Climate Change

[Alan Wheeler]

"Former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern last year warned that the fallout of climate change could be on the scale of the two world wars and the Great Depression of the 1930s unless urgent action was taken."

See!!! here's another "chicken little" quote. How can anyone possibly make a comment like that. There is no crystal ball. Maybe climate change will, maybe it won't. But scare tacktics and uncreadible comments like that will never get any seriouse consideration from me.

[Pura Vida]

I'm hip Wheels. My point is that a few posts back in the thread another post implied the opposite, that the world economy would collapse if action was taken on climate change (along with the starvation of a part of the developing world.) As a social scientist by training I hate to admit it, but economics is a science, so it is at least a little better than US AM radio talk shows as a source of information.

[GordMay]

Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, also reported on the economics of climate change to Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Concluding that inaction would essentially reduce global GDP by at least 5 percent annually (costing the world up to $7 trillion), he suggested that mitigation, by contrast, would use about 1 percent of global GDP annually.
In a widely repeated warning, Stern said that climate change represents "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen."

[NoTies]

[quote=Capct]First of all...a comment to the fearmongers who say ******** like

"Are you prepared to risk the comfort & health of this generation (and the planet)"

You left out the question mark in your quote. Is this another example of selective use of information to further your own ends?? How can a question be "********"???

[GordMay]

Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, also reported on the economics of climate change to Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer. Concluding that inaction would essentially reduce global GDP by at least 5 percent annually (costing the world up to $7 trillion), he suggested that mitigation, by contrast, would use about 1 percent of global GDP annually. In a widely repeated warning, Stern said that climate change represents "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen."

The IPCC’s recent report's key projection is, that the kind of tough emissions-reduction schemes to prevent a severe temperature rise of 3 to 4 degrees F. would result in 3 percent less global economic growth by 2030, or a reduction in growth of about 0.12 percent annually. In other words, the world economy could still grow robustly, but at a slightly slower rate, while nations take steps to avoid severe climate change.

Even such radical left-wing pinko environmentalists as President Bush, who has said previously that he recognizes the serious environmental problems created by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, recognize that there is some sort of problem. He remains conservative on mitigation measures, urging against anything other than a voluntary approach, saying regulations could undercut economic activity. According to the Whitehouse, such a drop in GDP would amount to a recession. But the IPCC countesr that this economic slowdown would be mild compared with the disasters that might be averted by the recommended mitigation steps.

Notwithstanding, a degree of appropriate humility is found in the IPCC report. The severity & rapidity of climate change remains uncertain. As a result, determining the size of a carbon tax or a cap on emissions (or any other mitigating measure) is "not ... unambiguous." It's difficult to know when the costs of action will exceed the benefits.

No doubt, there is much to be learned about the economic social, & political impacts of global warming, various mitigation measures, and/or inactivity.

Personally, I’n not convinced that we have to be ” prepared to waste billions of dollars~ ruin economies~ kill millions in the third world by stunting their ability to feed themselves~prevent the modernization of the third world”, as Capct suggests. In fact, I find that prediction to be even more shrill fear mongering propaganda (chicken little) than Sir Nicholas’ predictions.

[Benny]

A couple of centuries ago is when alot of landclearing and burning was done to provide more agricultural land and coal had become the primary fuel for heat and emerging industrial processes in the cities which were becoming the main area of human concentration. This is the start of the human influenced warming period Gord refers to.

Unfortunately, overpopulation is predicted to become worse so I agree that this is a major issue in dealing with control of pollution and exhaustion of natural resources. Again it is one of the challenges we will have to address and overcome as best we can. Helping the third world become part of 'our' world will be the best solution to the population problem - most developed countries have negative population growth. As I stated in an earlier post, it will cost less and be of less negative impact to help those countries with aid, education and technology now than when we are forced to or alternatively when nature or wars force us to. There is no isolation of counties anymore. We are tied together in many ways and we would be foolhardy to believe we can ignore the rest of the world in their struggles. As these countries develop, they become markets for our goods and sources of raw materials for our industrial base - we need them to expand our markets.

It is easier for the moment to do nothing and hope the status quo continues but it won't and it hasn't for quite a few years now. The age of rhetoric and blind faith in our supremacy has passed and we all must deal with the entire world to forge a viable global future.

[Capct]

Temperatures have gone through nearly two complete cycles of warming and cooling over the last 100 years. During the period 1900 to 1940 temperatures were increasing. Then from 1940 to 1975 temperatures were decreasing. Currently, temperatures are increasing back to about where they were in the 1930's.
Overall, the total average annual temperature increase in the last century is so slight the actual amount is uncertain-- maybe 1/3° C.


NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Orbital Variations and Milankovitch Theory

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibi...ciations1.html

Sunspots and climate

[Benny]

Thank nyou Capct - now what about 1995 to 2005?

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Scientists from Nasa (Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, Cal.) say that Mars has warmed by about 0.65C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.
In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature*.
Fenton’s team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa’s Viking mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor. They found there had been widespread changes, with some areas becoming darker. That, theorize the scientists, might have in part caused the recent retreat of Mars' southern polar ice cap.

* Radiation variations produce increased dust transport and wind circulation:
When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite effect. The temperature differences between the two are thought to be stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the planet.

There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena, here on Earth.

WTF? I didn't post this.

[GordMay]

My deepest apologies 44'ruisingcat - I know that I am responsible for trhe post; but I don't know how I posted under your name. Nontheless, my mistake was unexcusable.

I also owe someone else an apology. I seem to have removed someone's post about Martian Warming. I intended to quote that post, and comment. My apologies to that unknown member.

Gord

[Benny]

Heres a couple of graphs and the intergovernmental report on global warming which captures most of the science and expected outcomes on climate change. Enjoy reading


http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by GordMay

My deepest apologies 44'ruisingcat - I know that I am responsible for trhe post; but I don't know how I posted under your name. Nontheless, my mistake was unexcusable.

I also owe someone else an apology. I seem to have removed someone's post about Martian Warming. I intended to quote that post, and comment. My apologies to that unknown member.

Gord

LOL Gord, one of my posts seems to have dissappeared. No worries, we all make mistakes. As usual, your post contained more information anyway.

Anyway, my point about Martian warming was that it has occurred at about the same rate, over a similar timespan as it has happened here. But some scientists seem to be putting that down to co-incidence, more or less - the same thing is happening to the same degree on two different planets at the same time, yet the reasons are entirely different?

I'm not saying human activity doesn't contribute to global warming - I'm just not sure to what extent it does, if any. Clearly the climate on Earth has always been changing, and it continues to do so.

[Capct]

Originally Posted by Benny

Heres a couple of graphs and the intergovernmental report on global warming which captures most of the science and expected outcomes on climate change. Enjoy reading

Unfortunately this illustrates the problem perfectly ~ a graph captures none of the science and certainly no expected outcomes....especially when this graph expired in 2005.

temperature goes up and down ~that is all one can extrapolate from that graph.

But somehow it gets translated as "the sky is falling , the sky is falling"

[senormechanico]

(yawn) We've had a cool spring. Had to build a fire in the woodstove night before last. It's even been a little too cold to do much sailing.
(sips hot cocoa)

Steve B.

[Benny]

Capct - did you read the 21 page report that accompanies the graphs - this is the very empirical evidence you demanded along with much more evidence already posted. Your position is not supported by the one and only source you posted that leaves out 1995 to 2006 - being the 12 hottest years on record within recorded history. It is unfortunate that you are intransigent in the face of overwhelming world scientific evidence and we have been quite patient answering your unfounded claims with real evidence and considered analysis. Since you are unable to or refuse to comprehend this issue and it ramifications, and have offered no valid arguments or input, I consider any further posts by you on this subject as unworthy of my response and time spent attempting to educate you. It is one thing to have a position and support it with valid evidence and arguments but since your are fond of the word, just about all of what you have claimed is '********!'