia (BC). Since the tax took effect in 2008, British Columbians use of petroleum fuels (subject to the tax) has dropped by 15.1% -- and by 16.4% compared to the rest of Canada. BCs greenhouse gas emissions have shown a similarly substantial decline (although that analysis is based on one years less data).

 

BCs GDP growth has outpaced the rest of Canadas (by a small amount) since the carbon tax came into effect suggesting that it has not adversely affected the provinces economy, as some had predicted. This finding fits with evidence from seven other countries that have had similar carbon tax shifts in place for over a decade, resulting in neutral or lightly positive effects on GDP.

By including some of the costs of the consequences of carbon fuels into the purchase price of the product, you allow market forces to work effectively. That is, of course, why responsible conservatives proposed the carbon tax in the first place.

[billw55]

That's good news. I am generally in favor of response actions that do not have significant economic disadvantages.

 

We need to think of an overall energy policy that will guide how we target resources and build new production capacity over the next several decades. I think all personal use vehicles can and should (eventually) be electric. We will still need some petroleum fuels for things like emergency vehicles, boats, and planes, at least until much further in the future. But ordinary cars ought to have been all electric long before now; I do believe that development of this technology has been suppressed. Electric motors were driving submarines weighing hundreds of tons, underwater, as far back as world war 1. By now we ought to be able to efficiently push a car down the road. Let's get with the program.

 

Of course, this will increase the demand for electric generation, for which I support nuclear plants. No they are not perfect, and yes there are risks. But I believe we can design and operate them more safely. They don't make much CO2, and the fuel sources are less politically volatile.

[PassedOut]

Of course, this will increase the demand for electric generation, for which I support nuclear plants. No they are not perfect, and yes there are risks. But I believe we can design and operate them more safely. They don't make much CO2, and the fuel sources are less politically volatile.

Yes, I agree that nuclear power generation should increase, and that the immediate focus should be on solving the associated technical issues.

[mike777]

There is no resource-management strategy that can prevent disasters just as there is no scientific method that provides only true theories.

 

But there are ideas that reliably cause disasters and one of them is, notoriously, the idea that the future can be scientifically planned.

 

Trying to predict what our net effect on the environment will be for the next century and then subordinating all policy decisions to optimizing that prediction cannot work.

[mike777]

The posts are currently buzzing with plans to force reductions in gas emmissions at almost any cost. But ought to be buzzing much more with plans to reduce the temperature,or how to thrive at a higher temperature. Not at all costs but efficiently and cheaply.

 

As David Deutsch puts it, to embark on an open ended journey of creation and exploration whose every step is unsustainable until it is redeemed by the next.

[hrothgar]

The posts are currently buzzing with plans to force reductions in gas emmissions at almost any cost. But ought to be buzzing much more with plans to reduce the temperature,or how to thrive at a higher temperature. Not at all costs but efficiently and cheaply.

 

Comment 1: The best way that we know of to reduce the temperature is not to force it to rise to begin with. Its a little late for this by now, but at least we can stop making things worse

 

Comment 2: The cheapest and most efficient way for me to deal with higher temperatures is to say "***** the rest of you. I am rich and I can afford a honking big air conditioner. God most have hated you when you decided that you should be born in Bangladesh"

[luke warm]

The cheapest and most efficient way for me to deal with higher temperatures is to say "***** the rest of you. I am rich and I can afford a honking big air conditioner. God most have hated you when you decided that you should be born in Bangladesh"

hear hear, well said

[Al_U_Card]

Interesting news about a minor factor (properly referred to as a "forcing" in climate-speak) that the models discount in global temperature projections...

 

New Scientist?

 

From that article:

 

Our star's subtle influence

A link between Earth's oceans and its upper atmosphere shows one way in which the sun might have a subtle affect on our climate. A disruption known as a sudden stratospheric warming event coincided with the bitter European winter of 2009/2010.

 

Kind of like your home heating doesn't depend on the furnace setting.....much.

[Zelandakh]

Kind of like your home heating doesn't depend on the furnace setting.....much.

This sounds like an excellent suggestion. We could turn the Sun's furnace setting up to 5 by relocating to Mercury or down to 1 by relocating to Pluto; actually Pluto is probably a little too close to be considered a 1, perhaps we could try using Eris instead.

[PassedOut]

Climate change is already damaging global economy, report finds

 

Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.

 

The impacts are being felt most keenly in developing countries, according to the research, where damage to agricultural production from extreme weather linked to climate change is contributing to deaths from malnutrition, poverty and their associated diseases.

As we've seen in British Columbia and other places, a carbon tax does not hurt an economy. On the other hand, the climate change caused by carbon emissions does cost both money and lives. Therefore, the right course of action is to put a carbon tax in place.

[Daniel1960]

Of course, if we position ourselves precarious on the day/night border of mercury, we could experience rather temperature temperatures. Granted, we would need to be somewhat nomadic to stay ahead of the rotation.

[billw55]

Climate change is already damaging global economy, report finds

 

 

As we've seen in British Columbia and other places, a carbon tax does not hurt an economy. On the other hand, the climate change caused by carbon emissions does cost both money and lives. Therefore, the right course of action is to put a carbon tax in place.

Missing premise. We must also know that a carbon tax will affect climate change. That is in doubt.

[hrothgar]

Missing premise. We must also know that a carbon tax will affect climate change. That is in doubt.

 

http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/04/27/of-carbon-taxes-and-price-elasticities/

[dwar0123]

Of course, if we position ourselves precarious on the day/night border of mercury, we could experience rather temperature temperatures. Granted, we would need to be somewhat nomadic to stay ahead of the rotation.

Pretty sure mercury is tidally locked(same side faces the sun at all times)

 

True, due to having no atmosphere, there is no mixing of temperatures between the day and night side, however having no atmosphere there is no ambient temperature. In the sun, you are instantly dead, not in the sun you are as cold as you are on the moon when there is no sun.

 

There is no in-between.