Climate Science for Dummies

Malcolm and others have a refrain of "show me the evidence", so I thought it was worth setting this out as clearly as possible. If you want more detail, the Garnaut Report chapters 3-5 are a good summary.

What is undisputed

1. The so-called greenhouse gases (GHGs)* do what they say on the tin. Specifically, they absorb certain wavelengths of infrared radiation. The sun pours in 342 watts per square metre of energy into the planet every day, and some of it is not reradiated back into space because of greenhouse gases. If they didn't do that at all, it would be too cold for human or much other life. There is no qualified scientist on the planet that disputes this basic science.

* for ease of reference, added from a later comment: the GHGs specified in Kyoto , and thus the ones controlled by the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, are: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. There is an argument in Garnaut (p59) about also including chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, but these are covered by the Montreal Protocol, and therefore should be phased out by 2030 anyway. Water vapour and ozone also have greenhouse effects, but aren't primarily human in origin, and water vapour at least is complicated, since much of it forms clouds, which reflect energy from the sun as well as retain heat below them.

2. There is more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than at any time over the last at least tens of thousands of years, and the amount has been climbing steadily year on year at an accelerating rate for at least the last fifty years. These are direct observations, for recent years by direct measurement, and for the history from concentrations of CO2 in deep ice cores.

3. The great majority of the growth in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic – ie we did it, by burning fossil fuels and clearing land and spreading fertiliser and raising cows (cow and sheep farts contribute 11% of all Australia's GHG emissions, and there wouldn't be any of them here at all if humans weren't raising them). The more powerful greenhouse gases don't appear in nature at all, so we can't blame anyone or anything else for them (unless you have evidence that aliens have been secretly importing them from off-planet).

What is only disputed by the willfully blind or deranged

1. The planet has been getting hotter in the last 50 years, and for the last 30 years has been hotter than ever recorded. There are no remaining unexplained anomalies in the observational series whatsoever: regional and other differences eg in the high atmosphere are all accounted for. I have heard people claim that the world has cooled / stopped warming since 1990: since 12 of the last 13 years are the highest on record, they have to resort to three-card tricks or falsified data to attempt to justify this ludicrous claim. It is true that some regions around the north Atlantic were as warm in 1250 as they were in 1975, but a) the sort of fluctuations in the Gulf Stream that caused that are included in the mainstream models, b) this wasn't true of most of the rest of the world, and c) anyway, all but four of the years since 1980 have been warmer than that. There is, of course, no direct observational record of either the medieval anomalies or the regionality. Both the claims and the refutation rely on anecdotal and other contemporary observations without instruments, and on indirect observations such as tree-rings. Insofar as anecdotes and tree rings count for anything, they support the submission that the world wasn't generally warmer / colder at those times as much as or more than they support the claim that it was. We can't claim that European monk's accounts are more reliable than Indian or Chinese ones, only note that they record different trends. NB: if you were relying on The Great Global Warming Swindle for a different view on how warm it was in 1250, note that the UK broadcasting regulator has castigated the program's makers for altering their graphs to mislead viewers (eg, on that one, by re-labelling 1975 as "Now").

2. Getting hotter will be a Bad Thing. Thousands upon thousands of detailed studies have been done over the last twenty years on the impacts of warming. They have indeed identified a few impacts that are positive, but these are enormously outweighed by the negative impacts on everything from crop yields to disease ranges. Even the crop yield gains from CO2 fertilisation in some crops disappear at warming of more than two degrees, and are overwhelmed by the rainfall changes above that.

What can be debated

1. How much warming is due to GHGs? The mainstream science says that doubling GHG concentrations raises the temperature by 2 to 6°C. The sceptics say 1) something else is causing the warming, eg solar cycles, volcanism, or whatever, and therefore 2) since the GHGs definitely do cause warming, they're contributing less than the mainstream models show, and so we don't have to worry yet about further increases in GHGs, because they won't warm us as much as is feared.

2. er – that's it. Since GHGs do cause warming (basic physics) and are increasing (undisputed observations), any other touted cause boils down to that argument.

Note also that alongside the sceptics there are at least as many scientists (eg James Hansen) who think that the models underestimate the GHG effects, and therefore we need more drastic action than the mainstream models suggest.

The problem with all the other alternative explanations for warming is that they either don't change at the right times in the right direction to explain the temperature record, or that there is no observable mechanism for them to put enough energy in. For example, the total energy expended/burnt by all human activities to date is simply insufficient to have had any direct impact on warming: we may be able to keep our cities a degree or so warmer at ground level on a cold day, but in the great energy budget scheme of things it just doesn’t count.

Solar variations obviously do have impact –all of this energy came from the sun originally – but they vary at different times and different directions than the temperature record does. Huge amounts of effort have been put into understanding this, and the chances that there is some missing high-energy source we don't know about and can't detect are very small indeed. Finding one that stands up to scrutiny would be worth huge amounts in support from people like Exxon, so there is plenty of incentive for scientists to publish if they found one. And equal bunce for peer reviewers who got that paper through to publication. And the count of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals supporting the sceptics' position: none, nada, zero.

What if it's a conspiracy?

What if all these thousands of scientists working in all the countries of the world have a secret conspiracy to defraud us all? Well, if just one of them decamped from the conspiracy with evidence of it, they'd be living in luxury on the rewards from those interested in keeping the gases flowing. What are the chances that a) it exists, and b) none of them have gone public? I leave that exercise to the reader.

What if warming is mostly caused by arbitrarily advanced alien space bats?

If there is some real as-yet-unidentified cause of warming that we don't recognise, or if thousands of scientists have uniformly and systematically got their model coefficients wrong, and some combination of other factors is causing warming, then what should we do that's different to what is currently planned?

Well, this runs into the undisputed territory again. GHGs do cause additional warming, and warming is a Bad Thing. So, if the warming to date is caused by something else, and that is going to carry on having this effect (if we don't know what it is, it would be imprudent to assume anything else), then we should take action to reduce as far as possible our efforts to add to that warming. So, if the mainstream science is wrong, we need to reduce GHG emissions even more than is currently planned. Simple really. Now let's get on with it.

[ category:

]

Reading between the denialist lines

Submitted by Ian MacDougall on August 27, 2008 - 11:36pm.

Mark, good one re Lomborg.

One must learn to read denialists for their unstated implications. I offer as witness Professor Emeritus Sev Sternhell, as discussed by me already on this thread.

What is a sensible approach to climate change?

Submitted by John Pratt on August 19, 2008 - 3:43pm.

An expert in climate change says the world's sea levels could rise by up to four metres this century.
The head of the climate change unit at the Australian National University and science adviser to the Federal Government, Professor Will Steffen, says he believes the scientific community is underestimating the speed at which the climate is changing.
Professor Steffen has raised the concerns at the Coast to Coast Collaboration Conference in Darwin.
He says polar ice sheets across the northern shelf are melting quickly and last year was a record year in the loss of ice.
"The evidence over the past 12 to 18 months suggests that we have underestimated how fast this aspect of the earth's system can change," he said.
"We see things happening much faster than we thought."

Kathy, with sea levels rising faster than predicted , what would you call a sensible approach to climate change? It seems to me that a business as usual approach is not going to work. When are we going to start to move our cities away from the sea? Surely sooner rather than later would be the best approach. Sea levels might rise slowly but it is the sudden storm surge that will kill the most people. For example, have a look at what happen in Burma recently.

Man made scam? Probably

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 14, 2008 - 9:48am.

Anthony Nolan: "Our common future requires that we establish a dialogue in which all parties to the dialogue are treated with respect."

There isn't any need for "dialogue" on man made climate change. Climate change is either caused by man or it isn't. One side is right and the other side is wrong. Given something upwards of 30 billion has already been spent on this question (a major opportunity cost there), I believe in the not very distant future, we'll have a definite answer.

If people are found to have made fraudulent claims, from knowingly false data, they may not only face academic sanction, they may also be legally liable for loss of earnings etc. There isn't an excuse for knowingly misleading people - even a belief in the perceived greater good isn't a legal justification.

Respect is given to people by allowing them to make their own decisions. Yes, sometimes these decisions will end as terrible mistakes - that is of course the price of personal freedom. Respect is most certainly not given by creating an adult creche, in which a selected few (and looking at most socialists, the criterion isn't high), dictating their world to others. That is of course the polar opposite of freedom.

As for morals, I don't see it as my right or any of my business to dictate my morals to anyone. People are within their rights to find their own morals - and more power to them.

No-one (sane) is advocating communism

Submitted by Anthony Nolan on August 13, 2008 - 7:46pm.

Mr Morrella is now conflating ecological rationality with communism and has reached deep into his grab bag of worn out old cold war cliches to deride "western communists" as failures, never wazzers and so on. The last post has all of the hallmarks of what commentators on the Footy Show call a "brain explosion" when describing an unexpected moment of usually violent on-field irrationality.

He is trailing his coat and looking for an argument but the point is that the argument was won, and properly too, when the people of East Berlin swarmed the wall. It was won when Rudolph Bahro published his critique of "actually existing communism" and on numerous other occasions prior to that as well.

The history of people's efforts to find freedom is what might be called big history especially over the last century and a half. There is a rich heritage to mine on all sides whether one is digging around in the failures of Soviet Socialism or understanding what it is that markets do provide for people that makes them an invaluable asset in a democratic society.

Our common future requires that we establish a dialogue in which all parties to the dialogue are treated with respect. Absent the respect one can only expect to be taught a lesson like the following ... and what better way than to quote the author's words back to him:

As for moral arguments about things: that's really not my bag.

I'll take you at your word mate.

The wheels on the bus are falling off

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 13, 2008 - 6:56pm.

F Kendall: "The unpolluted cabbage stew, roll, soup or au natural (sic), that Paul Morrella derides, is a privilege that our way of life denies these children. Who cares? How easy it is to be contemptuous of others, particularly if they own nothing."

So you'll admit that this climate change scam (that's how many see it) is more about changing the world - fairness and such, than it is about, say, about man made climate change?

That's not a bad thing as such, and it'll probably be the excuse given by many as the scam begins to unravel - the more apocalyptic the more easily to demolish the argument - the more "those in the know" will jump ship etc. As for moral arguments about things: that's really not my bag.

I will say that my attacks were on "western communists" as opposed to the poor you write of. I find "western communists", the ones that existed, particularly spineless, never good enough to succeed in their own environment, yet lacking the courage to move to the one they champion (lacking decisive action processes was probably the problem to begin with). Yes, they should be held up for ridicule.

those who have, want more, and this desire overwhelms considerations of what others might consider to be basic decency.

Personally, I enjoy people attaining success - much more so if I've been involved. Unlike communists, say, I don't feel a need to reduce people to "below my level". The green eyed monster can be a positive emotion used correctly, and an incredibly destructive one used incorrectly. And let’s be honest, that's all communism is really about.

Prepare for the worst.

Submitted by John Pratt on August 12, 2008 - 8:36am.

According to the government's 2006 Stern review on the economics of climate change, between 7 million and 300 million more people would be affected by coastal flooding each year, there would be a 30-50% reduction in water availability in Southern Africa and the Mediterranean, agricultural yields would decline 15 to 35% in Africa and 20 to 50% of animal and plant species would face extinction.
In the UK, the most significant impact would be rising sea levels and inland flooding. Climate modellers also predict there would be an increase in heavy rainfall events in winter and drier summers.
Watson's plea to prepare for the worst was backed up by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King. He said that even with a comprehensive global deal to keep carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere at below 450 parts per million there is a 50% probability that temperatures would exceed 2C and a 20% probability they would exceed 3.5C.
"So even if we get the best possible global agreement to reduce greenhouse gasses on any rational basis you should be preparing for a 20% risk so I think Bob Watson is quite right to put up the figure of 4 degrees," he said.

How do we prepare for a 4 degree or more rise in global temperature?

"At 4 degrees we are basically into a different climate regime," said Prof Neil Adger, an expert on adaptation to climate change at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich.
"I think that is a dangerous mindset to be in. Thinking through the implications of 4 degrees of warming shows that the impacts are so significant that the only real adaptation strategy is to avoid that at all cost because of the pain and suffering that is going to cost.
"There is no science on how we are going to adapt to 4 degrees warming. It is actually pretty alarming," he added.

The only real strategy is to avoid 4 degrees of warming. We should immediately stop exporting coal. We need to act now before it is too late.

Global warming occurring faster than expected

Submitted by John Pratt on August 12, 2008 - 8:18am.

Ice at the North Pole melted at an unprecedented rate last week, with leading scientists warning that the Arctic could be ice-free in summer by 2013......
Other environmental changes are likely to follow. Without sea ice to bolster them, land ice - including glaciers - could topple into the ocean and raise global sea levels, threatening many low-lying areas, including Bangladesh and scores of Pacific islands. In addition, the disappearance of reflective ice over the Arctic means that solar radiation would no longer be bounced back into space, thus heating the planet even further.
On top of these issues, there are fears that water released by the melting caps will disrupt the Gulf Stream...

What is happening now indicates that global warming is occurring far earlier than any of us expected.'

2013 could see the Arctic ice free, about 50 years earlier than predicted by climate scientists.

Is there anyone who still thinks that the planet has been cooling in the last few years?

Surely now we can all agree the time to act has come. The debate is over and we should all be working to reduce GHG emissions.

The Rudd government is correct: we need the emissions trading scheme sooner rather than later.

We also need legislation on efficiency now. We need fuel efficient cars, transport, and buildings. The government should act now. We have nothing to lose and the efficient use of energy will save money as well as the planet.

The danger from China and India

Submitted by F Kendall on August 11, 2008 - 10:11pm.

Anyone who remembers the video of the tobacco executives in America, each, under oath declaring that they believed that cigarettes were not carcinogenic, in spite of the overwhelming and widespread knowledge of this, can well understand that the most powerful opposition to reducing man-made emissions will come from the multinationals (and their legions of junior wannabees), rather than from individual countries.

Somewhat like the fact revealed last year, that the Gates Foundation gave charity to children affected by gross conditions that were caused by neighbouring international polluting and destructive industries by which the Gates Foundation enriched itself.

The unpolluted cabbage stew, roll, soup or au natural (sic), that Paul Morrella derides, is a privilege that our way of life denies these children. Who cares? How easy it is to be contemptuous of others, particularly if they own nothing. If there is one fact that you can take for granted it is this: those who have, want more, and this desire overwhelms considerations of what others might consider to be basic decency.

Cold war bullying

Submitted by Anthony Nolan on August 10, 2008 - 9:54pm.

Oh dear...it has happened so much before that I am immune to it now...and it is the suggestion that if you find something, really, anything at all, admirable in any state like Cuba then you must be a communist.

Ho hum.

I like a lot of things about the USA too but that doesn't make me a fan of George Bush.

It used to be called guilt by association Mr Morella but it doesn't wash anymore.

As a matter of interest I am no longer any sort of socialist or communist and I know why but I decline to advance serious and sophisticated historical and philosophically informed reasons to you because because I don't think you would be able to prise open those parts of your consciousness that snapped shut when? ...during the Reagan years? ...to prise them open sufficiently far enough to engage in reasoned discussion.

Dear oh dear.

Learning to live with paradox

Submitted by Bill Avent on August 11, 2008 - 9:11am.

Anthony, I think the difference between Cuba and the USA might boil down to good intentions. The road to hell, so they say, is lined with those things. I'm guessing not too many of those who say it, though, would prefer to be aligned with a nation with none.

God only knows what the USA's intentions might be. Whatever they are, they don't look good. Last I heard, Americans were sending their kids to school armed with weapons to protect themselves from each other. Maybe they could learn something from the Cubans.

We had better not expect to get through Paul's firewall with balanced analysis, though. Well, maybe, someday, when he's ready to learn to think. And to count. We're the true anti-establishment, according to him, is one word.

Worth reading

Submitted by Ian MacDougall on August 11, 2008 - 6:59pm.

Worth reading in relation to this thread: Peter Christoff's Building Our Own Asteroid, published in Arena Magazine.

Life on Earth has had its ups and downs. Over the past four billion years it has barely survived five mass extinction events, each most likely triggered by a collision with an asteroid or comet. Some 250 million years ago, nearly 90 per cent of all sea species and 70 per cent of all vertebrate land species suddenly became extinct. About 200 million years ago another collision wiped out roughly half of all species and ushered in the age of dinosaurs. Some 65 million years ago, an asteroid ended the Cretaceous period, wiped out the dinosaurs, giving rise to the age of mammals - including, eventually, humans.
For the past two hundred years we have been blindly building our own asteroid. It is called climate change. Since 1990, despite increasing knowledge of the consequences, we have been adding to its size at a frenzied pace. Launched at Earth, there is no chance it will miss us without equally frantic activity to avert it. If it hits with full force, the consequences for life on this planet are likely to be as profound as those following earlier collisions. To date, we have failed to grasp the risk posed by our own asteroid.

Classic

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 10, 2008 - 6:13pm.

Richard: "Actually, the local branch run their own pub, the Semaphore Workers' Club. It's a popular place."

Freaken hell!

You learn something everyday! What's on the menu: cabbage stew, cabbage roll, cabbage soup, cabbage au natural............. ?

Chug Chug Chug........

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 10, 2008 - 5:57pm.

Richard: "It might surprise you, Paul, to learn that there are new young ones still joining the party.

Are the really joining the party? Or are they just there for keg and pizza Friday?

Richard: Actually, the local branch run their own pub, the Semaphore Workers' Club. It's a popular place.

You'll only ever have what you don't let them take

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 10, 2008 - 5:38pm.

Anthony Nolan: "I'm beginning to think that denial that a problem exists in relation to any social issue can be taken as a sign that the problem is real. "

Ironic coming from a person singing the virtues of communist Cuba (eyes popping). A real live communist, sheesh, they must have dipped you in amber or something - I didn't think real life commo's existed anymore. You must get invites to dinner parties purely for the novelty value?

Richard: It might surprise you, Paul, to learn that there are new young ones still joining the party.

Truth is I've never much believed in mass protest movements, fringe groups, conspiracy theories and such. Most of my "wasted protesting years", was spent studiously avoiding listening to one yahoo or another, fear-mongering about Reagan with his finger on the red button or some such bore fest. The anti-climate change people though are a true movement that do cross the divide. An interesting lot that believe in individual values and choice, and aren't interested in either themselves or their descendants being scammed out of that. In a one word: We're the true anti-establishment.

Al Gore? My fondest memory of big Al isn't even big Al. It's of his ditsy wife holding record burning festivals - back then Judus Priest etc where causing the "youth" to top themselves by the minute - hilarious memories indeed. Big Al the anti-establishment crime fighting radical.......

The "youth" (I'm forever young of heart) would be mad to fall for this crap, and trade their rights away. No passports for you guys, no foreign travels for you lot, just a life spent in service of paying excessive tax, and wiping up after old duffers. Be realand tell them to go f### themselves. Take it from me there's nothing more liberating. Old dudes like HSBC Stern caring about 2050 and beyond??? WTF? pull the other one and it plays jingle bells.

What you should support

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 10, 2008 - 5:12pm.

David R: (sigh). Please reread the article above. It doesn't matter whether it is primarily man-made or not, simple physics tells us that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is making warming worse, and we need to stop doing that

Well, you should support a tax on consumption, rather than a hotch potch scheme to pay for the sin of pollution - which after all is all one is trying clamp down on. I think the results of destroying local industry, and sending it to say China, is all clear to see during the Olympics.

There's a lot of fantasy going round

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 10, 2008 - 4:59pm.

Bill Avent: "So you've shifted from "Southern ice is increasing", now that such a thing is proven opposite to the truth, to needing more study before accepting the reality staring you in the face. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4315968.stm

And what of the big monster, the much larger east Antarctic sheet?
A recent study using altimeter data suggested it is getting thicker, by about 1.8cm/yr; another, using the gravity satellite mission Grace indicates its mass remains stable.
But could rising temperatures in time drain the ice away?
"It is not going to happen on any realistic human timescale," says David Vaughan.
"It's so cold that you could raise temperatures by 5-10C without having much of an impact; it's on rock above sea level, so warming in the ocean can't affect it."

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-active-volcano-under-antarctic-ice/

The volcano on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet began erupting some 2,000 years ago and remains active to this day. Using airborne ice-sounding radar, scientists discovered a layer of ash produced by a ’subglacial’ volcano. It extends across an area larger than Wales. The volcano is located beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet in the Hudson Mountains at latitude 74.6°South, longitude 97°West.

The phenomena of denialism

Submitted by Anthony Nolan on August 10, 2008 - 3:24pm.

Among genocide theorists and historians it is acknowledged that one of the signs of a genocide is denialism. This refers to a blanket attempt to simply deny the reality of what has happened. The Turks are still at it in relation to the Armenians, the Germans sustained it for a long time but are over it now, the French right is still trying it on but the centre left is pinning them down.

I'm beginning to think that denial that a problem exists in relation to any social issue can be taken as a sign that the problem is real. Like global warming for example. There are ecological denialists in our culture and, I must say, that their attempts at denying what is bleeding obvious to everyone else have taken a turn for the comical to such an extent that I am powerfully reminded of Basil Fawlty's attempts to hide the rat from the food inspector.

Comedy aside - ecological politics, like all politics, is classed and gendered and just as much fissured with the cracks and fault lines of the politics of self interest as any other politics. There is, for example, an entire school of ecological thought in the USA that talks, with good reason, of ecological racism.

So we need to ask ourselves the old questions when confronted with minority positions or positions that are so far from any commonly shared (even scientific) reality that it appears bizarre: In whose interest is this?

It is abundantly clear that there are groups and classes within Australian society whose interests lie in ecological denialism. Their interest is not a common interest. It is not generalisable to even the whole of the Australian population let alone the whole of the Earth's human and other population.

They single themselves out. The time will come, of course, within our lifetimes when such classes and individuals will argue that they always were for the common interest but they will have no credibility.

By the way: Cuba is an excellent example from which we can learn a lot about how to maintain social cohesion through an extended period of shortage of resources. Before anyone leaps on their bandwagon about how the Cubans gaol dissidents let me suggest that they first familiarise themselves with the comparative data about Cuban health, education, child mortality and other indicators of social well being measured against any other Latin or South American state or indeed any state in the US or indeed again the population of the Northern Territory.

Judge for yourself

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 10, 2008 - 5:58am.

Bill Avent; "Yeah, sure it is, Paul. In your own little dream world. The trouble is, you are doing your dreaming in a real world."

This must be a fantasy It also appears there may be at least one active volcano on West Antarctic Ice Shelf (and possibly many more)

I think I'll reserve my judgement until further study is undertaken. There isn't at the moment any proof that man made climate change is the culprit for any of this.

David R: (sigh). Please reread the article above. It doesn't matter whether it is primarily man-made or not, simple physics tells us that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is making warming worse, and we need to stop doing that. Someone sent me an article that said the greenhouse effect stopped working above 60ppm - which implies that when a CO2 molecule detects companions near itself it stops absorbing infrared: no mechanism for this piece of magical suspension of physical laws was specified.

Paul,

Submitted by Bill Avent on August 10, 2008 - 12:19pm.

So you've shifted from "Southern ice is increasing", now that such a thing is proven opposite to the truth, to needing more study before accepting the reality staring you in the face.

If the ice in the freezer starts melting, most people would figure that the temperature in there is rising. Something has gone wrong, they would say. Are there really some among us who would need more study before they would believe in the warming, or that something was wrong?

Neither of those links of yours leads anywhere, by the way.

Change and decay in all around I see....

Submitted by F Kendall on August 9, 2008 - 1:15pm.

The world economy may change faster than the climate, going by the clips from the film I.O.U.S.A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBo2xQIWHiM&feature=related

Reuters: "'An Inconvenient Truth' for the American economy."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFegU91JGTw

Ice not melting?

Submitted by John Pratt on August 9, 2008 - 11:46am.

Paul: "Well, in the Southern Hemisphere ice is actually not melting, it's getting larger. Maybe a reason for the warming decline since 98, who knows. Changes in climate is not unusual, and in fact, has happened over millions of years. Indeed, throughout the span of human existence."

Don't let facts get in the way of a good story:

The most comprehensive study to date of Antarctica's ice confirms growing concern that the ice cap is melting faster than predicted.
The implications are that the global sea level will rise faster than expected, while a huge influx of freshwater into the salty oceans could alter ocean currents.
Antarctica holds 90 per cent of Earth's ice.
According to the new findings, snowfall is topping up ice in the continent's interior and East Antarctic has held its own. But West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula lost nearly 200 billion tonnes of ice in 2006 alone.

Interesting John

Submitted by Jenny Hume on August 9, 2008 - 2:01pm.

Yes John, it seems that overall Antarctic ice is melting rapidly and I guess there must already be some rise in overall sea levels for those small inhabited islands in the Pacific to be gradually going under Two bilion tonnes is a hell of a lot of ice to lose in one year, if that is in fact correct.

Those island folk know the writing is on the wall for them and obviously will be looking for resettlement. So the definition of refugees will have to be amended with those forced out by famine and climate change given just as much right of refuge as those persecuted and affected by war.

I have an English scientist friend who has spent all his working life (over twenty years now) in the Antarctic and when I next talk to him I will be most interested to hear his opinion . Notwithstanding the difference in the two polar ice zones I find it hard to believe that if one is seriously affected by warming that the other is not similarly being affected.

A pity Will Howard is not still around - he knew more about all these issues than most here.

Meanwhile there is good snow in the mountains this year - a bit of lift for the Murray hopefully come melt time. More heavy snow expected tomorrow.

Prepare for the worst, adapt for four degrees.

Submitted by John Pratt on August 9, 2008 - 11:04am.

"Mitigate for two degrees; adapt for four" has long been the catchphrase among climate negotiators and campaigners. Translated, that means: try to reduce emissions to stay below two degrees of warming, but also prepare for the worst.

And Bob Watson should know – he is the former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but was kicked out at the behest of the Bush administration for being too vocal about the threat presented by global warming. (Any sceptic reading who thinks that the IPCC is a conspiracy of environmentalists take note: it is a creature of government as well as of science.) He has long made clear his own personal passion and commitment to tackling the issue – often without mincing his words. He is also someone with a very wide-ranging perspective: after leaving the IPCC, Watson chaired the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a landmark UN study published in 2005 looking at the totality of human impact on the planet's natural systems. (The news wasn't good.)...
By the time global temperatures reach four degrees, much of humanity will be short of water for drinking and irrigation: glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas, which feed river systems on which tens of millions depend, will have melted, and their rivers will be seasonally running dry. Whole weather systems like the Asian monsoon (which supports 2 billion people) may alter irrevocably. Deserts will have spread into Mediterranean Europe, across most of southern Africa and the western half of the United States. Higher northern latitudes will be plagued with regular flooding. Heatwaves of unimaginable ferocity will sear continental landscapes: the UK would face the kind of summer temperatures found in northern Morocco today. The planet would be in the throes of a mass extinction of natural life approaching in magnitude that at the end of the Cretaceous period, 65m years ago, when more than half of global biodiversity was wiped out.
Four degrees of warming would also cross many of the "tipping points" which so concern climate scientists: the Amazon rainforest would likely collapse and burn, as part of a massive further release of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems – the reverse of the current situation, where trees and soils absorb and store a good portion of our annual emissions. Most of the Arctic permafrost will lie in the melt zone, and will be steadily releasing methane, accelerating warming still further. The northern polar ice cap will be a distant memory, and Greenland will be melting so rapidly that sea level rise by the end of the century will be measured in metres rather than centimetres.

How would we go about adapting to four degrees of climate change?

What would be the economic cost be to adapt?

How many lives would be lost?

How much permanent environmental damage would be done to the planet.

How do the climate sceptics answer these questions?

Sceptics believe the planet is cooling, they point to how much cooler the planet is. Ignoring the amount of polar ice that is melting. In their world the cooler it gets the more the ice melts. Forget the laws of physics when you can live in a world of fantasy.

Communism is just so......last century

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 9, 2008 - 2:02am.

Bill Avent

My argument that "the current economic and environmental system is doomed" is indeed an argument. Or do you argue that the ice caps are not melting?

Well, in the Southern Hemisphere ice is actually not melting, it's getting larger. Maybe a reason for the warming decline since 98, who knows. Changes in climate is not unusual, and in fact, has happened over millions of years. Indeed, throughout the span of human existence.

And with every major city under water, and crop growing areas no longer growing crops, and everyone starving, transportation as we know it all kaput, do you think anyone will care about the bloody economy?

We'll all live in yellow submarine. That's about the respect that fear-mongering prophecy deserves.

Actually, where the ice is melting, is seen as an economic godsend. It allows a place such as Greenland an economic reason for independence - availability to minerals etc. And they did grow grapes there at one time in the distant pass. Imagine a vintage Greenland wine........

We should fear an ice age much more than a warm age.

If you care about those born since the year 2000, get real, and forget about the economy.

No can do.

That would mean my future may have to live in something like present day Cuba - and there isn't any guarantee they'll be able to swim or indeed even sail - and I certainly don't want them jumping walls guarded by dudes with guns and dogs.

And capitalism is just so dead in the water

Submitted by Bill Avent on August 9, 2008 - 2:01pm.

Paul Morrella: "the Southern Hemisphere ice is actually not melting, it's getting larger."

Yeah, sure it is, Paul. In your own little dream world. The trouble is, you are doing your dreaming in a real world. Here is a report from The Australian's science writer, Leigh Dayton, January 15th this year:

THE most comprehensive study to date of Antarctica's ice confirms growing concern that the ice cap is melting faster than predicted.
The implications are that the global sea level will rise faster than expected, while a huge influx of freshwater into the salty oceans could alter ocean currents.
Antarctica holds 90 per cent of Earth's ice.
According to the new findings, snowfall is topping up ice in the continent's interior and East Antarctic has held its own. But West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula lost nearly 200 billion tonnes of ice in 2006 alone.

You will find these plain facts reported in newspapers from all over the world. To get a grasp on reality you need to look past the drivel of the Duffys and the Daffies and consider things said by the sensible.

Fantasise all you want about enjoying wine from grapes grown under water in a nice warm Greenland's lowlands, and minerals mined and smelted in its higher country — and marketed, presumably, to a decimated world population living in a hunter-gatherer economy. The trouble is, people of future generations won't be living in your dream world.

Climate change is happening faster than anticipated.

Submitted by John Pratt on August 8, 2008 - 8:17am.

There has been a 30 percent increase in the melting of the Greenland ice sheet between 1979 and 2007, and in 2007, the melt was 10 percent bigger than in any previous year, said Konrad Steffen, director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado, which monitors the ice. Greenland is now losing 200 cubic kilometers of ice per year — from melt and ice sliding into the ocean from outlet glaciers along its edges — which far exceeds the volume of all the ice in the European Alps, he added. “Everything is happening faster than anticipated.”

Greenland's ice sheet is melting faster than predicted, putting 200 cubic kilometers of water into the ocean ever year.

Steffen estimates sea levels could rise three feet over the next century, a stark prediction that could wreak havoc around the world if it comes to pass. Greenland holds enough ice to cause sea levels to rise 23 feet if the entire ice sheet melted.

If Greensland's ice sheet continues to melt at a rate much faster than predicted we could soon see at least a 7 metre rise in sea levels. What would be the economic cost if cities like New York, Sydney, Jakarta, Shanghai are flooded? Surely it is better to act sooner rather than later.

Paul's vision of abandoning our cities and moving inland may be a reality sooner than we think.

Our own Harbour Jetty at last

Submitted by Malcolm B Duncan on August 8, 2008 - 1:07pm.

I'm rather looking forward to mooring the dingy off the balcony here on the 7th floor. Much easier to get to the Supreme Court - just moor on the top of the Art Gallery and walk from there. The garage will still be above water too.

Fiona: But does the Pug float?

Sub judice in more ways than one....

Submitted by Ian MacDougall on August 8, 2008 - 2:54pm.

Malcolm: "Much easier to get to the Supreme Court - just moor on the top of the Art Gallery and walk from there."

Swim from there more likely, and to a Court which will be awash with more than learned argument.

And who knows? Your practice might be so extensive as to qualify you to represent Australia in the Mens' 1500 m freestyle, in say 2016.

Sub judice might by then need fine distinction from sub marine.

Paddling pooches

Submitted by Malcolm B Duncan on August 8, 2008 - 2:38pm.

The Pug doesn't have to float, Dr Reynolds - we just keep to the ridgelines all the way to Bondi Junction - the highest point in the Eastern Suburbs and we'll still be able to get to important cultural sites like Edgecliff, The Dudley, the Woolahra, Easts Leagues Club, Malcolm Turnbull's Electorate Office and that great canoodling spot, The Gap (trial no 2 starts on 25th).

Return of the lost souls

Submitted by peter hindrup on August 8, 2008 - 1:29pm.

Now look! Two have returned – not that I am implying anything!

Damn right it's selfish

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 8, 2008 - 3:20am.

Bill Avent: "Of course they do. Why should we sacrifice any of our comfort for them? Why would we want to leave them an inhabitable world?"

You're the one writing the current economic and environmental system is doomed, not even an argument, beyond all arguments apparently. So why are you being so protective of a mooted hotch potch economic policy? Shouldn't the next generation decide on what system they'd like in "our new world"? It's soon to be "their world" after all.

Truth is the present generations (those born before 2000) are taking it all, economically at least, and they want more. I mean, excessive taxes aren't really a problem when you don't pay them (compensation anyone?). And we have had our good run of earning - though apparently this all must end, and end now! Strangely this is taking place as a generation comes to the end of the earning road, indeed the road. I wonder how many are donating their "lot" back to society - whilst in the land of the living, that is? Of course this is all needed, for something that's a sure thing post 2050.

Indeed you're right Bill, this generation is selfish, so selfish in fact, that entire economic dreams must die with them. If the greed wasn't so great, consumption would be the thing being taxed. Not growth, and not the future.

The kids of the future would be mad to put up with it.

The economy will be the first to go

Submitted by Bill Avent on August 8, 2008 - 2:56pm.

Paul, when was I protective of of any mooted hotch potch economic policy? I am just as dismissive of that as you are, though for different reasons. Before too long, it seems to me, that economy you are so obsessed with will be a total non issue. With global warming it will self-destruct of its own accord.

My argument that "the current economic and environmental system is doomed" is indeed an argument. Or do you argue that the ice caps are not melting? Or do you argue that the melting is not indicative of warming, or that it is not going to cause further warming? And further melting, and further warming, ad-infinitum?

And with every major city under water, and crop growing areas no longer growing crops, and everyone starving, transportation as we know it all kaput, do you think anyone will care about the bloody economy? Are you going to transplant Wall Street to Mexico City or Tibet or somewhere, to keep the market alive? If you care about those born since the year 2000, get real, and forget about the economy.

Wouldn't know your neo's from your Leo's

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 8, 2008 - 2:49am.

Ernest William: "G'day Bill. Well said - nothing is more enlightening to a selfish neo-conservative than to throw back at him his own language of stupidity."

I am not a neo conservative. Though, the term is probably something you hurl at any person that doesn't toe the line of your preferred political entity. You being the number one fan club member and all.

The climate change debate stretches across the world, and indeed the political divide. Most man made climate change believers are from the socialist ranks, this is true; however, many from those ranks do also disagree with it. The same arguments can be made for conservatives.

The next generation

Submitted by F Kendall on August 7, 2008 - 12:33pm.

I do not know any personal details of you, obviously, Paul Morrella, so I am curious to know whether you regard "the next generation" as, say, the 40 years olds? 20? 5?

It's not our right

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 7, 2008 - 11:23am.

Ian MacDougall: "The risk, however, is that by the time we have evidence of anthropogenic warming enough to satisfy even the Neanderthal Right of the Liberal Party and their friends in the Lavoisier Group, we may well find ourselves past a fatal tipping point."

There are a lot of people that disagree with man made global warming theories - whatever happened to the "global warming" term anyway? The above examples are a small group in an overall world movement. They have as much power to sway the argument as Australia (with 1.5% of emissions) has to change any man made climate change. If indeed it's even man made - which is still in dispute.

We are in completely uncharted waters here. Full steam ahead and let's hope we don't hit an iceberg is not precautionary, rational, or wise in my opinion.

I think those decisons belong to the next generation.

Next generation?

Submitted by Ian MacDougall on August 7, 2008 - 2:22pm.

Paul: "I think those decisons belong to the next generation."

There are those who disagree strongly, and hold that those decisions belong in the next 10 years.

For example.

The Me generation

Submitted by Bill Avent on August 7, 2008 - 1:13pm.

Paul Morrella: "I think those decisons belong to the next generation."

Of course they do. Why should we sacrifice any of our comfort for them? Why would we want to leave them an inhabitable world?

After all, what the hell have future generations ever done for us?

The next generation?

Submitted by Ernest William ... on August 7, 2008 - 5:36pm.

G'day Bill. Well said - nothing is more enlightening to a selfish neo-conservative than to throw back at him his own language of stupidity.

Fear to the point when people stop listening

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 7, 2008 - 11:16am.

John Pratt:

If we were to sacrifice half our income say to around $20,000 per year on average to reduce our carbon footprint, we would still be twenty times richer than most. We have plenty of fat we can live without coal.
You seem to have this strange notion economics is zero sum. If you sacrifice $20 000, you sacrifice $20 000, nobody else finds it, it disappears. The person losing the $20 000 feels the pain, and the person not getting the $20 000 (through trade) feels the pain. Basically, what you're advocating is a depression. And I'm not sure that's helpful to anyone.

It is obvious that the best economic outcome for Australia would be to ban coal exports and to close down all coal fired power stations.

Why stop there? Why not make people go back to the horse and buggy? Why not desert the cities all together? Why not march the entire population into the middle of Australia, and into nirvana? It is a democracy and people do have the right to take such action.

How's about you be leader, switch off your computer, and take the first step?They'll all catch up later.

The choices are ours - the future is in our hands

Submitted by John Pratt on August 7, 2008 - 8:46am.

The more climate changes, the more thresholds will be crossed in natural and human systems. Passing such tipping points can have unpredictable consequences due to the complexity of the climate system. Both anticipated and unanticipated impacts become more likely with increased warming. The impacts of abrupt climate changes can exceed our ability to cope.
The Future is in Our Hands human-induced climate change is affecting us now. Its impacts on our economy, security, and quality of life will increase in the decades to come. Beyond the next few decades, when warming is “locked in” to the climate system from human activities to date, the future lies largely in our hands. Will we begin reducing heattrapping emissions now, thereby reducing future climate disruption and its impacts? Will we alter our planning and development in ways that reduce our vulnerability to the changes that are already on the way? The choices are ours.

The comments above are from a draft report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

It is the latest in a series of reports that must leave us all in no doubt that we are putting our ability to cope with the effects of climate change at risk. We are running out of time and to say we should do nothing because we might put the economy at risk is a folly of major proportions.

Suffocate, freeze or starve?

Submitted by peter hindrup on August 7, 2008 - 9:41am.

John, I wondered if anybody else had caught up with the rising acidity of the ocean.

Forget the fish, the ocean, or something in it, is the greatest source of oxygen on the planet. I can tell you from experience that if you cannot breathe life becomes extremely difficult.

I am continually astounded to hear the economy put as equal to the concern for the environment if not before it in any discussion about what action to take. It is as if people and politicians believe that this is something like some political idea that they can take up at some time of their choosing, or ignore if it is too difficult, or too expensive.

The constant bickering about the “science” drives me to distraction. Science? Open your bloody eyes and look at the changes that are happening, look at the increasing number of ever more violent storms occurring around the world, at the increasing instances of extreme weather.

The Gulf Stream, which is continually monitored at myriad points is declining in salinity. At some point the decrease in salinity will cause the current to stop. The scientific belief is that at that point we get an instant ice age. This bothers me, I detest the cold!

Although the increasing acidity is sheeted home to increased carbon dioxide (??) in the atmosphere isn’t remarkable that “we” have managed to so overload that mighty, always with us disposal unit that we have choked it up? Whoever would have thought it possible?

Something that could be done with immediate effect would be to stop, that is cease within 12 months dumping anything into the oceans. Expensive? Yes. Difficult, no!

While it cannot be the whole answer eliminating one area of stress is not unusual in the practice of healing.

But then hell, why bother? If the bee disease continues to spread we are probably going to starve to death anyway.

Ocean acidification another reason to ban coal exports

Submitted by John Pratt on August 7, 2008 - 8:26am.

Paul, the do nothing approach to coal exports is also putting the oceans of the world at risk due to ocean acidification.

Changing ocean chemistry threatens the survival of marine life as much as warming temperatures. Understanding the basic chemistry of ocean acidification and the relevant consequences for people and wildlife are keys to effective journalism on an issue of growing importance and interest to media audiences.
Far-reaching implications - a threatened food supply, lost coastal protection, diminished biodiversity, and disrupted carbon cycling - arise from these chemical reactions. The story involves fundamental change within the largest living space on the planet, changes that are happening fast, and right now.

If we continue to pump C02 into the atmosphere we are putting the world's fish production at risk. That is a cost of $92 billion per year and rising.

The value of world exports of fish and fish products grew 9.5% in 2006 to US$86 billion and nearly 7% in 2007 to US$92 billion, according to the paper, presented to 60+ countries attending the 11th session of FAO's Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Bremen, Germany 2-6 June 2008).
The proportion of world fish production (145 million tonnes) that is traded internationally now represents 38% of the total, or 55 million tonnes, the paper noted.

So why should we put the oceans and the planet at risk just so Australia can make a quick $6 or $7 billion?

In 2006-07, Australian thermal coal exports were 111.6 million tonnes, an increase of less than 1 per cent on the previous year. The moderate growth reﬂected capacity constrained export infrastructure and the loss of around 2.5 million tonnes of throughput because of a severe storm that affected the Hunter Valley and port of Newcastle in early June. The value of thermal coal exports in 2006-07 was $6.8 billion, a 6 per cent fall from 2005-06,

Why should we put the $6 billion tourist value of the Great Barrier Reef at risk?

Today the Great Barrier Reef contributes $5.8 billion annually to the Australian economy. This comprises $5.1 billion from the tourism industry, $610 million from recreational activity and $149 million from commercial fishing. This economic activity generates about 63 000 jobs, mostly in the tourism industry, which brings over 1.9 million visitors to the Reef each year. About 69 000 recreational vessels are registered in the area next to the Reef.

It is obvious that the best economic outcome for Australia would be to ban coal exports and to close down all coal fired power stations. Until we have developed a cost effective method of carbon capture and storage, we should only export to countries that have effective CCS.

Who is being cautious?

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 6, 2008 - 7:28pm.

Ian MacDougall: "Paul, as I think I showed in my last post on this thread, the Precautionary Principle [1] is a very powerful argument in relation to the threat of Climate Change and the uncertainties inherent in the relevant science."

I would think it "precautionary" not to turn the world upside down before even knowing if climate change is caused by economic activity.

In the first half of 1939, the majority of public opinion in Britain opposed rearmament and favoured appeasement of Hitler.

It's easy to be genius with hindsight. We'd probably be saying similar things if, indeed, we'd have wiped Cuba off the face of the earth.

The changes being put forward for "precautionary" reasons aren't meaningless changes. They'll have dramatic consequences for everybody. That should make people proceed with great caution.

Cost does not trump nature

Submitted by Ian MacDougall on August 7, 2008 - 1:14am.

Paul: "I would think it 'precautionary' not to turn the world upside down, before even knowing if climate change is caused by economic activity."

Yes, agreed about turning the world upside down. But 'turning the world upside down' is a very loose expression. According to my understanding of Stern, the economic changes are not so difficult, provided (1) the cost is spread so that it is not carried by a minority of the population and (2) that we act sooner rather than later.

Caution is highly commendable, and at the heart as you say of the Precautionary Principle. The risk, however, is that by the time we have evidence of anthropogenic warming enough to satisfy even the Neanderthal Right of the Liberal Party and their friends in the Lavoisier Group, we may well find ourselves past a fatal tipping point.

None of us - left or right, Catholic or Protestant, black, white or brindle - chose to have it this way.

We are in completely uncharted waters here. Full steam ahead and let's hope we don't hit an iceberg is not precautionary, rational, or wise in my opinion.

Above all, cost does not trump nature.

You don't have the right

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 6, 2008 - 7:11pm.

John Pratt: "What is your solution? Do you believe if we ignore climate change it will just go away?"

I've never written that any person should ignore climate change. I've written that man made climate change is still in dispute. I've also put forward a number of proposals of what nations could do - namely Australia since the site is of Australian origin. Proposals that don't include economic devastation, and apocalyptic outcomes are seemingly ignored.

You are the one putting forward drastic economic changes need to be made. You are entitled to have a plan to deal with such changes - and you are entitled to be asked to outline it. Perhaps you think if you make something happen, somebody else will be left to figure it out along the way? That's not a plan, that's irresponsible.

Or should we just kiss our arses goodbye?

I'm a reasonably wealthy person. If major economic changes are made, I'll survive. It won't be me "kissing my arse goodbye" as you say - or at least a lot of people will be going before me. People such as yourself could well be doing more damage than you ever imagine. However, you will be long gone by then, and not accountable to future generations. The climate change debate is the height of human (western) self vanity.

The tipping point

Submitted by John Pratt on August 6, 2008 - 11:21pm.

Paul, you say "a lot of people will be going before me."

You're right, of course: a lot of people who are already at risk of starvation will die before those of us in the West are threatened by the effects of climate change.

I am just not as comfortable as you seem to be, watching people less fortunate than myself suffer because of my greed and refusal to change.

If we have any morals at all we cannot sit a watch others suffer as a result of inaction.

Did you watch the Four Corners program The Tipping Point. ?

The visual evidence of melting Arctic sea ice, probably the greatest change the planet has seen in two million years, is a little hard to ignore. I know you still believe that the change is not man made but what if it is? Don't you think we should err on the side of caution?

As you know, billions of people on this planet live on less the $1,000 a year. If we were to sacrifice half our income say to around $20,000 per year on average to reduce our carbon footprint, we would still be twenty times richer than most. We have plenty of fat - we can live without coal.

What worries me is that the effects of climate change seem to be happening a lot faster that scientists have predicted. What if they have been too conservative? Have you noticed that most planets and moons so far discovered in space are either too hot or too cold for human life to survive?

The earth is to the best of our knowledge is unique. The call it the Goldilocks effect.

What would happen if we increased the Earth's temperature by ten or twenty degrees? We could end up destroying the habitable zones of the planet.

As you point out, our knowledge is limited. I think it is vain to think we know all the answers. If we see change and most scientists say it is caused by human activity surely it is wise to cease that activity until we know for sure, rather than blindly going where no man has gone before.

Completely reckless to point of criminal

Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 6, 2008 - 1:16pm.

John Pratt : "The world is watching Australia. We can play a big role on the global issue of climate change. As the world's largest exporter of coal, we could reduce world global greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out coal exports."

And where, if I may be so bold, will you find the revenue to replace earnings from coal? Where should government cut spending? Welfare, health, education? Not even Eastern European communists were this stupid.

You really do, at times, spout some of the most economically reckless gibberish. Is it your dream to see a financially broken Australia or something? If it is, you're on the right path. Australians should fear whoever it is, feeding you this nonsense, more than any imagined climate apocalypse.

Questions without answers

Submitted by John Pratt on August 6, 2008 - 5:27pm.

Paul, if we were attacked by another country we would find the money to protect ourselves. We are just as threatened by climate change so we need to find the money to protect ourselves.

I believe a lot of money can be saved just by being more efficient with our use of energy.

The news is not all bad because there will be opportunities to develop new industries to replace the carbon producing exports.

Where are we going to find the money to build the sea walls to protect our coastal properties from rising sea levels?

Where are we going to find the money to create new farming land as the Murray Darling Basin goes dry?

Who is going to pay for all the desalination plants we will need to provide water to our cities?

How much will the extra insurance cost us due to an increase in floods and storm damage?

Lots of questions with very few answers.

What is your solution? Do you believe if we ignore climate change it will just go away?

It is very easy to be negative but do you have anything positive to add to the debate?

Or should we just kiss our arses goodbye?

Imagined climate apocalypse?

Submitted by Ian MacDougall on August 6, 2008 - 4:22pm.

Paul, as I think I showed in my last post on this thread, the Precautionary Principle [1] is a very powerful argument in relation to the threat of Climate Change and the uncertainties inherent in the relevant science.

In the first half of 1939, the majority of public opinion in Britain opposed rearmament and favoured appeasement of Hitler. That ostrich-like mentality was understandable, I suppose, in the light of what Britain's population had suffered in WW1, but it changed in September of that year when it became obvious to even Neville Chamberlain that war with Germany was unavoidable.

I have no doubt that many would have argued then that Britain could not afford another war with Germany. It would be too expensive. How would the country pay for it? "Where should government cut spending? Welfare, health, education?"

"Churchill and his ilk really do, at times, spout some of the most economically reckless gibberish. Is it their dream to see a financially broken Britain or something? If it is, they're on the right path. Britons should fear whoever feeds them this nonsense, and more than any imagined German invasion."

Global humanity's first organised effort in planetary climate management was the Montreal Protocol. The second is Kyoto: far more difficult, mainly because of the undisputed costs of economic change involved.

We are arguably locked in to a 2 degree warming, and it looks like being a rough, uncomfortable, and inevitably costly ride. Are you saying that an even worse scenario, just because of the costs of avoiding it, is inherently impossible? Does cost trump nature?

"It costs too much, therefore it can't happen" might be a wife's response to a husband's proposal to buy a brand new 2 seater Mazda MX5 with retractable hard top. It can't be a rational response to a threatened apocalypse, which is what a German invasion of Britain would have been.

Likewise, a 3 degree warming of the world.

Save money and save the planet

Submitted by John Pratt on August 6, 2008 - 11:29am.

Mr. Reicher, now the director for climate change and energy initiatives at Google, said, “From cars and homes to factories and offices, we know how to cost-effectively deliver vast quantities of energy savings today.”
He cited estimates suggesting that an additional global investment in “efficiency opportunities” of $170 billion annually over the next 13 years “would be sufficient to cut projected global demand by at least half.”
Combining the development of alternative fuels with a real efficiency and conservation effort is the winning hand in the global energy crisis.

We can cut our energy bills and reduce emissions by at least half just by being more efficient. The government must regulate efficiency throughout the economy. How easy it would be to reduce our emissions at the stroke of a pen?

Navigation

The Issues