Why isn't there focus on the effects of GW

[coloradoatheist]

To me the focus on global warming has been on trying to prevent it or slow it down. However I'm curious why hasn't there been more focus on controlling its effects.


Mike

p.s. can somebody change title to focus

[Starshark]

What are you after, exactly?

E: What I mean is, to some people 'slowing down' global warming is the same as 'controlling its effects'. I get the feeling I'm missing something here.

[Hooboy !!]

Good question. Part of the reason why is that no one knows for sure what the effects will be. For example, you cannot just tell a few million people living along the eastern seaboard (for example) to pack up and move inland a few miles to escape a possible rise in sea levels that might happen in the next few years or few hundred years.

I suspect that human beings will respond to a warming global climate in the same way they responded to a rapid drop in global temperatures 10,000 years ago and 400 years ago: quickly, efficiently, innovatively, creatively, with hard work and determination, but not without some casualties. It is just the latest chapter in human evolution.

[Starshark]

Good question. Part of the reason why is that no one knows for sure what the effects will be. For example, you cannot just tell a few million people living along the eastern seaboard (for example) to pack up and move inland a few miles to escape a possible rise in sea levels that might happen in the next few years or few hundred years.

I suspect that human beings will respond to a warming global climate in the same way they responded to a rapid drop in global temperatures 10,000 years ago and 400 years ago: quickly, efficiently, innovatively, creatively, with hard work and determination, but not without some casualties. It is just the latest chapter in human evolution.

Hahaha that's great. Never mind that half the nations of the world won't be able to afford to do anything to mitigate the effects of climate change, bootstraps or not. But the best part?

"We have a construction crane here that has a high risk of snapping if it lifts girders more than 20 tonnes. We're using it to lift 25 tonne girders. Sooner or later, it will break and cause lots of damage if not kill people.

"What I want my engineers to look into is this... How can we control the aftermath?"

[coloradoatheist]

However that's the where the focus should be, is preparing these countries for the effects, bring them up to code so that they can withstand a hurricane.

Mike

[Starshark]

However that's the where the focus should be, is preparing these countries for the effects, bring them up to code so that they can withstand a hurricane.

Mike

1) Why would you try to clean up a disaster when you can prevent it? How is that in any way not stupid?

2) How many millions will you be giving to these countries so they can be brought 'up to code'? How much money is the United "We Don't Do Foreign Aid" States expected to give?

[muidiri]

p.s. can somebody change title to focus

:thumbs:

[muidiri]

However that's the where the focus should be, is preparing these countries for the effects, bring them up to code so that they can withstand a hurricane.

Mike

1) Why would you try to clean up a disaster when you can prevent it? How is that in any way not stupid?

2) How many millions will you be giving to these countries so they can be brought 'up to code'? How much money is the United "We Don't Do Foreign Aid" States expected to give?

Are we early enough along the process that we *can* prevent it? I had the impression that at least part of it is a done deal. Focusing solely on preventing disasters at this point is sort of like working to fix the hole in a sinking boat without even putting your life vest on first. You might be able to save the boat... but wouldn't it be better to at least prepare for the possibility that you fail to fix it in time?

[Hooboy !!]

However that's the where the focus should be, is preparing these countries for the effects, bring them up to code so that they can withstand a hurricane.

Mike
That is basically impossible. Look at China, which has far more resources available to it than most developing countries, its building codes were not up to par and the result was massive devastation after an earthquake.

It is effectively economically impossible to do what some people are suggesting regarding dealing with GW.

[Hooboy !!]

Are we early enough along the process that we *can* prevent it? I had the impression that at least part of it is a done deal.
Yup. It is a bit of a conundrum for the left-wingers. They want to do this and that to reduce CO2 emissions, at no small cost BTW, but then they have to admit that it is a lot like closing the barn door after the horses are out. Its like trying to fight a forest fire with squirt guns.

[mga]

Good question. Part of the reason why is that no one knows for sure what the effects will be. For example, you cannot just tell a few million people living along the eastern seaboard (for example) to pack up and move inland a few miles to escape a possible rise in sea levels that might happen in the next few years or few hundred years.

I suspect that human beings will respond to a warming global climate in the same way they responded to a rapid drop in global temperatures 10,000 years ago and 400 years ago: quickly, efficiently, innovatively, creatively, with hard work and determination, but not without some casualties. It is just the latest chapter in human evolution.

Hahaha that's great. Never mind that half the nations of the world won't be able to afford to do anything to mitigate the effects of climate change, bootstraps or not. But the best part?

"We have a construction crane here that has a high risk of snapping if it lifts girders more than 20 tonnes. We're using it to lift 25 tonne girders. Sooner or later, it will break and cause lots of damage if not kill people.

"What I want my engineers to look into is this... How can we control the aftermath?"

if you're that worried about them, invite them to live at your house.

personally, i don't buy into al gore's doom and gloom end of the world predictions. in order for the oceans to rise to levels that begin wiping out whole civilizations, the poles would have to be melted completely. if the poles ever got hot enough to melt, even in your great-grandchildren's lifetime, the rest of the world would be too hot to live in. get a grip....al gore is just full of crap.

[mga]

However that's the where the focus should be, is preparing these countries for the effects, bring them up to code so that they can withstand a hurricane.

Mike

lol...omg.....and where is this money coming from to "bring countries up to code"?

and what "code" are you talking about??????????

man, i heard everything now........:rolleyes:

[Starshark]

1) Why would you try to clean up a disaster when you can prevent it? How is that in any way not stupid?

2) How many millions will you be giving to these countries so they can be brought 'up to code'? How much money is the United "We Don't Do Foreign Aid" States expected to give?

Are we early enough along the process that we *can* prevent it? I had the impression that at least part of it is a done deal. Focusing solely on preventing disasters at this point is sort of like working to fix the hole in a sinking boat without even putting your life vest on first. You might be able to save the boat... but wouldn't it be better to at least prepare for the possibility that you fail to fix it in time?

I'm not much on impressions, do you have a source which says it's unpreventable? One second of googling got me this (http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2008/01/04/feature-02).

[Starshark]

Hahaha that's great. Never mind that half the nations of the world won't be able to afford to do anything to mitigate the effects of climate change, bootstraps or not. But the best part?

"We have a construction crane here that has a high risk of snapping if it lifts girders more than 20 tonnes. We're using it to lift 25 tonne girders. Sooner or later, it will break and cause lots of damage if not kill people.

"What I want my engineers to look into is this... How can we control the aftermath?"

if you're that worried about them, invite them to live at your house.

personally, i don't buy into al gore's doom and gloom end of the world predictions. in order for the oceans to rise to levels that begin wiping out whole civilizations, the poles would have to be melted completely. if the poles ever got hot enough to melt, even in your great-grandchildren's lifetime, the rest of the world would be too hot to live in. get a grip....al gore is just full of crap.

The reason people like you have absolutely no say in how their world is run is because you have absolutely no way of seeing what's beyond the nose on your face. No way of understanding the bigger picture.

Take this post for example. You really ought to look up how much of the world's resources the US uses, where a lot of these resources come from, then ask yourself how these countries falling to shit might impact on your lifestyle. Even if you can't be a humanitarian for one moment.

[Hooboy !!]

One second of googling got me this (http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2008/01/04/feature-02).
Maybe you should have spent a little more time, because that link is a bunch a useless hooey.

[Starshark]

One second of googling got me this (http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2008/01/04/feature-02).
Maybe you should have spent a little more time, because that link is a bunch a useless hooey.

Well if there's one thing that means the world to me, it's your opinion as to what constitutes 'useless hooey'.

[coloradoatheist]

if you're that worried about them, invite them to live at your house.

personally, i don't buy into al gore's doom and gloom end of the world predictions. in order for the oceans to rise to levels that begin wiping out whole civilizations, the poles would have to be melted completely. if the poles ever got hot enough to melt, even in your great-grandchildren's lifetime, the rest of the world would be too hot to live in. get a grip....al gore is just full of crap.

The reason people like you have absolutely no say in how their world is run is because you have absolutely no way of seeing what's beyond the nose on your face. No way of understanding the bigger picture.

Take this post for example. You really ought to look up how much of the world's resources the US uses, where a lot of these resources come from, then ask yourself how these countries falling to shit might impact on your lifestyle. Even if you can't be a humanitarian for one moment.


The goal is to get them up to higher standard of living. With India and China growing rapidly, to slow down GW we will have to tell them to stop improving their lives. So the long term solution is to get everyone prepared for what will happen.

Mike

[mga]

if you're that worried about them, invite them to live at your house.

personally, i don't buy into al gore's doom and gloom end of the world predictions. in order for the oceans to rise to levels that begin wiping out whole civilizations, the poles would have to be melted completely. if the poles ever got hot enough to melt, even in your great-grandchildren's lifetime, the rest of the world would be too hot to live in. get a grip....al gore is just full of crap.

The reason people like you have absolutely no say in how their world is run is because you have absolutely no way of seeing what's beyond the nose on your face. No way of understanding the bigger picture.

Take this post for example. You really ought to look up how much of the world's resources the US uses, where a lot of these resources come from, then ask yourself how these countries falling to shit might impact on your lifestyle. Even if you can't be a humanitarian for one moment.

without the US (and other countries) using another's resources those countries would end up being just like most african nations. many countries make a lot of money on the US buying their resources, and if they choose not to spend it on their own concerns, then, it really is no concern of mine.

[mga]

The reason people like you have absolutely no say in how their world is run is because you have absolutely no way of seeing what's beyond the nose on your face. No way of understanding the bigger picture.

Take this post for example. You really ought to look up how much of the world's resources the US uses, where a lot of these resources come from, then ask yourself how these countries falling to shit might impact on your lifestyle. Even if you can't be a humanitarian for one moment.


The goal is to get them up to higher standard of living. With India and China growing rapidly, to slow down GW we will have to tell them to stop improving their lives. So the long term solution is to get everyone prepared for what will happen.

Mike

a rare time i will agree. we have no right to tell any other country they can't develop themselves as we did. china is going thru their "industrial revolution" at a much faster pace than we did...can't fault them for that.

but, where i disagree on is whether there is anything to be prepared for. i said above i think al gore is full of crap and his doom and gloom scenarios just don't add up.

the moon drifting away from the earth will probably have a more adverse effect than al gore's "big wave" in the oceans.

[Loren Pechtel]

However that's the where the focus should be, is preparing these countries for the effects, bring them up to code so that they can withstand a hurricane.

Mike
That is basically impossible. Look at China, which has far more resources available to it than most developing countries, its building codes were not up to par and the result was massive devastation after an earthquake.

It is effectively economically impossible to do what some people are suggesting regarding dealing with GW.

I think the big problem over there is not the building codes *NOW* but the building codes in the past. They used to put up buildings that were deathtraps in a quake.

I don't know how good their codes are now and it's hard to tell what the earthquake engineering is like anyway but what I can see of it they are taking it into consideration now. Things like gas pipes with portions that can flex so a quake doesn't shatter them.

[Loren Pechtel]

Are we early enough along the process that we *can* prevent it? I had the impression that at least part of it is a done deal.
Yup. It is a bit of a conundrum for the left-wingers. They want to do this and that to reduce CO2 emissions, at no small cost BTW, but then they have to admit that it is a lot like closing the barn door after the horses are out. Its like trying to fight a forest fire with squirt guns.

The question comes down to how much damage will be done.

Note that we could make substantial strides without a lot of cost.

Line up the anti-nuke protesters and shoot them, then mandate that all new powerplants be nuclear (or other zero-carbon sources) unless there was a good reason not to. (Say, an isolated location. Nuke plants need to be on the grid.)

If we get rid of the obstructionists nuke is actually cheaper. The problem is all the delays the obstructionists can introduce.

[Loren Pechtel]

One second of googling got me this (http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2008/01/04/feature-02).
Maybe you should have spent a little more time, because that link is a bunch a useless hooey.

What's useless hooey about it?

I strongly suggest reading the book "Six Degrees". It's almost entirely about the effects. It paints a *VERY* bleak picture, it's what we are trying to avoid.

[Starshark]

The reason people like you have absolutely no say in how their world is run is because you have absolutely no way of seeing what's beyond the nose on your face. No way of understanding the bigger picture.

Take this post for example. You really ought to look up how much of the world's resources the US uses, where a lot of these resources come from, then ask yourself how these countries falling to shit might impact on your lifestyle. Even if you can't be a humanitarian for one moment.


The goal is to get them up to higher standard of living. With India and China growing rapidly, to slow down GW we will have to tell them to stop improving their lives. So the long term solution is to get everyone prepared for what will happen.

Mike

Upon what data do you base this conclusion?

[laughing dog]

Are we early enough along the process that we *can* prevent it? I had the impression that at least part of it is a done deal.
Yup. It is a bit of a conundrum for the left-wingers. They want to do this and that to reduce CO2 emissions, at no small cost BTW, but then they have to admit that it is a lot like closing the barn door after the horses are out. Its like trying to fight a forest fire with squirt guns. The problem with painting with a broad brush is that is gives a terribly inaccurate picture. Some "left wingers" would like to try to prevent any GW from any source. Some "left wingers" would like to try to prevent GW from human activity. Some "left wingers" would like to mitigate the projected rise in temperature and its attendant effects by slowing curbing emissions - like John McCain for example.

It is usually cheaper to prevent or mitigate a disaster than to clean up afterwards. There are plenty of thoughtful policy proposals on mitigation and adaptation in the scientific and economic literature. Furthermore, there is no logical inconsistency to propose and adopt policies that are aiimed at prevention, mitigation and adaptation, especially given the potential magnitude of the problem and the scientific uncertainties involved.

[Hooboy !!]

Some "left wingers" would like to mitigate the projected rise in temperature and its attendant effects by slowing curbing emissions - like John McCain for example.
Or more accurately, some moderate people are willing to compromise on common goals and objectives. Environmentally friendlier sources of energy, reduced reliance on a dwindling natural resources, promotion of scientific research, etc are good goals that most people from the left, right, or center can get behind.

It is usually cheaper to prevent or mitigate a disaster than to clean up afterwards.
It is impossible to prevent global warming. It is happening, regardless of what we do or do not not do. Then, if history repeats its self, we will also be powerless to prevent global cooling. Unless we develop some pretty fantastic terraforming technology pretty soon anyway.

As far as "cheaper" goes, well... that is pretty hard to say. if you spend billions preparing for a disaster that does not happen, then how is that "cheaper"? There are some things where it makes sense to prepare for a disaster, like if you lived in San Francisco. But, GW is nothing like that. Sure, we do not know enough about plate tectonics to be able to predict with any accuracy when or what magnitude the next earth quake in San Francisco will be, but we do know that there have been earthquakes in the past and we know how powerful they were. This then gives us some idea of how to plan for the future, but make no mistake... no amount of preparation is enough to prevent damage from an earthquake or even guarantee that there will be no loss of life. It is impossible. And we know more about the fault lines in California than we do about the global climate.

In realistic terms then....

What is the greatest problem that we need to mitigate?

[theyeti]

To me the focus on global warming has been on trying to prevent it or slow it down. However I'm curious why hasn't there been more focus on controlling its effects.

I'm not sure where you're going with this (but I can guess -- global warming alarmists are really trying to impose one-world socialism!), but two of the three sections of the IPCC report are dedicated to assessing impacts of climate change and trying to mitigate their consequences. So there has been plenty of scientific focus on this issue even if the media haven't paid much attention.

As for the political focus on reducing emissions as opposed to mitigation, the reason is that we can reduce emissions now, whereas mitigation requires that we wait for the problem to occur and then react to it. Obviously, in the former case we know what we're dealing with and we have some idea of what the costs will be; the latter case is basically a black box. What's more, if atmospheric GHGs continue to increase indefinitely, so too will temperatures. So trying to cope with the consequences without addressing the root cause is just like putting a band-aid on cancer; any adaptation we pay for will become moot as temperatures continue to rise. So the number one thing to do is to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations so that temperatures will rise to a predictable maximum rather than rise indefinitely. Then we can focus on impacts as they occur.

theyeti

[maxparrish]

People don't tend to focus on small effects, strategies, or solutions because they are not sexy - they are not sensationalist. Making dire predictions of catastrope is exciting stuff, alarmism is the grist of the popular press and politicians seeking votes. But the suggestion that "we could create a carbon eating tree" is not just as interesting to most folks.

Moreover, the current debate is political. It is linear - you are either a believer or you are not. And if you are you MUST accept a single extreme view AND if you are not you MUST accept the polar opposite. Thus everyone assumes that the entire issue is cast into a single mold of "get the facts and act" or "refute the facts and live in denial".

For example, I think warming is real and that at least 50% is caused by green house gases. However, I think Kyoto is a disaster, that cap and trade is a waste of time, and that we ought to be focusing on geo-engineering and adaptation rather than emission control.

[laughing dog]

It is impossible to prevent global warming. It is happening, regardless of what we do or do not not do. That is an oversimplification, since the degree of global warming or its intensity does depend on what we do or don't do.

I no amount of preparation is enough to prevent damage from an earthquake or even guarantee that there will be no loss of life. It is impossible. Since no one is making that claim. Preparation and action can prevent some damage - the amount depends on the resources devoted to it.

I is the greatest problem that we need to mitigate? Human stupidity and pigheadedness.

[Hooboy !!]

That is an oversimplification, since the degree of global warming or its intensity does depend on what we do or don't do.
OK. Then why don't you explain to what extent human activity is affecting global climate? This ought to be interesting...

Preparation and action can prevent some damage - the amount depends on the resources devoted to it.
How much then? Tell us what we should do, how much it will cost, and the benefit that will be realized.

I is the greatest problem that we need to mitigate? Human stupidity and pigheadedness.
If you are not willing to provide a straightforward answer to a straightforward question, then why bother participating at all?

What is the greater risk today: an earthquake on the west coast or sea levels rising? Which of those two problems is something that we do the most to mitigate the effects from? Can we do anything that will prevent loss of life and loss of property entirely?

[laughing dog]

OK. Then why don't you explain to what extent human activity is affecting global climate? This ought to be interesting... You can start a thread any time you want on this issue or try to understand one of the many in Science and Skepticism.


How much then? Tell us what we should do, how much it will cost, and the benefit that will be realized. What are you referring to? I was speaking about a general principle.

If you are not willing to provide a straightforward answer to a straightforward question, then why bother participating at all? It was a straightforward answer to a derailing question. How do you think we can mitigate effectively if people are too stupid and stubborn to make the effort?


What is the greater risk today: an earthquake on the west coast or sea levels rising?Which of those two problems is something that we do the most to mitigate the effects from? These derails would make an interesting thread.

Can we do anything that will prevent loss of life and loss of property entirely?
No one is making that claim, that any loss of any type can be entirely prevented, so why continue to bring up that straw man?

One of the reasons that mitigation is not more in the forefront of policy proposals is the fear that actions towards mitigation by country X reduce the prevention incentives of everyone else.

[Hooboy !!]

No one is making that claim, that any loss of any type can be entirely prevented
Well, you cannot say what loss of life or property can be mitigated at all at this point. You do not know to what extent human activity is affecting climate change. You do not know what the effects of global climate change will be. And you do not know what would be reasonable efforts to mititgate the effects of global climate change.

In other words... all this talk about global warming is just rhetoric.

There are more pressing problems that we know a lot more about that we can actually do something about. There is no point wasting any more time on the subject of global warming. Not until someone can produce something actually useful to discuss.

[laughing dog]

No one is making that claim, that any loss of any type can be entirely prevented
Well, you cannot say what loss of life or property can be mitigated at all at this point. You do not know to what extent human activity is affecting climate change. You do not know what the effects of global climate change will be. And you do not know what would be reasonable efforts to mititgate the effects of global climate change. It is quite reasonable to interject that one particular person cannot possibly know what is in another person's mind.

In other words... all this talk about global warming is just rhetoric. The scientific community disagrees. Gee, who to believe?

There are more pressing problems that we know a lot more about that we can actually do something about. You mean like Saddam's WMD's? LOL.

Not until someone can produce something actually useful to discuss. There is plenty useful to discuss. Even W. and McCain and maxparrish agree on that.

[maxparrish]

To me the focus on global warming has been on trying to prevent it or slow it down. However I'm curious why hasn't there been more focus on controlling its effects.

Mike

p.s. can somebody change title to focus

I'm also not sure what you are addressing, but a few points:

Aside from warming there are other scientific issues that are also uncertain: the exact nature and location of climate changes, the impact on ecology and economics, and finally the type of "controlling of its effects" that would work.

The current overall strategy is to implement some form of emission control created by taxs and/or cap & trade with the assumption that current and future technology will be developed that will be a small cost to the world's GDP - and certainly one that costs less than doing nothing. The hope is that a stabilization temperature of a few more degrees Celsiuses will be attained by 2100.

Alternative to this strategy is two fold: do nothing to limit emissions and let societies use adaptive strategies and/or let it happen and use new technology to remove carbon from the air.

A new paper in Nature by Peilke (et. al.) has caused quite a stir. It suggests that greenhouse gasses are being released at a much faster pace (e.g. China & India) than previously forecast and that ANY strategy that depends on emission control and current technology will have little effect. It suggests that only new technology, developed by massive infusions of money, can save the earth at this point.

It is interesting to see that the various "unified" global warming activists are becoming very divided. Having won the battle to show global warming is real and a danger the consensus (or lack thereof) on solutions is beginning to show...now a new term has been tossed out to blacken the name of technology promoters 'delayers'.

It would seem that there is a strain of thought that ONLY emission control and consumption reduction is the "correct" political stance. And anyone who suggests that it is ineffective or too expensive are the new enemy.

Interesting.

[ashaktur]

It would seem that there is a strain of thought that ONLY emission control and consumption reduction is the "correct" political stance. And anyone who suggests that it is ineffective or too expensive are the new enemy.


And as human nature is unchanging, the only way to encourage people to change their consumption habits radically enough to avert GW is to kill some straight away, put lots of others in death camps and have a good secret police to weed out any non-believers.

[jayh]

Good question. Part of the reason why is that no one knows for sure what the effects will be. For example, you cannot just tell a few million people living along the eastern seaboard (for example) to pack up and move inland a few miles to escape a possible rise in sea levels that might happen in the next few years or few hundred years.
....

when the sea change is over centuries, that is not such a problem. In the last 150 years, the effective sea level at NYC changed something like 18 inches. No disaster

A lot of the 'terror' assumes that people will do absolutely nothing and somehow be overwhelmed. There will also quite possibly be real winners, places that become agriculturally feasible, or have longer growing seasons for multiple crops.

[Loren Pechtel]

Good question. Part of the reason why is that no one knows for sure what the effects will be. For example, you cannot just tell a few million people living along the eastern seaboard (for example) to pack up and move inland a few miles to escape a possible rise in sea levels that might happen in the next few years or few hundred years.
....

when the sea change is over centuries, that is not such a problem. In the last 150 years, the effective sea level at NYC changed something like 18 inches. No disaster

A lot of the 'terror' assumes that people will do absolutely nothing and somehow be overwhelmed. There will also quite possibly be real winners, places that become agriculturally feasible, or have longer growing seasons for multiple crops.

The sea level rise for business-as-usual will be enough to displace billions in 100 years. Even done slowly that's a big problem.

[Illusio]

To me the focus on global warming has been on trying to prevent it or slow it down. However I'm curious why hasn't there been more focus on controlling its effects.


There's a great TED talk on this:

David Keith: A Surprising idea for "solving" climate change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkEys3PeseA

[jayh]

[QUOTE=jayh;5379475]

when the sea change is over centuries, that is not such a problem. In the last 150 years, the effective sea level at NYC changed something like 18 inches. No disaster

The sea level rise for business-as-usual will be enough to displace billions in 100 years. Even done slowly that's a big problem.

Billions?????? There are billions of people living less than 2 ft above sealevel?

[Loren Pechtel]

[QUOTE=Loren Pechtel;5379711]

Billions?????? There are billions of people living less than 2 ft above sealevel?

100 years of ignoring it will produce more than 2 feet of rise.