Peter Gleick argues that global warming skeptics are practising pseudo-science because no matter how much evidence piles up for warming, their position does not change. John Quiggin says that the latest evidence ends the scientific debate. Evidence for this can be found at Backseat Driving , where Brian Schmidt finds that warming skeptics just won't put their money where their mouths are and bet against future warming when when offered odds.
Meanwhile the Australian has printed a rather silly article by Ian Plimer:
Does it matter if sea level rises a few metres or global temperatures rise a few degrees? No. Sea level changes by up to 400m, atmospheric temperatures by about 20C, carbon dioxide can vary from 20 per cent to 0.03 per cent, and our dynamic planet just keeps evolving. Greenpeace, contrary to scientific data, implies a static planet. Even if the sea level rises by metres, it is probably cheaper to address this change than reconstruct the world's economies.
Plimer omits to mention that those huge changes took place over hundreds of millions of years and that while the planet kept evolving, that evolving involved mass extinctions of things like the dinosaurs. Living through a mass extinction is unlikely to be pleasant. Plimer also pretends that the other side in the debate is just Greenpeace rather than pretty well all the climate scientists.
For about 80 per cent of the time since its formation, Earth has been a warm, wet, greenhouse planet with no icecaps. When Earth had icecaps, the climate was far more variable, disease depopulated human settlements and extinction rates of other complex organisms were higher. Thriving of life and economic strength occurs during warm times. Could Greenpeace please explain why there was a pre-Industrial Revolution global warming from AD900 to 1300? Why was the sea level higher 6000 years ago than it is at present? Which part of the 120m sea-level rise over the past 15,000 years is human-induced? To attribute a multicomponent, variable natural process such as climate change to human-induced carbon emissions is pseudo-science.
Again he pretends that the other side is just Greenpeace. This may be a bit too complicated for Plimer, but the existence of natural climate change does not disprove the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Nor is the huge amount of research on the attribution of recent climate change "pseudo-science".
Meanwhile, Tim Blair has continued to tout his law that "global warming protests invariably result in local colding". He apparently generalized this "law" from the case of Montreal where global warming protests were followed by a snowstorm on Dec 16 where it was warmer that the average for Dec 16. Oddly enough, Melbourne's walk against warming was followed by Melbourne's warmest December ever recorded, while Sydney's walk against warming was only followed by Sydney's second warmest December ever recorded and hottest New Year's day. Not to worry, Blair counted this as an example of his law as well.
Time for everyone who cares so much to put their money where their mouth is. Do a lot more walking. No more plane trips to Global Warming conferences. No more drives in the country. Fewer beans at supper.
Someone at this blog wanted me to put my money where my mouth was. Only problem is that they wanted me to bet against warming in the future. That is a problem because I have no reason to believe it couldn't get warmer in the future. Nor do I have a reason to believe it couldn't get colder in the future. So betting against that would be quite foolish of me.
Whether humans are actually causing this warming is a completely different story altogether.
Further, it could very well be that human activity is playing some role in the warming, but then you have to answer the million dollar question: how much does human activity affect the Earth's climate if it does?
These are things that people won't want to bet on, because they cannot be proven. Whether the global mean temperature is 1 degree higher 15 years from now, however, can. I just don't have any reason to bet against that since I am not of the belief that the Earth's climate is predictable or static.
These are things that people won't want to bet on, because they cannot be proven.
What makes you think that the evidence could never be strong enough to prove human activities like greenhouse gas emissions are a significant factor in global warming?
Ben,
done and done, at a price of $8.83/tonne CO2. If that's what a non-profit organisation can do, imagine how much cheaper and more efficient the for-profit sector could be.
What makes you think that the evidence could never be strong enough to prove human activities like greenhouse gas emissions are a significant factor in global warming?
I don't know, perhaps the complexity of the atmosphere, the lack of accurate records for temperatures and CO2 levels earlier than 1960 and the 1800s respectively. Among other things.
Yeah, Nathan, but then you guys are out there farting and breathing in the woods and releasing all sorts of CO2 and methane and what not. Do you recover all that on a per-tree investment?
He sez: "Why was the sea level higher 6000 years ago than it is at present?"
But... sea level wasn't higher 6kyr ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-GlacialSeaLevel.png. Its all very well to quibble a bit but simply making things up seems a bit off!
Er.. Tim Blair is, you know, joking. Have you had your funny bone removed?
Er.. Tim Lambert is, you know, joking. Have you had your funny bone removed?
You're quite right that pre-human climate change does not disprove human-induced climate change. It does, however, invalidate the use of evidence of recent climate change as evidence of human-induced climate change. And as such, it's devastating to the 'global warming' argument.
You're also wrong in your assumption that previous climate change necessarily and consistently took place slowly over huge stretches of time. For instance: http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html
Far from the silly slander in the opening paragraph, I'm perfectly willing to believe in human-induced global warming. I merely require some evidence. Let me know if any ever appears. (Years ago, I was sympathetic to these theories. It was greater exposure to the evidence that has led me to become a doubter. It's pathetic--the low standards, hubris and wanton lazy assumptions made by the global-warming community).
Of course humans make the planet warmer. Five years ago a field near me was regularly blasted with south-westerly winds and its location on the edge of a river valley made it liable to mist and frost. Since then the developers have moved in and the field is now covered in heat-radiating bricks, mortar, concrete and asphalt. It's probably at least one degree warmer on a yearly average. This would be one of at least a dozen similar developments erected in the same region over the same timespan. Given 3 to 9 per cent growth in the developed and developing world this real estate transformation is occurring all over the globe with presumably similar results. What would manmade global warming fundamentalists have us do? Live in tents beside unmade roads? As well, there are erupting vocanoes, earthquakes, sunspots and bushfires all contributing to warming. There was once a land bridge between Tasmania and the mainland, which rising sea levels swamped tens of thousands of years ago. Oh those nasty prehistoric industrialists. Look, you nuff-nuffs, the Bureau of Meterology is frequently up to two degrees out on maximums and minimums for the next day. And you put your faith on government paid lackies of socialist regimes to accurately forecast the temperature 20 years from now. Only academics could be that stupid. Just because they think they're at the centre of the universe, don't make it so. One last word for climate change hocus pocus believers: Greenland!!
Nice work to state that Melbourne and Sydney recorded their hottest Decembers ever while leaving out the well publicised fact that Perth had its coldest December in 80-odd years.
Furthermore, city temperatures are always regarded as unreliable sites to read temperatures from due to the urban heat island effect. With major cities growing in population and, thus, energy use, it should come as no surprise that temperatures are increasing. The correct place to measure temperature is the lower troposphere.
There are two components to this argument: that global temperature is increasing; and that it's caused by human activity.
Certainly, there is no doubt that temperatures are increasing. It would be catastrophic if average temperatures fell, as the effect on all life is very negative. The fact is that we have clearly lived through a cold period and things are now warming up. That's a good thing.
The debate is about anthropogenic factors 'tilting the balance' and accelerating warmth to out of control levels. This is meant to be through the production of CO2. People should be reminded that CO2 makes up 3.6% of all green house gasses with the majority, 95%, being made up of water vapour. Man's contribution to that 3.6% is less than 5% or less than 0.25% of all GHG in a year. There is much conjecture now that it's actually water vapour that is most likely to be the culprit in forcing any rapid change to temperature (up or down).
Unfortunately for the pro-AGW brigade there is NO evidence of CO2 as a forcing agent on temperature. There is certainly a correlation between the two but it's becoming more and more apparent that CO2 increase follows temperature rise. Anyone who disagrees is free to send me the empirical data that supports their argument.
Climate models are often referred to in support of the wild claims from the pro-AGW lobby. However, these models have CO2 as a forcing agent as a basic parameter so they're invalidated.
What really destroys the pro-AGW people's credibility is the fact that none of its major scientists (Mann etc) will release the data that underpins their conclusions for public scrutinty. Given this is taxpayer funded their decision seems somewhat incongruous.
Tim,
Seems the skeptics outnumber the faithful in the above replies.
We can agree to disagree that AGW does in fact exceed natural background variation, but what is your preferred approach to solving this AGW problem?
Surely it's not just "fully implement socialist ideology".
If you would impose a carbon tax, what would you do with the money raised?
How would you direct investment in GHG reducing technologies?
How would you ensure that the emissions are not transferred somewhere else?
Forester
This and JQ's recent post have a long line of comments with recycled arguments and talking points, a-gainnnn. EcoFundies wanting us to live in tents? Please. No evidence of CO2 as a forcing agent on temperature? Wow - scary ignorant. Mann and data stuff again? Sooo old and not true.
But these threads are good. This is the best argumentation they can come up with - recycled half-truths and focus-grouped talking points. No papers, no articles, no charts, no data, no alternative theory, no working climate scientist backing, no newspaper article, no astrological chart, no results from rune casts, no "nun-bun" like appearance of evidence in dog cr*p, nothing.
Silly comments containing phrases like 'hocus-pocus' are a sort of indicator of progress, really.
Best,
D
The stock market analysts are frequently up to two percentage points out on the the maximum and minimum of the exchange for the next day. And yet you put faith in their ability to predict that the stock market will be higher in 20 years. Only investors could be that stupid.
(Not a good nor accurate analogy, but just for laughs. Heh)
"Even if the sea level rises by metres, it is probably cheaper to address this change than reconstruct the world's economies."
Three words for Ian Pilmer:
1) New
2) Orleans;
3) Asshole.
"no matter how much evidence piles up for
warming, their position does not change"
That just gets back to their failure to define a priori what might constitute sufficient evidence to reject the default hypothesis, so they can just sit back and put the "evidence not conclusive yet" tape on. Which behavior right away disqualifies them from participation in any scientific debate.
"What makes you think that the evidence could never be strong enough to prove human activities like greenhouse gas emissions are a significant factor in global warming?"
Because no matter what the evidence is, you can always just repeat "Nope, still not convinced" after seeing it. Always. See my previous post.
Mr. S.:
Given the complexity of your body, the lack of accurate records for your bodily parameters, among other things, what makes you have any faith in medical practitioners? They have frequently been shown to be in error.
Sad little Timmie Blair imagines himself a climate scientist while making a complete and utter fool of himself. Still once he is finished his credibility on this and others matters will be in the waste paper basket where it has always belonged. Jack Lacton you left out the fact that Western Australia had hotter temperatures than average apart from a narrow coastal strip that included Perth. The debate on climate warming is now over ( apart from a few loons ) and now we have to get on with doing something about it.
"I merely require some evidence. Let me know if any ever appears. (Years ago, I was sympathetic to these theories. It was greater exposure to the evidence that has led me to become a doubter. It's pathetic-the low standards, hubris and wanton lazy assumptions made by the global-warming community)."
Uh, let us know what constitutes evidence to your exalted tastes, what standards you require, and what assumptions you hold to be more energetic, and we'll let you know. Otherwise, I for one can't be bothered notifying you every time something comes up. (See my last few posts)
"Er.. Tim Blair is, you know, joking. "
Advise him not to quit his day job.
Oh, and TL, if you want your criticism of someone's viewpoint to be taken seriously, at least get his name right.
*[Thanks, I corrected the spelling of Plimer. Tim]*
What on Eath has "socialist ideology" got to do with it?
Why not just come out and admit your opinion on AGW is dictated not by the evidence but by the stance of the American Republican Party?
One wonders what the AGW skecptics will do with themsleves if John McCain gets te 2008 Republican nomination.
(McCain is one of those "socialists" who supports measures to address Global Warming - along with Michael Bloomberg, Arnie Schwartzenegger, Geortge Bush Sr.; John Major and Helmut Kohl.)
"debate on climate warming is now over"
Good news everybody! The debate is over! The first-world socialists have awarded themselves victory in this argument and are ready to move on to plans to stop all that poverty-reducing economic growth once and for all.
In other news, "z", the flooded part of New Orleans has been below sea level since its construction. I wish I could have added that point before the debate was over, but hey, maybe next time.
Given the complexity of your body, the lack of accurate records for your bodily parameters, among other things, what makes you have any faith in medical practitioners? They have frequently been shown to be in error.
Ehhh.. My body's size compared to the size of the atmosphere? The ability of the medical practitioner to look at every part and carry out tests that will show direct correlations?? And yes, even then they still make errors, but if I am dying from cancer, it is death vs. maybe death. I will probably choose maybe death.
Let me know when we have invented the devices capable of conducting direct tests on the atmosphere of the Earth. Mk?
1) New
2) Orleans;
3) Asshole.
Yeah, I guess there's no way to make those levies a meter or two higher...
The New Orleans authorities had spent several years applying for $4 billion to raise the levees by considerably less than one metre.
Double that cost, apply it to ever coastal city in the world, then throw the maths away, stick your fingers in your ears and go back to chanting "Global warming might be good for us" and "Reducing global warming is too expensive".
The New Orleans authorities had spent several years applying for $4 billion to raise the levees by considerably less than one metre.
I'm under the impression that this is severely lacking detail and perhaps outright false. I was not under the impression that the aim was to make them higher, but to make them more effective against stronger storms. So you'll have to provide me with a source of your claim if I'm going to believe it, because it goes against everything else I have read on the subject.
The levies in New Orleans failed because they were built poorly, not because they weren't high enough. The ground they were put on was not solid enough, and thus they were literally washed away with the incoming masses of water. Hurricane Katrina was only a category 1 hurricane when it hit New Orleans...
Double that cost, apply it to ever coastal city in the world, then throw the maths away, stick your fingers in your ears and go back to chanting "Global warming might be good for us" and "Reducing global warming is too expensive".
Hmmm. Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe the IPCC forecast called for, at maximum, a one meter increase in the sea level over about 90 years or so.
How much has the sea level increased since 1970, by the way?
Ack, forgot to add that the forecast of 1 meter over several decades would hardly jeopardize every coastal city in the world. I should know, I have lived in two in my life, neither of which would have been severely affected by a raise of one meter.
In the case of damaged levees, many of which had subsided before Katrina, the task force already won an exception to rebuild the levees to their pre-subsidence height. And for good measure, it is being allowed to add a foot or two of height to offset future subsidence.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-4/113653077…
For more background:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/3338558.html
...a large-scale engineering plan called Coast 2050 — developed in 1998 by scientists, Army engineers, metropolitan planners and Louisiana officials — might have helped save the city, but had gone unrealized.
...
Although the parties that devised Coast 2050, and other independent scientists and engineers who have floated rival plans, may disagree on details, they do concur on several major initiatives that would shield New Orleans, reconstitute the delta and, as a side benefit, improve ports and shipping lanes for the oil and natural gas industries in the Gulf of Mexico.
...
aise, extend and strengthen the city's existing but aging levees, canal walls and pumping systems that worked so poorly in recent days.
As for your "I lived in coastal cities" comment, did you happen to visit the water front in any of therm during a king tide or major storm surge?
Jack Lacton - I am not sure if it is debunking fatigue setting in but your comment passed even though almost every statement you made was false and unreferenced.
"Nice work to state that Melbourne and Sydney recorded their hottest Decembers ever while leaving out the well publicised fact that Perth had its coldest December in 80-odd years."
Ok that was true - it really has been cold here in Perth this summer however now it is 37 degrees so by your reasoning AGW is in fact now true.
"Furthermore, city temperatures are always regarded as unreliable sites to read temperatures from due to the urban heat island effect...."
Which has been shown to be not significant and the oceans that do not have cities are showing the same amount of warming.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=…
"....The fact is that we have clearly lived through a cold period and things are now warming up. That's a good thing."
Not for nearly 12000 French people that died in the last European heat wave. If you come from a cold climate then naturally you think that warmer is better however living as I do in a warm place I know how debilitating heat can be.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/08/29/france.heatdeaths/
"The debate is about anthropogenic factors 'tilting the balance' and accelerating warmth to out of control levels. This is meant to be through the production of CO2. People should be reminded that CO2 makes up 3.6% of all green house gasses with the majority, 95%, being made up of water vapour....."
The correct figure is here.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142#more-142
It is more like 65% not the 98% that is commonly touted by skeptics.
"Unfortunately for the pro-AGW brigade there is NO evidence of CO2 as a forcing agent on temperature.....
What about the 33 degrees of warming already done by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
Here is a summary of greenhouse data
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFram…
You can clearly see the correspondence of the recent spike in temperatures with the also recent spike in greenhouse gas levels.
Only in the past from data in ice cores is evidence that temperature preceeded CO2 rise. This time it is different.
"Climate models are often referred to in support of the wild claims from the pro-AGW lobby. However, these models have CO2 as a forcing agent as a basic parameter so they're invalidated."
Sorry absolute BS
"What really destroys the pro-AGW people's credibility is the fact that none of its major scientists (Mann etc) will release the data that underpins their conclusions for public scrutinty. Given this is taxpayer funded their decision seems somewhat incongruous."
You can download it from here where it has been from day 1
ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/nature/MANNETAL98/
and
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/suppinfo/nature02478.ht…
What M&M required was a step by step cookbook. The data here was sufficient for other teams to replicate the experiment.
As I was saying, your representation of whatever funding was asked for was severely lacking in detail, if not outright faulty altogether. Raising the levees was a minor point in a whole laundry list of things to be done in what your source says was a $14 billion plan, of which perhaps you meant that they only applied for $4 billion from the federal government.
Thus the rest of your posting about that price tag, $4 billion, as if that was the cost of simply raising the levees a few feet, is completely wrong. Not to mention that the problems of the levees are not the height, but their strength and construction.
As for your "I lived in coastal cities" comment, did you happen to visit the water front in any of therm during a king tide or major storm surge?
Nope, can't say that I have.
No rebuttal on my vague recollections of the IPCC projections?
No data on how much the sea level has risen during the unheard of warming period since the 1970s?
Thanks for responding, Ender.
Yes, I can put references that support my arguments, as we all can. There's no point, as you demonstrate in the references you have supplied.
The challenge to the AGW supporters is really simple: show your data and prove your point before you ask the world to commit trillions of dollars to dealing with it.
Seixon, your uncertainty about the future climate should be offset by the generous odds. So it "might" get warmer? Nonetheless, if the non-GW-deniers overestimate the likelihood of that happening, and you have a more realistic view, you can still take the bet and expect to make a profit. Unless you are very risk-averse, it makes sense. But if you are, I would say that your denial is weird in the first place...
Hey, I just noticed that Tim's article links to Wikipedia for proof of attribution of recent climate change!!!
Might as well have got a comment from Michael Moore.
I assume that people are up with how information in Wikipedia comes about and its political slant.
I'm sorry i wasn't aware that I was your personal servant.
So it "might" get warmer? Nonetheless, if the non-GW-deniers overestimate the likelihood of that happening, and you have a more realistic view, you can still take the bet and expect to make a profit. Unless you are very risk-averse, it makes sense. But if you are, I would say that your denial is weird in the first place
Yes, it might get warmer. It might get colder. I don't control the climate, so I really don't know how it will be 15 years from now, much less 5 or even 1.
Someone challenged me to a bet, but they wanted me to bet against the global mean temperature rising 1 degree in the next 15 years. Seeing the trend since 1990, there is absolutely no reason for me to bet against that. Had they made it 3+ degrees, then maybe I would have bet against it.
And yes, I am very risk-averse. My denial of what? AGW? I don't deny that the last decade has experienced warming, but I do not suscribe to the belief of AGW, or at least that humans are causing a significant effect. The "evidence" that is provided for this, I see it as mostly circumstantial and ambiguous, or even downright disingenuous at times.
I'm sorry i wasn't aware that I was your personal servant.
So was I right? Wrong? :) Don't want to bother looking it up then?
I sure would like to know how much the sea level has risen since 1970 though.
I'm usually classed as a sceptic, not so much on anthropgenic warming but on what we ought to do about it. I haven't taken a bet with Schmidt but I did spend $1,500 (of my money BTW) by providing some fuel cell researchers with materials. A positive contribution I think.
Any of those not sceptics done the same or better?
Jack - If you think that the entire temperature record consists of a few stations then you have a lot of reading to do.
Ditto for you other comments.
2. The sea is doing so - read the link
3. Crops can fail from heat as well. Warming can change rainfall patterns. Try the billions that have died from drought induced crop failure.
4. This tells about your command of the subject
5. As CO2 is a component of the atmosphere and contributes about 15% of the warming then 9%-15% of the 33 degrees is CO2. There is lots of data as many experiments show that CO2 absorbs LW radiation.
Please just read this at http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFram…
it is a very good roundup of climate science and why scientists think that it will be a problem. Just do me the courtesy of reading it with an open mind.
This will give an idea of how the idea of AGW came about.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
At least give it a go.
Ender,
Not only did I take the time to read your links, which common courtesy dictates, as well as any even-handed look at the subject but I've also discussed it at length with one of Australia's most senior government scientists. He acknowledges the difficulty of showing CO2 as a forcing mechanism, for example. However, he believes it's possible, and probable, that human activity is contributing to climate change. That said, he is scathing of the current climate models due to their inaccuracy and the wild claims that are made using very poor science (the crux of the debate, really). He has also advised the government against signing Kyoto due to the fact that it fails to take into account whole of life emissions. i.e. Australia creates more CO2/head of population because we are a large minerals exporter. If we were only using what we needed then we'd be nowhere near the top. To fairly calculate the global impact there should be CO2 debits attributed to those countries that import our resources. However, this was not part of Kyoto because it would have imposed a heavy burden on Europe, and that was against their political aim.
At the end of the day it is incumbent on those who wish to radically alter the economic nature of the world to categorically prove their point. The shame is that the environmentalist lobby has been crying wolf for so long that, in the event they finally manage to get something right, people may have stopped listening.
Regards
Jack
Jack - "At the end of the day it is incumbent on those who wish to radically alter the economic nature of the world to categorically prove their point."
Sure the point will be categorically proven one way or the other in 20 or 30 years. If the senior government scientist said that it is difficult to prove that CO2 is a forcing then he/she is at odds with most climate scientists. On Stephen Schneider's page is the peer reviewed and accepted table of forcings with CO2 and other greenhouse gases at the left as the largest known forcing. You seem to be getting climate change and global warming confused. Perhaps the senior government scientist meant that it is not possible to prove that greenhouse induced climate change and in this he/she would be correct. No-one knows or can calculate what the eventual effects of this warming will be.
Consider this: Would you consider it reasonable to demand from an insurance company categorical proof that your house will be broken into before you take out a policy? Insurance companies deal with risk and probabilities and calculate a premium from known risks.
There are many examples of quite expensive preventative actions being taken without a direct proven threat. Take fire alarms and equipment for large buildings. In the life of a building these items may never be used however there are very strict laws to force large companies to spend millions of dollars on installing them. No-one has any problem with this or demands that categorical proof be produced that the building will have a fire during its lifetime.
Finally there was the Montreal Protocol to limit ozone destroying CFC. This costs businesses billions of dollars to implement however for some reason there was quite easy International agreement to stop the use of CFCs. In this case however there was clear evidence that the CFC were destroying the ozone and due the the short lived nature of CFCs we took action in time.
The problem with CO2 is that it is not short lived and will be in the atmosphere for at least 100 years. In such a complex subject it is little wonder that the categorical has 'cryed wolf' as you term it. However also there is a very successful lobby of interests in the status-quo to cast doubt on the conclusions of the climate scientists and muddy the waters long enough to prevent action. The Coal lobby is an example here that managed to get 500 million dollars for speculative sequestration research when a solar tower is being delayed and shrunk for the lack of a few million dollars.
Perhaps you could ask your scientist friend a couple of these questions next time you are talking.
this:
In such a complex subject it is little wonder that the categorical has 'cryed wolf' as you term it.
should read:
In such a complex subject it is little wonder that the environmentalist lobby has 'cried wolf' as you term it.
"In other news, "z", the flooded part of New Orleans has been below sea level since its construction. "
Yes. And they have managed things for a few centuries without incident. Then they had an incident. It was not pretty for those involved.
Meanwhile, many port cities throughout the world are above sea level currently. If sea level rises, they will no longer be above sea level. They will now have to deal with that, without the centuries of adaptation and experience that New Orleans had (For a minor example: did you know that in New Orleans most "burials" are actually above ground? Can you guess why?) If you think that that will go smoothly without much human misery, let alone economically, well let's just say you see the cup as half full, I see the cup as having several large holes in the bottom.
"Reducing global warming is too expensive".
Even if true, you have to wonder at the rather short-sightedness of that calculus.
(note: numbers invented from thin air, for exemplary purposes only)
"Hmm:
Cost of startup of new technologies which will increase energy efficiency 10%: $150 billion dollars.
Cost of buildings, real estate, material goods, and productivity lost due to loss of property and lives, if sea level rises as predicted: $100 billion dollars.
Well chief, the numbers don't lie, it's definitely more economical to go with the destruction option than with the investing in innovative technologies option."
Besides, getting rid of all that old stuff will just be an improvement; ask Barbara Bush.
The background increase of 32 degrees due to the atmosphere (not just CO2) does not demonstrate anything about CO2 having been the forcing agent. I stated that there seems to be a correlation between temperature rise and CO2 levels but there is NO data that PROVES forcing.
I've decided to call this line of reasoning Occam's Shaggy Beard:
If we have cause A, effect B, a known causal relationship where A causes B if all else is held constant;
then in a complex test situation where we see A increasing and B increasing but we do not have enough information to determine with absolute certainty what is happening:
we must adopt as the best hypothesis that something unknown is preventing A from influencing B while another unknown thing is causing B to increase, until all unknown things have been characterized and it can be proved absolutely that there is nothing whatsoever unknown about the situation.
"I assume that people are up with how information in Wikipedia comes about and its political slant."
Yes: unlike astroturf information farms, Wikipedia is woefully unsupported by the large corporate PR organizations which have given mankind so much of its progress in knowledge throughout history and alleviated so many people from the difficult and time-consuming necessity of researching primary sources, comparing competing analyses, and exposing their beliefs to a purifying dose of self-skepticism, by feeding them prepackaged fact-like and thought-like verbal combinations which may be repeated wholly or in part, with the guaranteed assurance that many others will also be repeating those self-same "opinions", thereby guaranteeing that they are "true". This is particularly useful during the Internet era.
Seixon, I was the one who suggested we bet, and I have a variety of bets available here:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005/05/betting-on-global-warming.h…
Choose any one you want.
You said in this thread that it might get warmer and it might get colder. Fine, bet me on the 2:1 odds I offer. If not, then amend your statement to "it might get colder, but it probably won't."
"You said in this thread that it might get warmer and it might get colder. Fine, bet me on the 2:1 odds I offer. If not, then amend your statement to "it might get colder, but it probably won't."
I reiterate my stance that at this point, the great majority of the AGW-deniers really don't believe what they are saying, but are just being obnoxious to enhance their self-importance. I blame their parents' lack of positive attention.
"No rebuttal on my vague recollections of the IPCC projections?"
Hats off to Sexion for elegantly capturing the whole AGW gestalt in only ten words. Formidable mon ami.
z,
You and others talk a good game about raising sea levels, but no one has answered two fundamental questions about exactly this.
If no one can answer these two questions, how can you continue talking about coastal cities being submerged in water? I mean, it's not like I am putting my fingers in my ears here not willing to listen. I am openly asking for facts that people putting forth the type of arguments that you are should have.
You said in this thread that it might get warmer and it might get colder. Fine, bet me on the 2:1 odds I offer. If not, then amend your statement to "it might get colder, but it probably won't."
I'm not going to bet against something that I see as likely. I don't see why you keep asking. I don't have money to throw about me like rice at a wedding, and betting against something I see as entirely likely, why would anyone?
You don't seem to understand the disconnect between any eventual warming, and the fact that I don't believe, at this time, that humans are having any significant role in that warming.
I reiterate my stance that at this point, the great majority of the AGW-deniers really don't believe what they are saying, but are just being obnoxious to enhance their self-importance.
I.R.O.N.Y. Read it back to me.
Jack - "At the end of the day it is incumbent on those who wish to radically alter the economic nature of the world to categorically prove their point."
Jack peer reviewed estimates of the cost of a 3C warming range from 2-14% of global GDP, while a 6C warming is projected to cost between 6 and 40% of GDP. The high estimates generally reflect physical scientists (who weight natural systems economically highly) while the low costs are from economists (some of whom have simply no idea of the consequences of a temperature rise - for example a 6C rise would simply decimiate most natural ecosystems, lead to an eventual rise in sea level of 7m, and see temperatures in Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Sydney frequently approach an unlivable 50C). You can see these estimates in Roughgarden and Schneider 1999, Energy and Policy., 27, 415-429. All experts agree the the risk is negatively skewed.... the potential for very nasty suprises is significant.
In this context you will appreciate that regardles of whether we put heads in sand or continue buisness as usual climate change is going to have a massive economic impact. Whether one should take out insurance (mitigate) is simply calculated by weighing up the cost of damages/adaptation versus the cost of mitigation of emissions. If you don't believe that climate scientists are to be trusted 100%, simply weight down the costs by the probability you attach to their predictions. You can then calculate what should and should not be done.
I look forward to the sceptics on this forum backing up their "we'll be economically doomed mantra" with a careful analysis.
While we are at, can any sceptic point to a prediction by a prominent sceptic that Australia was likely to have a record warm 2005? Such predictions are implicit in greenhouse theory... What good are their contrarian theories if they can't be independently validated???
David
Seixon: I sure would like to know how much the sea level has risen since 1970 though.
Then go look it up, don;t demand that others do it for you.
I wonder what the global figures were for deaths from heat stroek per year over the last decade - I demand you tell me.
"Still once he is finished his credibility on this and others matters will be in the waste paper basket where it has always belonged."
Hardly, otherwise you could shut up the majority of "skeptics" with "The Iraqis will greet us as liberators".
You mean like investing my entire super in an ethical superannuation fund (which I was a trustee of on a volunteer basis) which invested close to $1 million in renewable energy companies?
I see crop losses due to heatwaves has already been mentioned. Now I know you dont all like wikipedia, but it has a nice summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_heat_wave_of_2003
The following shortfalls in wheat harvest occurred as a result of the long drought.
France - 20%
Italy - 13%
United Kingdom - 12%
Ukraine - 75%
Moldova - 80%
The projections are there at IPCC for all to see, Seixon, what's your point?
And why must you have a number since 1970? What about places that are experiencing isostatic rebound? Shall we extricate those numbers for you?
... and the fact that I don't believe, at this time, that humans are having any significant role in that warming.
Call Bjorn Lomborg. He, and most everyone else who studies the issue, disagrees with you.
Isn't there a new Lancet thread you can hijack?
D
The whole AGW affair is a rerun of the collapse of the Atlantic fisheries. I don't know if those who don't have an Atlantic coast are or were exposed to the same amount of info regarding it:
"In October 1994, the Georges Bank fishery was closed to the fishing of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder by the New England Fishery Management Council [New York Times, Oct. 27, 1994]. This action followed a similar closure of the Grand Bank fishery off Newfoundland to selected groundfish species in 1993. These closures are not isolated administrative actions. They reflect a worldwide condition of overfishing.
In 1973, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans instituted annual quotas—total allowable catches (TACs)—on the fishing of cod off Newfoundland in an effort to prevent
overexploitation. As Fig. 1 shows, Newfoundland's cod fishers obeyed the law and did not exceed the TACs, yet the fishery
still collapsed."(Why fisheries collapse and what to do about it; Johnathan Roughgarden and Fraser Smith; Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 93, pp. 5078-5083, May 1996)
"The Canadian government had been warned by scientists and environmentalists that the cod stocks were overexploited and that their fleets were employing destructive fishing practices. They refused to significantly reduce quotas citing the loss of jobs as too great a concern. The cost of their short term outlook and refusal to acknowledge ecological limits was devastating.
...
Conditions soon change, however, and yields start to decline. Then, when the results of additional scientific research and improved knowledge necessitate calls for reductions in the allowable catch, industry appeals to government for help or special consideration, because, by this point, substantial investments and jobs are at risk. The typical response by government at this point is to delay a decision, pending the results of more research. Government procrastinates, arguing that no substantive data is available upon which to base a decision to reduce fishing effort, and without conclusive information the status quo is maintained. The scientific process required to acquire, analyse and respond to such information can take several years. Government often agrees to commit even more subsidies to bolster troubled investors, which only masks the real problem -- the need for (often dramatic) cutbacks.
...
The Canadian Atlantic fisheries collapse illustrates how government support for the expansionist motivations of private investors in fisheries often results in society at large being long term losers. The profits from capital intensive, hi-tech, industrial scale fisheries are privatised by investors during the boom years, while the costs of such irrational economic behaviour are socialised for years after the crash. In Canada's case a two- billion dollar recovery bill may only be a part of the total long term costs. The human costs to individuals and desperate communities now deprived of meaningful and sustainable employment is staggering. The trauma suffered by some 40,000 workers and their families in Newfoundland cannot be measured in dollars and cents."
-Greenpeace Case study: Canada's Northern Cod Collapse
Any of that have a familiar ring? Shed any ironic light on the "need for further research before taking action which may have disastrous effects on the economy"? "Chicken little scientists and environmentalists"? "Be cheaper in the long run to adapt to the effects rather than destroy the economy trying to alleviate them"?
"I reiterate my stance that at this point, the great majority of the AGW-deniers really don't believe what they are saying, but are just being obnoxious to enhance their self-importance.
I.R.O.N.Y. Read it back to me."
Uh, OK...
I reiterate my stance that at this point, the great majority of the AGW-deniers really don't believe what they are saying, but are just being obnoxious to enhance their self-importance.
Then go look it up, don;t demand that others do it for you.
Sorry, I thought that someone who kept talking about coastal cities being flooded by a rising sea level caused by AGW would actually have something to back it up. I guess I was wrong.
Well, it looks as if I was right all along.
The IPCC estimates that sea level will rise 9 to 88 cm by the year 2100.
Wow. Anywhere from 9 to 88 cm. By 2100. I'm literally shaking in my boots. All this talk of flooding coastal cities seems a bit, shall we say... ex-agg-er-ated. Doesn't it?
And why must you have a number since 1970?
Well, since the recent warming trend started about that time. Plus our instruments for measuring various things were modern enough by then to be reliable. I have found out that since 1970, the sea level has risen 10 to 25 cm over the last 100 years, around 5-8 cm since 1970. http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/19.htm
So isn't all this talk about the impending rise of the sea level and the huge ramifications it will cause a bit... ex-agg-er-ated?
9 to 88cm over 100 years. God save us all.... lol.
Call Bjorn Lomborg. He, and most everyone else who studies the issue, disagrees with you.
Yet for some reason TV2 in Norway couldn't get a single climatologist to come on their debate program to talk about extreme weather and its alleged connection to human activity. All climatologists declined, many of them citing fear for their job if they came on the show. The AGW mantra being led by a biologist directing Cicero, Norway's most known climatology center. Yup, a biologist running a climatology lab. Who claimed that global warming was causing more frequent, more powerful, and longer lasting hurricanes - when most experts in that field say that the 2005 season has mostly to do with a natural cycle.
So forgive me if I have some skepticism left in me. Mk?
Isn't there a new Lancet thread you can hijack?
And by hijack, I suppose you mean uncovering uncomfortable facts about flawed methodology, and that anyone who claims previous Les Roberts studies are using the same techniques as the Iraq one are simply lying?
Tsk, tsk.
Sexion needs to read chapter 11 of the ipcc tar on sea level rises http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/408.htm
btw, you might look at the real version of the lame chart he pointed to, it tells a slightly different story. Another thing you might keep in mind is that these are average rises, and because of other issues there will be much higher increases (and some decreases) elsewhere. So if you happen to be in a city on the rise, it will be ok, but those that are sinking will be in deeper dodo.
One of the really concerning things about even small sea level rises, is that depending on the phase of the moon, the tides can be higher or lower, and a small rise with a high tide or a storm surge that tops a levee or a dike can wipe out a city.
I LOVE how you trot this meaningless little anecdote out at every opportunity.
And Eli, what's the slope in, say, Bangladesh? Where are all those folk gonna go?
Oh wait: they'll adapt. They'll grow rice for their food somewhere else.
We already know how modern gummints cope with environmental refugees: NOLA, Shishmaref, Pakistani earthquakes.
And, z, that's a good post in 57. Homo sapiens has not evolved sensory organs to perceive change over time, so reactions such as these are typical. "Chicken Littles" indeed.
Best,
D
Let me spoon-feed Seixon, the intellectual infant.
Seixon on being asked to bet against temperatures increasing: "I'm not going to bet against something that I see as likely. I don't see why you keep asking."
Seixon earlier in the thread: "it might get warmer. It might get colder. I don't control the climate, so I really don't know how it will be 15 years from now". You then went on to talk about trends since 1990, without clarifying what that means to your non-AGW viewpoint.
My bet offer is intended to rein in wild, improbable claims. Keep your statements consistent with the view that increases are more likely than decreases, and then I won't have to repeat that particular bet offer.
Meanwhile, Jack's statement "it is incumbent on those who wish to radically alter the economic nature of the world to categorically prove their point" is a classic precautionary principle argument, except that only businesses should be protected, not the environment.
"So isn't all this talk about the impending rise of the sea level and the huge ramifications it will cause a bit ex-agg-er-ated?
9 to 88cm over 100 years. God save us all. lol."
As Dave Letterman would say, let's see, where is the joke. What, there is no joke.
As you might guess from that 9 to 88cm range, the problem with estimating sea level rise for
"So isn't all this talk about the impending rise of the sea level and the huge ramifications it will cause a bit ex-agg-er-ated?
9 to 88cm over 100 years. God save us all. lol."
As Dave Letterman would say, let's see, where is the joke. What, there is no joke.
As you might guess from that 9 to 88cm range (increasing to something like three or four times that in 2200), the problem with estimating sea level rise for a particular time in the future is that it is critically dependent on exactly how warm it is around Greenland and other ice-caps at every time between now and 2100. So how should humanity deal with this uncertainty? Well according to Seixon it's just a joke and apart from that there's nothing more to say about it. I wonder if he'd think it was nothing more than a joke if, like 10 million people in Bangla Desh, he lived lower than one metre above the high tide level. Aparently all we need to do is say she'll be right mate and forget about it.
Chris - try thinking about other countries for a change. Some Pacific Islands would have their fresh water supply contaminated with salt water from a sea level rise of this magnitude. Couple this with loss of agricultural land could make some islands that people have inhabited for thousands of years uninhabitable
55.
Most (climatologists) think that climate change in Europe will lead to warmer, wetter winters. Not drought.
68. Might want to check the settlement dates for the pacific islands. It's in Jared Diamond, "Guns Germs and Steel". The smaller islands in Polynesia you are talking about were settled relatively late, less than 1,000 years ago.
69.
My comment was with regard to comment no. 33, where the commenter said the 12,000 who had died in the (summer) heatwave in France paled into insignificance compared to those who had died due to cold weather crop failures. I was merely pointing out that crop failures occur also in hot weather. I assume that you think that wetter warmer winters will mean more water for use in the summer. You may be right, or then again, due to limiting factors such as aquifer size, expense, etc, you may be wrong. I dont know enough about the whole water system in continental Europe to be able to say one way or another.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
"So isn't all this talk about the impending rise of the sea level and the huge ramifications it will cause a bit ex-agg-er-ated?
9 to 88cm over 100 years. God save us all. lol."
Suggest you google John Church. He has recently written extensively on the acceleration of sea level rise. The Topex/Jason satellites (data from University of Colorado) show a sustained rise of 3mm a year (suggesting a lower bound for this century is more like 30cm, unless it starts to snow hard on the Antarctic Plateau - I guess we can always hope).
3mm/yr might not sound like much but it translates into about 3cm-30cm of coastal erosion in a typical sandy/silt environments, and even more for very flat beaches. If one believes the science (I guess we could always borrow from the sceptics book of pseudo science) then most sandy beaches will disappear or be in serious decline by centuries end. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to know what this means for inhabited low islands, river deltas,.... which make homes for 100 millions of people. Not sure how this could make one want to LOL.. clearly ignorance makes for a happy person.
David
Warmer winters might also mean more rain and less snow in that season, more flooding in winter and less snow melt run-off in spring and summer leading to mroe frequent and more severe drought.
Virtually the entire western US along with large parts of India, China and Europe depend on snow-melt for their summer eater supply.
I seem to recall and estiamte of $100 billion for the cost of additional flood control and storage damages in the US alone,
But hey, that just means more jobs for the engineers and architects, right?
Spoonfeeding me, ey? Well, that results in this showing that the sea level was about 100-200m higher 50-100 million years ago. It also says the same thing as I already stated. So... what were you spoonfeeding me other than what I already said?
My bet offer is intended to rein in wild, improbable claims. Keep your statements consistent with the view that increases are more likely than decreases, and then I won't have to repeat that particular bet offer.
Currently it sure does seem as though it will be more likely to be warmer 10-15 years from now. So if it is "more likely", then at this point in time I would have to say yes. That still does not remove the possibility that the temperature will actually go down.
Seixon it's just a joke and apart from that there's nothing more to say about it. I wonder if he'd think it was nothing more than a joke if, like 10 million people in Bangla Desh, he lived lower than one metre above the high tide level. Aparently all we need to do is say she'll be right mate and forget about it.
I think it's a joke that it seems people here think that the sea level on the Earth is supposed to stay static forever just because humans have decided to inhabit most of it. Just remember the earthquakes in Pakistan. That was Mother Nature doing its thing, and us humans paid the price because we have inhabited virtually every place on the face of the planet, without regard to what Mother Nature might decide to do one day.
My grandparents live about 1-4 meters above sea level, and have done so for more than 60 years. If the IPCC says that the maximum raise over the next 100 years it not even 1 meter, that sure doesn't seem disasterous to me. If other humans are living below sea level right by the sea, or less than 1 meter above sea level: wtf are you thinking?
I mean sure, it's anyone's choice to live wherever they want, but I find it ridiculous that anyone would have believed that the sea level would just stay static forever. It never has, and never will.
Well we all know what spoonfeeding results in - it's yellowish brown, smells bad and its arrival is usually accompanied by tears, shrieking and other evidence of a temper tantrum.
So I'd say the analogy is pretty apt.
I mean sure, it's anyone's choice to live wherever they want, but I find it ridiculous that anyone would have believed that the sea level would just stay static forever. It never has, and never will.
Brilliand and compassionate. Go to Bangladesh and tell those people the sea level will rise, and they have to move somewhere. I'm sure India has plenty of room. And the crops that will be ruined? Ah, they'll adapt.
And all the thongs on South Beach displaced by rising tides? Sure, they'll adapt and move to your mom's basement...er...house.
D
Well we all know what spoonfeeding results in - it's yellowish brown, smells bad and its arrival is usually accompanied by tears, shrieking and other evidence of a temper tantrum.
So I'd say the analogy is pretty apt.
Yeah, an analogy to what happens when I dare challenge the great Tim Lambert...
Brilliand and compassionate. Go to Bangladesh and tell those people the sea level will rise, and they have to move somewhere. I'm sure India has plenty of room. And the crops that will be ruined? Ah, they'll adapt.
And all the thongs on South Beach displaced by rising tides? Sure, they'll adapt and move to your mom's basementerhouse.
Sorry, Mother Nature isn't compassionate. You think Mother Nature was like "ah damn, I just killed tens of thousands of Pakistanis"? No. So now you are trying to cast me as some evil incompassionate bastard, instead of just gulping down the truth I am trying to tell: we have to adapt to Mother Nature, not the other way around.
The sea levels have always been changing, and are not static. Therefore building a house right by the sea, counting on that sea to stay at the same level as not to flood your entire house - is not very "brilliant". You know, kind of like building a house by Mount Saint Helens. "Ah, well it's a volcano, but I mean, it has been dormant for quite a while now, I guess it's safe to build a house here." Oops.
So are you guys going to keep pretending that the sea level is supposed to stay the same for centuries, or even decades? And in pretending this, that humans should have the guarantee that they can settle down wherever the hell they like, because we will somehow be able to override Mother Nature's wishes?
Seriously. This has nothing to do with compassion or anything other than a fight between realism and idealism. I currently live in a building that is right by a dock, so basically 1-2m above sea level (not in my mother's basement...errrr... house, more like on the other side of the Earth, but hey reality isn't always important...). Now, an increase in 88cm of the sea level would have the parking lot outside my building submerged during high tide. Seeing as how it would theoretically take 100 years until that happens, according to the IPCC, I'm pretty sure the "brilliant" Norwegian architects will devise some "brilliant" manner of taking that into account. You know, if that happens.
As for Bangladesh and Third World nations, they don't have that sort of luxury. Sorry, I didn't make up the rules, Mother Nature did. Humans have always adapted to their surroundings throughout history. Yet now it seems as though a certain sect of humans believe that we are now above Mother Nature and cannot be dictated by it any longer.
Which isn't especially strange, since that same sect of people believe that humans can affect the entire cycle of the massive atmosphere.
As I think most of us have been able to see in plain view the last 2 years, you challenge Mother Nature, and you are probably going to lose. Whether you live in New Orleans, or Bangladesh.
And now you may continue bashing me for speaking the truth.
"Homo sapiens has not evolved sensory organs to perceive change over time, so reactions such as these are typical. "Chicken Littles" indeed."
Indeed yes. One of the biggest arguments I see against "intelligetn design" is how pathetic our risk assessment mechanism is. Capable of dealing with something of the magnitude of a salivating tiger facing us, but insensitive to much below that. If somebody designed that, he didn't do us any favors.
FWIW, here in the San Joaquin Valley, the water comes from aquifers for the drinking water supply for the smaller cities, but a lot of snowmelt water is used for agriculture, especially for that thirsty crop, cotton, on the west side of the Valley.
Yeah and if those French peasants hadn't been so dumb they would've eaten cake.
Yeah and if those French peasants hadn't been so dumb they would've eaten cake.
I fail to see how that compares to what I was saying. I didn't think that poor people were the ones who owned ocean-front property, in fact, I'm inclined to believe the opposite. Do you think that building a house by the sea is the same degree of "choice" as a poor person not being able to eat cake?
Allllrighty then.
Go take a look at an elevation map of the Ganges delta.
Sexion's comment about poor people not owning beach front property is a perfect illustration of why it is so difficult to engage in an exchange with him and his ilk (and to be fair we all know similar types on both sides of the ideological spectrum and at family reunions). Those folk lack the ability to conceive of a world outside the boundaries of their own ears, and a complete unwillingness to listen, look and learn.
Reasonable people may not know various things, but when they come up in conversation one can explain, or say go look it up, and they will come back, and you can pick up the dialog. With the Sexion's of the world it is almost futile, and the only reason to engage with him in public is so that he does not spread his mis-information to other listeners.
Of course in one sense, Sexion is right, poor people do not own beach front property, but a lot of them live there. Really poor people do not own any property in Sexion's sense, which is why it is so easy to chase them off when someone wants to grab it. But yes dear, a lot of poor people do live in low lying areas such as beaches, and tidal marshes. You may remember that is one of the reasons that Sadam Hussain was so evil, that he drained the marshes in the Shat al Arab to chase out the Shiites who revolted against him.
With the Sexion's of the world it is almost futile, and the only reason to engage with him in public is so that he does not spread his mis-information to other listeners.
Well said. And such folk cause engagers debunking fatigue - there is much to do.
It is certainly too much to do all at once and we need a good influx of young folk to address the fact that Google does not return wisdom, only information.
Best,
D
Dark Avenger makes a good point above: the utter dependence on irrigation. An underlying point is water scarcity, esp. with climate change and human population growth requiring many more ha to till for food.
It is worth noting that Westlands had to turn to cotton because irrigation salinated the soil and cotton is salt-tolerant. Analyses have been done that replace cotton with flax, milo, and hemp and Westlands can wean their last-on-the-tit selves off their subsidized CWP water and offstream uses can end for CWP.
Ahem. Step. Down. From. Soapbox.
Best,
D
I'll take that spot on the soapbox:
The hydrology of coastal areas is complex - really complex.
Fresh water aquifiers extend under the seabed, saline aquifers extend under the land.
Salt water can intrude into previously nonsaline aquifers because of relatively minor changes in local conditions.
Many islands around the world depend for their fresh water supply on comparitively small fresh or brackish water from the upper part of aquifers. These fresh water supplies survive because fresh water is less dense than salt water and tends to float on top.
Small changes in sea level (probably even below the 8 centimetre lower boundary of the IPCC estimate) disrupt the balance between seawater and fresh water and casue the whole aquifer to become saline.
Only a few islands are directly threatened by submergence as a result of a rise of under a metre - but a great many more face the loss of their water supply.
Saline intrusion into aquifers will be a problem all over the world wherever water is drawn from coastal aquifers for drinking water or irrigation.
The developed world will probably respond with desalination plants and long-term water transport projects - hey another new multi-billion (more like multi-trillion) dollar industry. The economic benefits of global warming just continue to pile up.
The developing world will respond the way it usually does to natural disasters such as drought - millions of people will die of starvation and many millions more will be displaced into refugee camps fueling political instability and ethnic violence. (Razor wire and riot guns - just two more GW growth industries).
Or maybe Canada and Russia will open up those lush new lands in their north to the refugeees - I mean I can see them each taking 40-50 million Bangladeshis for a start (and it would be only a start).
Then all you have to do is engineer the last mass migration in history, work out how to grow crops in thawing permafrost and build the entire infrastructure to accommodate them - even at third world standards.
Still it beats spending a few billion on renewable energy, taxing SUVs the same as cars and cuttign out subsidies to the coal and oil industries.
"As for Bangladesh and Third World nations, they don't have that sort of luxury. Sorry, I didn't make up the rules, Mother Nature did."
I guess Mother Nature's rules include one part of humanity losing their homes from the actions of another part. After all humans are only natural.
So Seixon, as a resident of Norway - one of the countries which should supposedly benefit from global warming (if we ignore the possible shutdown of the North Atlantic conveyor)- maybe you can tell us how many million illiterate substistence farmers from Subsaharan Africa and South Asia you think Norway should accept?
Seixon:
Ah, that would explain the low numbers of victims of the tsunami last year. And when they said whole fishing villages were wiped out I didn't realize they were talking about sport fishing villages.
John
Ender,
The pages you sent referring to Schneider are a bit of a joke-a-thon. His science on CO2 as a forcing agent prove less than nothing and it's a bit embarrassing to refer to them, really. He is to the left what Milloy is to the right, somewhere to go and get the information you expect to see (and agree with).
Regarding information being made available by these so called reputable climate scientists it's interesting to follow along the frustrations people are having at getting data. Check it out at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=485#more-485 - it's all quite reasonable and level-headed.
Cheerio
Jack