Ask a Global Warming Skeptic

[Wolfbeckett]

The real problem I see, is even if AGW is real, how much do we actually HAVE to do in order to fix it? What is the minimum amount that will be effective instead of just us spinning our wheels? How much will that minimum cost, and what are the potential damages if we don't? I'd like to see a real plan complete with cost/benefit analysis, otherwise there's no way of knowing whether we can do anything or if it's too late and if it's even worth doing in the first place.

Just because this is one of the more recent and therefore scary threats doesn't mean it's immune to cost/benefit analysis. Anytime I ask hardcore AGWers about what they want to do about it, all I get are completely unrealistic pie-in-the-sky fantasies about cheap green energies that are miraculously efficient enough to provide all the energy we need, despite the fact that such techs don't exist in reality at this point (aside from maybe nuclear, but don't dare suggest that, it's DANGEROUS!!!). So really, show me the numbers. Show me a way we can fix it without bankrupting our society or relying on technologies that don't exist yet and may never exist.

I wouldn't call myself precisely a skeptic on AGW, I think it's possible that we do have some influence (though exactly how much I am still very much on the fence about), but even if it exists, what is the plan?

 

[kiwitt]

A "cost/benefit analysis" really should be done.

 

[Truronian]

The real problem I see, is even if AGW is real, how much do we actually HAVE to do in order to fix it? What is the minimum amount that will be effective instead of just us spinning our wheels? How much will that minimum cost, and what are the potential damages if we don't? I'd like to see a real plan complete with cost/benefit analysis, otherwise there's no way of knowing whether we can do anything or if it's too late and if it's even worth doing in the first place.

Just because this is one of the more recent and therefore scary threats doesn't mean it's immune to cost/benefit analysis. Anytime I ask hardcore AGWers about what they want to do about it, all I get are completely unrealistic pie-in-the-sky fantasies about cheap green energies that are miraculously efficient enough to provide all the energy we need, despite the fact that such techs don't exist in reality at this point (aside from maybe nuclear, but don't dare suggest that, it's DANGEROUS!!!). So really, show me the numbers. Show me a way we can fix it without bankrupting our society or relying on technologies that don't exist yet and may never exist.

I wouldn't call myself precisely a skeptic on AGW, I think it's possible that we do have some influence (though exactly how much I am still very much on the fence about), but even if it exists, what is the plan?

Cost/benefit is all well and good up to a point, but after a few more degrees of temperature gain (especially if such gains are concentrated at the poles) and you start to encounter scenarios where you simply can't attribute a cost or benefit to what will happen. For example, it's not going to take a huge amount of ice melting to put the Netherlands permanently under water.

Does that mean we should attempt some massive societal shift in order to go green? No, that's just not going to happen without everyone getting rather unhappy. What we do need to do though is makes as many changes for the ecological as we can as soon as we can (without annoying the majority) and add in a healthy dose of crossed fingers.

 

[kiwitt]

few more degrees of temperature gain .

But a few degrees will take nearly 100 years.

Which would mean we would have plenty of time to do mitigations, e.g. higher sea walls, population migrations, etc.

 

[Truronian]

But a few degrees will take nearly 100 years.

Which would mean we would have plenty of time to do mitigations, e.g. higher sea walls, population migrations, etc.

True enough. A few degrees would take a long time, especially given the logarithmic relationship between CO₂ and temperature rise (hopefully other GHGs will be more easily contained). I'm also not sure of what kind of temperature rise we would 'need' to see a dangerous rise in sea levels. Much of the currently in danger ice is sea ice which has a fairly minimal effect on sea levels (50 cm rise tops - that's if it all melts). This is where my finger crossing comes in to it's own.

Sea walls can only get you so far, the real problem with rising sea levels is not that floods occur, but that flood waters won't retreat. Sea walls might be able to stave off minor inundations, but they will be breached and when the are they will be pretty useless without a colossal water pumping operation. Population shifts might be possible, but would be a huge undertaking given the dense populations in many of the danger zones.

 

[tonberry]

What "evidence" are you sick of being used against you? I mean, which fact or figure really annoys you when it gets brought up?

The fact that most scientists support global warming theory. If most of your neighbors say the sky is magenta, does the fact that most of them say so make it right?

Interesting parallel you draw here. The big flaw in it is that I can look at the sky and see it's color. On the other hand, I can't see what's happening at the depts of the Pacific ocean so I'm relying on scientific studies to know. I can doubt them of course but I need a good reason to do so. What's yours on global warming?

 

[kiwitt]

TBH: I think we should continue developing more of our non-polluting energy sources, like China are developing as well, and eventually the problem will go away. The long time-frames involved before any actual damage starts occurring means we have the time to develop these in the coming decades. There are clean-burning coal fired plants as well, where the CO₂ is sent underground.

Reducing pollution sources has the combined effect of reducing CO₂ as well.

Sheesh ... even the US is working hard to reduce the average fuel consumption.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Does that mean we should attempt some massive societal shift in order to go green? No, that's just not going to happen without everyone getting rather unhappy. What we do need to do though is makes as many changes for the ecological as we can as soon as we can (without annoying the majority) and add in a healthy dose of crossed fingers.

Problem is, I'm not interested in crossing my fingers, I'm not a gambler. I'm interested in the facts and numbers. Not saying it has to be "do this and it will 100% work" but we need to know what the chances are so we can decide if it's worth it. If you tell me "we have a 5% chance of this working and it will cost 10 trillion dollars", I would say "Back to the drawing board chief". If it has a 50% chance of working, I would say "Let's plan for this and in the meantime try to come up with something better". We're not talking about putting 5 bucks on roulette on a weekend trip to Vegas here, they are issues of vital importance, merely "crossing our fingers" is simply not good enough.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But a few degrees will take nearly 100 years.

That is, on the scale of things, virtually no time at all.

 

[Truronian]

Problem is, I'm not interested in crossing my fingers, I'm not a gambler. I'm interested in the facts and numbers. Not saying it has to be "do this and it will 100% work" but we need to know what the chances are so we can decide if it's worth it. If you tell me "we have a 5% chance of this working and it will cost 10 trillion dollars", I would say "Back to the drawing board chief". If it has a 50% chance of working, I would say "Let's plan for this and in the meantime try to come up with something better". We're not talking about putting 5 bucks on roulette on a weekend trip to Vegas here, they are issues of vital importance, merely "crossing our fingers" is simply not good enough.

We don't know exactly how climate change is going to play out in the future, and the worst case scenarios are pretty bad. At the moment we are preparing (a little half-heartedly) for the scenarios we can deal with easily (eg minor sea level rise, slight polar ice rereat, a few famines due to a bit of desertification). We need to cross our fingers that it's these scenarios that arise, and not the massive ones that we are unprepared for. If we are unwilling to prepare for horrible scenarios then all we can do is cross our fingers that the don't happen.

I don't think massive sea level rise, widespread famine and major weather pattern shifts are hugely likely, but if they do happen we will not be able to deal with them because we currently are only making minor adjustments to our lifestyle. The more we try and greenify our living the more we will be able to cope with a difficult future (if it comes) and the less likely we are to cause continued change to the climate.

 

[kiwitt]

However, some of the high taxes they are planning on raising for Kyoto, et.al, make it seem we need to raise the money within 20 years or less. i.e. up to 5-10% of additional taxes. When in actual fact we can raise the money over multiple decades, which means we can lower the taxes raised to about 2-3%. This is the kind of cost/benefit analysis that needs to be carried out.

Therefore each country individually determines how much it will cost for mitigation in their individual country and then determine how to fund it over the next 50 years or so.

This carbon-trading scheme is really a plan to penalise poor polluters, whereas rich polluters can buy credits to offset their pollution, making it really like some kind of shell game, which does not solve the problem.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

We don't know exactly how climate change is going to play out in the future, and the worst case scenarios are pretty bad. At the moment we are preparing (a little half-heartedly) for the scenarios we can deal with easily (eg minor sea level rise, slight polar ice rereat, a few famines due to a bit of desertification). We need to cross our fingers that it's these scenarios that arise, and not the massive ones that we are unprepared for. If we are unwilling to prepare for horrible scenarios then all we can do is cross our fingers that the don't happen.

I don't think massive sea level rise, widespread famine and major weather pattern shifts are hugely likely, but if they do happen we will not be able to deal with them because we currently are only making minor adjustments to our lifestyle. The more we try and greenify our living the more we will be able to cope with a difficult future (if it comes) and the less likely we are to cause continued change to the climate.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe we should be moving in this direction over time anyway. Regardless of AGW concerns, less unintended impact on the world around us can only be a net plus. I'm just concerned that some of the plans I've heard are far too costly over too short of a time period and rely on technology that simply isn't there yet. Long term I'm with the greenies all the way, renewable, pollution free (or at least pollution minimal) energy for all, I'm just saying we have to take a measured approach and not destroy any country's economy to get there.

 

[Silurian]

The real problem I see, is even if AGW is real, how much do we actually HAVE to do in order to fix it? What is the minimum amount that will be effective instead of just us spinning our wheels? How much will that minimum cost, and what are the potential damages if we don't? I'd like to see a real plan complete with cost/benefit analysis, otherwise there's no way of knowing whether we can do anything or if it's too late and if it's even worth doing in the first place.

Just because this is one of the more recent and therefore scary threats doesn't mean it's immune to cost/benefit analysis. Anytime I ask hardcore AGWers about what they want to do about it, all I get are completely unrealistic pie-in-the-sky fantasies about cheap green energies that are miraculously efficient enough to provide all the energy we need, despite the fact that such techs don't exist in reality at this point (aside from maybe nuclear, but don't dare suggest that, it's DANGEROUS!!!). So really, show me the numbers. Show me a way we can fix it without bankrupting our society or relying on technologies that don't exist yet and may never exist.

I wouldn't call myself precisely a skeptic on AGW, I think it's possible that we do have some influence (though exactly how much I am still very much on the fence about), but even if it exists, what is the plan?

Stern review on Economics of Climate Change

Sir Nicholas Stern, Head of the Government Economic Service and Adviser to the Government on the economics of climate change and development, is delighted to present his report to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Economics of Climate Change:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm

full report

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm

Short summary

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf

 

[ParadigmShifter]

The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing

lol5chars?

 

[KaiserElectric]

This thread is no longer an "Ask a Person" Thread. Carry on.

 

[Dreadnought]

I'll take over the ask-a part if necessary.

 

[History_Buff]

we've warmed maybe 1-2 c in 150 years coming out of the little ice age, that aint fast and its hardly extreme. The actual climate record shows our current interglacial to be very moderate, some even say its no coincidence civilization took off.

It is fast, and it is extreme. If we see another 2-4 degrees in the warming like the IPCC is suggesting, then we'll have seen the type of rapid temperature increase that you normally only see alongside mass extinctions. I'm not saying a mass extinction is certain, but it won't be good news for the many species we've already pushed to the brink.

 

[LucyDuke]

The real problem I see, is even if AGW is real, how much do we actually HAVE to do in order to fix it?

Isn't how much we can do a more pressing question? First I think we should figure out if "fixing" it is even possible. I don't think it is, not in practice. The question becomes how much would our best efforts mitigate.

This carbon-trading scheme is really a plan to penalise poor polluters, whereas rich polluters can buy credits to offset their pollution, making it really like some kind of shell game, which does not solve the problem.

I can think of two benefits, you tell me if they're wrong.

Sure, with static allowances, pollution will not decrease. But it cannot increase, either, which is still a problem everywhere. And once the price of pollution permits goes down (which it will, see below), those permits can be scaled back - they're now only good for 90% of what they allowed before. When you have limits in place, you can lower them.

When the price of something rises enough, people seek alternatives. Wouldn't putting a dollar value on pollution spur development of ways to decrease pollution? I see innovation.

I agree that it doesn't solve the problem. There's not just one thing that's going to solve the problem.

I'll take over the ask-a part if necessary.

What specifically would convince you that ACC is happening or going to happen?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Isn't how much we can do a more pressing question? First I think we should figure out if "fixing" it is even possible. I don't think it is, not in practice. The question becomes how much would our best efforts mitigate.

Your last 3 sentences are the reason why I think the answer to your first question is "No". Figuring out what we have to do is more important (although we obviously need to know both sooner or later), because if what we can do will have no effect, then it's pointless to try, and if it will have some effect but not fix the problem all the way, then we have to determine what it will cost us as a society to implement and then hash out whether the effect is worth the cost. If it will bankrupt our country just to mitigate it by 5% then obviously we wouldn't want to do it, but we can't make that judgment unless/until we know exactly how much we need to do to fix it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Most estimates have the cost of mitigating AGW damage at being less than 2% GDP. If AGW damage is greater than 2% (not counting the changes of catastrophic changes), then it makes sense to start mitigation. This obviously does not count efficiency gains (which both increase our profits and decrease AGW rates), and the costs of both mitigation and damages goes up the longer the problem is ignored.