Prescription for Paralysis
At the NYT Green blog, Justin Gillis writes (my emphasis):
Climate scientists have long called for steps to limit the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and they are growing more and more worried about the slow pace of action. Yet their sense of urgency has not permeated society at large, and it certainly does not seem to be influencing the course of events in Washington, where climate legislation stalled last year.
All true.
So if we know that progress on the domestic and international policy fronts is stalled, then this leaves one last option for the climate concerned community: generating a larger “sense of urgency.”
Hence the new report from the San Francisco-based ClimateWorks Foundation that, says Gillis, “does the best job I have seen of explaining, in layman’s terms, why scientists keep pressing the [climate] issue.” The report cuts right to the chase (my emphasis):
The physics of the earth harbor a frightening punch line for the climate change story: Even though the consequences of climate change persist for the very long term, the time to avoid those consequences is very short. A delay “” of even a decade “”in reducing CO2 emissions will lock in large-scale, irreversible change. Delay also increases the risk that the whole climate system will spin out of control. This message may be alarming, but it is not alarmism; it’s physics. And the earth’s climate physics have serious implications for political action and technological innovation in the coming decade.
So the clock is ticking. But the real punch line–which I’ve bolded below–comes at the end of the report:
ClimateWorks’ goal is to limit annual global greenhouse gas emissions to 44 billion metric tons by the year 2020 (25 percent below business-as-usual projections) and 35 billion metric tons by the year 2030 (50 percent below projections). These ambitious targets require the immediate and widespread adoption of smart energy and land use policies. ClimateWorks and its network of afï¬liated organizations promote these policies in the regions and sectors responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions.
“Immediate,” as in now? Next week? Next year, or just by 2020? And what does “widespread” mean? I’m kinda thinking it’s another way of saying much of the world.
So what happens if the world is no closer to adopting these ambitious targets by, say, 2015? What if we’re still having the same debates then? What if there is still no sense of urgency permeating society at large?
Does the climate concerned community continue blaming oil companies, “deniers,” and the media for the lack of progress? Do they have a Plan B?
To avert “large-scale, irreversible change,” does ClimateWorks have particular “smart energy and land policies” in mind?
The clock is ticking.
I dispute the claim that there is any sense of “urgency” among climate scientist. As you noted yesterday, the “concerned” have been offering the Easter Bunny fairy tale solutions for 20 years and rejecting actual emission reductions. Such a strategy specifically points to a lack of urgency.
There has been a sense of urgency to use this as an excuse for tax revenue (at a level, of course, that would have no impact on GHG emissions). There has been a sense of urgency to use this as an excuse to transfer wealth from developed to developing nations (with the net effect of increasing world-wide GHG emissions). There has been urgency among those eager to cash in on subsidy farms (to grow windmills and solar panels that have no affect on GHG emissions).
But, there has been absolutely no urgency on the part of the concerned to actually reduce emissions.
You apparently have one commenter (Paul Kelly) who is taking this message seriously and actually doing something about it.
Who is helping him,who is cursing him and who is ignoring him?
The answer to those questions contains the answers to those posed in your post.
Jeffn:
Climate scientists, as a whole, have a rising sense of urgency. I’ve spoken to enough of them over the years (including many that are not quoted in news articles). So I think that is a fair statement.
Ironically (or perhaps not), the one prominent scientist who is most known for vocalizing this sense of urgency is also the same one who speaks candidly (publicly, anyway) about the gargantuan scale of the challenge.
I am not as cynical as you are regarding some ulterior motivation you ascribe to wind farm advocates and such. That said, are there people in the environmental community who piggyback on the climate change cause to advance their own agendas> Sure, but that does not negate the issue.
Tom,
The antipathy towards Paul Kelly by pro-AGW folks in blog threads has long mystified me. It’s not as if you can’t have a bottom up and a top-down approach at the same time.
There are many bottom up approaches forwarded by PRO-agw types. The antipathy toward PK has more to do with his antipathy toward top down approaches. It is a disagreement over top-down approaches, not bottom up. We all agree on the bottom up approaches. And it also goes beyond that. It is also the ‘first rule of climate change is that you don’t mention climate change’ approach that people disagree with. And only going for LHF approach. The argument is much broader goes both ways. This blame game approach goes nowhere.
Matt Nisbet provides some very useful background on ClimateWorks and its role in the climate debate since 2008:
The 2007 report that led to ClimateWorks explained: “if we
don’t act boldly in the next decade to prevent carbon lock-in, we
could lose the fight against global warming.” Apparently four years later we still have a decade.
I characterized the 2007 strategy that gave us ClimateWorks as “doomed to fail“. Their latest report (linked in your post above) argues that “The math of historical CO2 accumulation gives us no choice but to slash emissions to very low levels.”
To suggest that science or math gives us “no choice” is also a strategy doomed to fail.
As Dr. Pielke posted they did have a plan. Of course at the time their goal was to reduce emissions by 30 gigatons by 2030 and their plan only was estimated to cut only 11 gigatons. I suspect the Easter Bunny was going to remove the other 19 gigatons.
There is now more to do and less time to do it in yet many CC proponents resist the idea to change strategies or even consider that the current ones have failed?
On a more cynical note, since Climate Works seems to act as bundler of Philanthropic endeavors I guess they can not really say, oops are plan has not worked but if you keep sending us checks are new plan will.
Meanwhile, China is thinking ahead:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-01/chinese-government-sets-nationwide-solar-photovoltaic-power-on-grid-prices.html
“The government seeks to keep on-grid tariffs of electricity generated by solar projects as competitive as those set by plants using coal, oil and gas as fuel to encourage consumers to shift to cleaner-burning energy sources.”
If you look at the motivation to cut emissions, lets look at those countries promoted as role models and their road to this status:
Denmark started a government-backed wind energy program in 1976 to wean the country off oil.
France built the most extensive nuclear plant network per capita for the same reasons.
Sweden built nuclear for the same reason and happens to have extensive hydropower reserves.
Passenger cars in EU nations have the lowest emissions. Not due to climate concern but because of very high fuel taxes to fill government coffers.
My own country, Finland, has built nuclear to cut the oil bill and most recently to provide our industries with affordable energy.
Climate issues make great press but the real issue has always been the bottom line. How about using that as a starting point?
KK- “Climate scientists, as a whole, have a rising sense of urgency. I’ve spoken to enough of them over the years (including many that are not quoted in news articles). So I think that is a fair statement.”
I’m seeing less and less of the “it’s worse than we thought!” rhetoric accompanied by frightful tipping point dates. In fact, I’m seeing more and more claims that “it’s almost as bad as our least-worse-case scenarios.” Either way…
I have no doubt that some “concerned” have a sense of urgency- we’re seeing it from Lynas, Monbiot, and occasionally from Hansen. They are being pilloried as heretics by those who prefer the almighty “top down approach.” The top down approach never made any sense other than to those of a very specific political bent. The top down approach has failed – repeatedly, dramatically – for over 2 decades and it’s not because of “fossil fuel” companies or the GOP. China won’t accept it, Europe can’t make it work, and nobody of any ideology believes we have the money to intentionally vote for the most expensive and inefficient “solutions.”
I’m saying this- the focus on politics v actual solutions is 1) noticeable 2) is the primary cause of 20 years + delay in any action, 3) was clearly the position of the “climate concerned community” which most reasonably view as one and the same as “climate science” and 4) is a very good reason to be skeptical of the urgency of the problem.
If “climate science” is cool with the idea of just plugging along until the next international gabfest on the need to end “consumerism,” (while meeting at a high-end resort destination, of course) why should I be worried about the climate?
As Roger says, this kind of scaremongering with arbitrary meaningless timescales – we have a decade to avoid largescale irreversible change – is not going to impress anybody with a skeptical frame of mind.
Trying to generate a larger sense of urgency has failed over the last ten years. Why should it succeed now?
What do they have in mind? Well I see one of the authors has worked in the solar power industry.
See also comments at omniclimate blog.
Jarmo Says:
August 2nd, 2011 at 11:32 am
“Climate issues make great press but the real issue has always been the bottom line. How about using that as a starting point? ”
Of course that would be a good starting point, but with the exclusion of two large players from the table (Hydro and Nuclear) how can you possibly be making the most informed decision. A sample of Climate Shift’s table 2.4 of Climate Works agenda shows the grant investments:
RENEWABLE AND TRANSITION ENERGY SOURCES
PROMOTE RENEWABLE ENERGY, UNSPECIFIC – $33,760,908
PROMOTE BIOFUELS, SPECIFIC – $4,731,520
PROMOTE/EVALUATE CARBON CAPTURE – $2,471,887
MANAGE SITTING, TRANSMISSION ISSUES – $2,280,000
PROMOTE SOLAR – $1,427,000
PROMOTE WIND – $480,000
PROMOTE/EVALUATE NATURAL GAS – $203,768
As anyone can see, there is no Hydro or Nuclear in this agenda, solutions used by Denmark, France, Sweden, Finland and other European countries, as you say. Until these solutions are presented at the table, a “Design to Win” or “Top-Down” approach will not work. “The Honest Broker” would be another starting point 😉
“Trying to generate a larger sense of urgency has failed over the last ten years. Why should it succeed now?”
Um, because it is even more urgent now, by about ten years?
but Michael people don’t respond to fear. they respond better to aspirational messaging along the lines of ‘yes we can’…your fixation with reality-based messaging instead of ‘pragmatic’ post-partisan sound bites shows that you haven’t been paying attention 😉
The sad thing is that ClimateWorks considers themselves activists.
Trying to generate a sense of urgency is not going to work until people can trust what they hear from climate science as a whole.
As it stands, we have artificial deadlines, imaginary doom scenarios involving sea level rise and temperatures, manufactured paleoclimate constructions analyzed haphazardly.
Get your stories straight and come back to us. Repudiate the most hysterical claims that have been made–publicly and repeatedly.
Show us that you are willing to take us seriously, as well as climate change.
The more the delay, the fewer the “hysterical” claims that can be repudiated.
We’re telling pretty much the same story, modified slightly as new evidence comes in. One big reason for the perception of a meandering message is that the circumstances keep getting worse because y’all didn’t listen last time.
I will write a piece tonight on why the ten year window doesn’t get shorter.
Bart’s already done it last year, Dr. Tobis. However, the point is that until the consensus says loudly and clearly that 20 foot sea level rises and 10 degree C temperature rises are the products of a hysterical imagination, not only will the public dismiss more reasonable forecasts but it will be physically impossible to make rational plans for what is more likely to occur.
The EPA drafted a plan 10 years ago to deal with 1 meter sea level rises. The cost was moderate and the planning looked most sensible. They couldn’t do anything with it because of claims that sea level rise would be 6 meters.
You (in general) are not telling the same story. You tell different versions depending on which audience you are addressing, with different tone and emphasis. You (specifically) have at times written that you didn’t want to discuss the science and preferred policy, and at other times written the exact opposite.
It’s not just the public that cannot take this situation seriously. Planners and decision-makers literally cannot function due to the sloppy messaging and wild claims.
Self-created stalemate.
Does the climate concerned community continue blaming oil companies, “deniers,” and the media for the lack of progress?
The climate community suffers from the some of the same problems as large industrial concerns.
Who is most qualified to run a major industrial concern? The finance manager, product development/engineering manager, manufacturing manager or marketing manager?
The finance manager will always insist that the road to more profitability is cutting costs.
The product development/engineering manager will always insist that he needs more time for product development or the the design will inevitably be too complicated for manufacturing to build.
The manufacturing manager will always insist that whatever is decided it will have to be simple and easy to manufacture.
The marketing manager will spend larges sums of money trying to sell ice-makers to Eskimo’s.
So the correct answer as to who is most qualified to run a large industrial concern becomes ‘none of the above’.
A successful manager of a large industrial concern is able to acknowledge that all of the managers are in fact required and all have valid points and is able to balance the various departments in an effective way so that a marketable, cost competitive product gets manufactured and placed on store shelves along with a marketing effort that educates the consumer as to how wonderful the product is.
Hansen thinks nuclear is ready for a rollout in a big way.
Marketing doesn’t think they can sell nuclear and points to how well they’ve done selling solar panels in a country above 45 degrees north, the same place they have failed miserably selling nuclear.
Finance looked at the subsidies that had to offered to get those people above 45 degrees north to buy solar panels and was immediately rushed to the hospital.
The ‘Climate Works’ people seem to be trying to convince people that a super complicated grid along with a total redesign of our towns and cities will be our only salvation. I’ll personally represent manufacturing and proclaim that it’s too complicated to build and even if we succeed it will be so buggy only a small segment of the market will buy it.
Pielke Jr wants ‘more time’ to develop better products that are less expensive and easier to deploy.
It looks to me that the ‘Climate Concern Corporation’ is teetering on bankruptcy due to poor management.
If I look at the 10 year stock price of Peabody coal the market seems to agree.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=BTU#symbol=btu;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=;
Delay also increases the risk that the whole climate system will spin out of control. This message may be alarming, but it is not alarmism; it’s physics.
No, it’s not physics. It’s horse manure.
Oh gee. another tipping point.
Who really thinks that people don’t respond to fear? Fear is one of the most powerful tools in politics (and economics), and it is used successfully all the time.
The question is what do people fear the most, and at the moment that is not climate change. For many it is jobs and their bottom line. For others it is debt, inflation, and economic collapse. You don’t need to agree with these fears to see how effective they are as political motivators. There are a lot of more traditional things to be scared of now. These keep getting more serious, so climate change has a moving target to get to the top of the list.
Tom: “You (specifically) have at times written that you didn’t want to discuss the science and preferred policy, and at other times written the exact opposite.”
I do my best to keep the modes separate. I am interested in both but I don’t like to see them conflated, especially in ways that confuse different questions, which happens constantly.
People garble up logical sequences all the time. This situation needs to be thought through carefully. The confusion mongers are constantly causing tangles, which we have to tread carefully around while we try to untangle them.
Would be interested in a link to the article at Bart’s to which you refer, thanks.
Dr. Tobis, here is one link to Bart’s writing on the subject. He actually has amplified his thinking in several comments on his weblog, at my former place and here, IIRC.
If I can paraphrase, Bart writes that discussion of tipping points is misplaced, in that there are consequences involved even if we take action that prevents a ‘tipping point’ that mean we cannot relax and that the world doesn’t end and absolve us from action even if we pass a tipping point.
Oh–the link:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/the-risk-of-postponing-corrective-action/
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2011/08/rolling-urgency-paradox.html
I see we have returned to: “we must act now; if we wait to see the damage it will be too late”
This will continue to be a very difficult sell. It requires the public trust computer model projections of future climate (tipping points, non-linearities, that kind of thing), when those tools aren’t yet fully vetted. To some, it sounds like a non-falsifiable carnival seer trick.
Adding to the credibility problem (and has been pointed out above) are some of the other rather silly claims: 1) meters of sea level rise, 2) continental ice sheets breaking into the ocean in the foreseeable future, 3) 10C temperature rises, 4) and oh, BTW, why does warming only cause bad things – would we feel better if it was getting cooler.
One must at least nod at how the climate science community resonds to what the public percieves as kinda bad behavior (climategate, peer review, and all that). If the problem was really that urgent, the appearance of impropriety would not be tolerated – instead we see the wagon circles.
And then there’s the rent seeking – oh the rent seeking. Corn ethanol, anyone?
So, the public does not percieve urgency, because the people claiming urgency aren’t acting like it’s urgent. It really is that simple.
@kdk33
it must take a lot of effort to be so wrong on such a consistent basis. one wonders what sort of mental gymnastics you have to go through to keep it up in the face of repeated exposure to ‘facts’.
Oh and btw, you can thank ADM, Cargill, Monsanto, the founding fathers, the makers of aspartame, and lastly the makers of oxygen sensors for corn ethanol. Note the absence of climate mitigation advocates…
re 8
============
If you look at the motivation to cut emissions, lets look at those countries promoted as role models and their road to this status:
Denmark started a government-backed wind energy program in 1976 to wean the country off oil.
France built the most extensive nuclear plant network per capita for the same reasons.
Sweden built nuclear for the same reason and happens to have extensive hydropower reserves.
=================
All sensible things to do. Here in Canada, the province of Ontario has extensive hydroelectric capacity. The neghbouring provinces of Quebec and Manitoba have extensive hydroelectric capacity and massive undeveloped sources of hydroelectric power. Quebec and Manitoba have offered to supply Ontario with hydroelectric power. Quebec has even built transmission lines to the Ontario border to accommodate this supply.
So you would think that the green energy issue in Canda has been resolved even if just for a few decades. Large new source of hydroelectricity can come on stream and power the manufacturing base in Ontario. However if you think this you do not understand the green mindset. These source of very cheap green energy have been rejected by Ontario. Instead Ontario has instituted a policy of large feed in tariffs to support wind and solar generation. The cost of electricity in Ontario is expected to double to support these policies. The rationale for this is that this will initiate a green economy in Ontario by creating manufacturing industries to supply the world with wind and solar plants. So to start a green industry in Ontario, the Ontario consumer qnd manufacturing base are being forced to subsidize the purchase of solar and wind plants from China and elsewhwere
This must be what james Hansen means when he writes about magical thinking
#26:
1) meters of sea level rise, 2) continental ice sheets breaking into the ocean in the foreseeable future,
These are the same claim, basically. The timing of substantial decline of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is difficult to constrain. It may be under way already. If so, the time scale to exceed a meter is less than a century. But in three centuries, even with no additional emissions after tomorrow afternoon, meters are likely.
So, wrong. Wrong.
3) 10C temperature rises,
It’s hard to imagine that civilization will stay upright long enough to do this, but there is enough fossil carbon to achieve it, especially if methane feedbacks kick in a bit harsher than we expect. It’s unlikely but not off the table.
Half a point for you here.
4) and oh, BTW, why does warming only cause bad things ““ would we feel better if it was getting cooler.
Rapid change disrupts current adaptations. It’s not the direction of the change. We haven’t thought too much about rapid cooling because it isn’t happening. But neither would be fun.
So, wrong.
You get half a point out of four.
@ 29
in three centuries, even with no additional emissions after tomorrow afternoon, meters are likely.
How likely?
there is enough fossil carbon to achieve it [10C temperature rise]
Proof? Based on what sensitivity and over what time frame?
especially if methane feedbacks kick in a bit harsher than we expect.
Could methane really be such a big factor with the half-life of 7 years?
#29
You discussed physical changes but how about urgency and adaptation re food production?
I read one study that was referred to in IPCC AR4: Fischer et al:
Socio-economic and climate change impacts on agriculture: an integrated assessment, 1990″“2080
these guys used IPCC scenarios to work out what will happen in the warming future. Some of the results were not at all alarming:
By 2080, BLS projects global cereal-production in the range 3.7″“4.8 G ton, depending on SRES scenario. Production in the developed countries ranges 1.4″“1.6 G ton; thus BLS computes for the developing countries up to threefold increases in production from the 1990 baseline levels, with fivefold and higher increases projected for Africa in all the scenarios, as a consequence of the substantial economic development assumed in SRES.
(snip)The reader is advised to interpret results from A2 discussed herein as being representative of a worst case scenario. BLS baseline results indicated that differences in assumed socio-economic development””in this study represented by the four IPCC-SRES scenarios””can significantly impact global agriculture. Against the current backdrop of about 1.8 G metric tons of cereal-production worldwide, BLS computed by 2080 a range between 3.7 and 4.8 G metric tons, with scenarios B1 and A2 representing the lower and upper prediction limits. These projections represent a near doubling of current global production, in response to the projected rise in population and incomes. The context behind these figures is that globally, land and crop resources, together with technological progress, appear to be sufficient to feed a world population of about 9 billion people (13 billion in A2) in 2080 (nevertheless with great uncertainty in some developing regions).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Fischer_etal.pdf
If you are interested what parts of this study IPCC used, here you go:
climate variables from five different GCMs under four SRES emissions scenarios, show further agricultural impacts such as changes in agricultural potential by the 2080s (Fischer et al., 2005). By the 2080s, a significant decrease in suitable rain-fed land extent and production potential for cereals is estimated under climate change. Furthermore, for the same projections, for the same time horizon the area of arid and semi-arid land in Africa could increase by 5-8% (60-90 million hectares). The study shows that wheat production is likely to disappear from Africa by the 2080s.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-4-4.html
Tom
“The EPA drafted a plan 10 years ago to deal with 1 meter sea level rises. The cost was moderate and the planning looked most sensible. They couldn’t do anything with it because of claims that sea level rise would be 6 meters.”
Yup.
@32, that sounds like a great basis for an article on adaptation planning. Link?
Both Steve and I have given that link before–at Bart’s, at MT’s, etc. etc. Google the damn thing. Are you able to do that?
Here’s Titus’ 95 report on sea level rise: http://repositories.tdl.org/tamug-ir/bitstream/handle/1969.3/25952/8881-Probability%20of%20Sea%20Level%20Rise.pdf?sequence=1
and here’s his later paper on adaptation: http://papers.risingsea.net/JAPA/adapt.html
And here’s the one we have been pointing people to (found on my old Examiner site): http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/cost_of_holding.pdf
In case Keith has gone to bed, my earlier comment is being moderated because of links.
This is what I wrote on Examiner.com last year:
n 1991, at the behest of the U.S. Congress, the EPA commissioned a report on dealing with sea level rise due to global warming. The report, “Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: The Cost of Holding Back the Sea” was later published in Coastal Management. It can be found here. The first name on the paper is that of James Titus of the EPA.
It was written in a much calmer tone than what is found these days. It described the greenhouse effect and discuss its effects for a two feet, four feet and seven feet rise in sea levels. That’s an average, as rising land in some places and subsidence in others mean your actual mileage will certainly vary.
It discusses the problems It discusses the possible solutions. It presents results–with a price tag that is low enough to be of interest to us all.
“The level of the oceans has always fluctuated with changes in global temperatures. During ice ages when global temperatures were 5o C (9o F) lower than today, much of the ocean’s water was tied up in glaciers and sea level was often over one hundred meters (three hundred feet) lower than today (Donn et al., 1962; Kennett, 1982; Oldale, 1985). On the other hand, during the last interglacial period (100,000 years ago) when temperatures were about 1o C (2o F) warmer, sea level was approximately 6 meters (20 feet) higher than today (Mercer, 1970).”
(cont.) “..”Possible responses fall broadly into three categories: erecting walls to hold back the sea; allowing the sea to advance and adapting to it; and raising the land. The slow rise in sea level over the last thousand years and the areas where land has been sinking more rapidly offer numerous historical examples of all these responses. For over five centuries, the Dutch have used dikes and windmills to prevent inundation from the North Sea. By contrast, many cities have been rebuilt landward as structures and land were lost to erosion; the town of Dunwich, England has had to rebuild its church seven times in the last seven centuries. More recently, rapidly subsiding communities such as Galveston, Texas, have used fill to raise land elevations; The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and coastal states regularly pump sand from offshore to counteract beach erosion. Venice is a hybrid of all three responses, allowing the sea to advance into the canals, while raising some low lands and erecting storm protection barriers.”
…”We estimate that if no measures are taken to hold back the sea, a one meter rise in sea level would inundate 14,000 square miles, with wet and dry land each accounting for about half the loss. The 1500 square kilometers (600-700 square miles) of densely developed coastal lowlands could be protected for approximately one to two thousand dollars per year for a typical coastal lot. Given high coastal property values, holding back the sea would probably be cost-effective.”
…”This article presents the first nationwide assessment of the primary impacts of such a rise on the United States: (1) the cost of protecting ocean resort communities by pumping sand onto beaches
and gradually raising barrier islands in place; (2) the cost of protecting developed areas along sheltered waters through the use of levees (dikes) and bulkheads; and (3) the loss of coastal wetlands and undeveloped lowlands. The total cost for a one-meter rise would be $270-475 billion, ignoring future development.”
Adjusted for inflation, their figures indicate that it would cost between $420 billion and $739 billion to adapt our environment to deal with 1 meter of sea level rise.
Where and when did we lose the ability to discuss things so rationally?
Tom is there a reason that you’re quoting a study that is 20 years out of date? As an alternative you might start with Tol and Nichols’ work here.
Tom or Steve Mosher (whenever you take a break from raising the level of discourse over at Curry’s),
I was not doubting that EPA at some time published a study on adapting to that amount of SLR.
To be clear, I am asking for supporting evidence for this statement:
“They couldn’t do anything with it because of claims that sea level rise would be 6 meters.”
It’s not that I don’t believe that there were also claims around the same time of SLR on the order of 6 meters. I would just like to see the evidence and context for that claim of causality.
Thanks in advance.
?
In honor of your insulting Judith Curry, I will let you do your own googling. Feel free to scream ‘crap’ loudly and frequently. Or ‘wow’.
Tom Fuller
There are more honorable ways of saying “I can’t do it.” You don’t want to go down this road again, do you?
I can do it. I will not.
Mosher?
Things I found that study within 30 seconds of my very first introduction to climate science back in 2007. Later I turned Tom onto it. This is rather simple. Knowing what I know about radiation physics it was clear to me that adding C02 is going to have some pretty bad effects. How bad? hard to tell. But I’m entirely will to cede the point and say 1m sea level rise by 2100. Then it occurred to me. Well, you have a few ways to solve that problem. So I looked to see if anybody had studied the cost of retreat and the cost of barriers . That’s more like 5 seconds of thought and 25 seconds of searching.
The point I would make is INDEPENDENT of the exact study. The point is that the full range of options have not been explored with the same rigor.
Go get hank roberts to do your googling. Dont you get that Toms point is supported by your inability to find anything ?
The fact that you have a hard time finding these things reflects poorly on you and the entire discipline.
Re 37.
Well, Some history. I found the EPA study in 2007. and turned Tom on to it sometime before the Tol paper. I imagine if we ever get around to writing another book I’d look at both of them and anything in between.
Here in SF we’ve decided to do all sorts of wonderful building in areas that are likely to be submerged if the science I believe in is correct. Why do we do this? we do this partly because some people have fooled themselves into believing that they will suceede with prevention. I prefer to use the precautionary principle on that one. Given that we have seem no success from the preventers, I’d say we need to plan for them to fail.
did you support rebuilding new orleans?
Steven Mosher:
The fact that you have a hard time finding these things reflects poorly on you and the entire discipline.
This is hysterical. Read before you type things like this.
RE: 45
Is that a long-winded way of saying that as well as Tom, you have no supporting evidence for the claim:
“They couldn’t do anything with it because of claims that sea level rise would be 6 meters.”
?
Steve can certainly speak for himself, but might I suggest an alternative explanation?
Such as that engaging with trolls who are rude, wrong-headed, demanding and too lazy to do anything at all is not a good use of a Saturday?
Monday will be fine.
Although, never having seen this claim before, my tentative conclusion certainly is that you fellas don’t have supporting evidence. Simple to change that conclusion: It seems a simple matter to provide a url or something. Odd not to, really.
Rust never sleeps, Steve can speak for himself, but as far as I’m concerned, I would advise you not to set your clock or mark your calendar. Thingsbreak is an anonymous and rude troll. Kinda like you, actually. If Steven or I came back with answers engraved in stone or with pictures of a burning bush it would not change your hearts or minds. Thingsbreak has many column inches of untruths about me on his weblog.Why would I spend a Saturday finding information for some jerk who lies about me? Feel free to take on board as much of this as you like as regarding you.
Things. Maybe you should read a bit more carefully. When i make a claim, you’ll know it. And I wont ever do a lick of work to help out a troll. got that? now go #Si
@51 Steven Mosher:
When i make a claim, you’ll know it.
Hi Steven! At #32, you copy and pasted a comment by Tom Fuller that contained a rather remarkable claim and said “Yup.” Where I come from, that sounds like you’re endorsing his claim. If that’s not the case, would you care to explain what you were trying to convey @32? Thanks bunches!
now go
?
@50 Tom Fuller:
Thingsbreak has many column inches of untruths about me on his weblog.
Tom, I’m sorry you feel this way. I’d love to hear what you believe supports this claim (my isn’t that familiar refrain?), but it’s probably off-topic for this thread. You’re welcome to follow through (for a change) either at my place, or an open thread at this or another blog, or somewhere else you feel comfortable. Thanks bunches!
You’re welcome bunches. And as soon as you delete those posts and put up an open thread I’ll come over!