It's the [Climate Polcy] Stupid!

[Slim]

I've been idly scanning this thread a bit...

Tim, just to clarify:

Are you making the claim that there is no scientific consensus that extreme weather will be exacerbated?

The scientific consensus on disaster damages is there is no evidence of a relationship. You are one denying it because of your obession with CO2.

Also, are you asking for specific empirical evidence of how much worse a tropical storm has become due to AGW?

Edited February 3, 2011 by Slim

[TimG]

Are you making the claim that there is no scientific consensus that extreme weather will be exacerbated?

I am saying there might be some hypothetical reasons to believe that warming might affect the damages caused by weather but there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates that the magnitude of this hypothetical effect is large enough to matter. I used the example of relativity to show that a scientific effect can be both real and irrelevant in the real life situations that we care about.

Also, are you asking for specific empirical evidence of how much worse a tropical storm has become due to AGW?

I am saying the data to date provides no evidence for the hypothetical link because factors unrelated to climate have a much larger effect.

This means that if we care about damages caused by natural disasters we should be spending money on the things that are likely to improve outcomes. Spending money reducing CO2 will likely increase the human suffering because money that could be used to harden human settlements against the weather will be divirted to ineffective CO2 reductions.

Edited February 3, 2011 by TimG

[Pliny]

waldo, on 01 February 2011 - 01:05 PM, said:

uhhh... your highlighting the 1950-2005 period is consistent, in that it's the same period that Pielke 2008 is based upon - hey? It is interesting that an ~35 year statistically significant trend (1971-2005) isn't one you'll accept... particularly when you've been the guy in the past trying to flaunt positions based upon ridiculous short-term trending intervals of less than 10 years. Hipppocrite!

but really, c'mon... I belabored the point on data normalization methodology... I even highlighted that Schmidt et al 2008 extends upon the same 'traditional' methodology used by your hero, Pielke. Obviously, self-serving, you're quite content to align with a practice that presumes to remove increased damage costs relative to non-climatic factors (e.g., population & GDP growth)... while ignoring mitigating and adaptive measures intended to decrease damage costs related to climatic factors. How convenient for you... particularly when you so curtly label those mitigating and adaptive measures as "business as usual"! BAU? Really? All the while, effectively cherry-picking your preferred timeframe - oh my!

speaking of which, this is what your hero Pielke had to say in 2006:

say what! Huh! Yabut... TimG says there's no evidence!

which brings us to Crompton et al, 2011 (with Pielke Jr. being one of the 'et al')... a study solely targeting U.S. tropical cyclone loss data... but don't let that stop the authors (and the TimG's of the world) from extrapolating that generally and broadly to, "all global weather-related natural disaster losses.". A study that openly states:

oh my! Say what!!! All of this bundled within the gross generalities being made within the paper... all subject to the whims of hurricane tracking, where a single hurricane making landfall could have totally skewed the claimed result analysis. Of course, this recent past hurricane season is a testament to the study's same gross generalities... where upwards of 3-4 cat 4 series hurricanes failed to make (U.S.) landfall (a generalized landfall failure itself being talked of in terms of a result of climatic influence). There but for the grace of but one additional landfall hurricane goes another Pielke Jr. study result!

So, waldo, is Pielke credible or not credible? You seem to support him when it suits you?

Did you hear - the temperature over the last century has gone up .6 C which is causing all sorts of extreme weather - even volcanoes are erupting and earthquakes and tsunami's are attributed to this.

I fear it's the end of the world!

Have a good day!

Edited February 3, 2011 by Pliny

[waldo]

I am saying there might be some hypothetical reasons to believe that warming might affect the damages caused by weather but there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates that the magnitude of this hypothetical effect is large enough to matter.

of course, in regard to damages, if you want to ignore a positive trend (albeit not statistically significant) in regards a 1950-2005 period... if you want to ignore an ~35 year statistically significant trend (1971-2005)... if you want to rely on studies that knowingly leverage data normalization methodologies that purposely remove mitigation/adaption costs - well... you can pretty much beak-off about anything - hey, TimG?

speak to the intensity hand - hey?

separated out, so as not to get lost in the mix... again, emphasis on the scientific founded linkage between AGW and the increased intensity of extreme events (Hurricanes / Cyclones). Side bonus should Timmay choose to take the "Pielke bait".

...respected hurricane scientist Chris Landsea.

we've touched upon the Landsea prima-donna act previously. Wait... what's this... has Landsea come back into the fold?

(and as a bonus, he's a co-author with K. Emanuel... re: TrueMetis earlier linked reference to an earlier 2005 Emanuel paper).

Tropical cyclones and climate change

- Nature Geoscience(2010)

Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes.

However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.

would you like... more?

The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones

- Nature (2008)

Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a 30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere1, 2, 3, 4. Over the rest of the tropics, however, possible trends in tropical cyclone intensity are less obvious, owing to the unreliability and incompleteness of the observational record and to a restricted focus, in previous trend analyses, on changes in average intensity. Here we overcome these two limitations by examining trends in the upper quantiles of per-cyclone maximum wind speeds (that is, the maximum intensities that cyclones achieve during their lifetimes), estimated from homogeneous data derived from an archive of satellite records. We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile, with trends as high as 0.3 plusminus 0.09 m s-1 yr-1 (s.e.) for the strongest cyclones. We note separate upward trends in the estimated lifetime-maximum wind speeds of the very strongest tropical cyclones (99th percentile) over each ocean basin, with the largest increase at this quantile occurring over the North Atlantic, although not all basins show statistically significant increases. Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind.

the preceding being

examples

of where the science is in terms of hurricane intensity being linked to AGW climate change... not frequency... intensity. Of course, the next-step usual dodge here is for denier lappers like yourself to run to Pielke Jr. and beak-off about "economics". Like you did just a short while back.

Let's have some fun - hey... summarize your go-to Pielke claim(s) - give me/us a target - hey? Honest, I'm not setting you up... trust me!

(I'll be gone for the rest of the day... so no need for you to hurry).

I am saying the data to date provides no evidence for the hypothetical link because factors unrelated to climate have a much larger effect.

just for the TimG MLW record... these unrelated factors would be what, again?

This means that if we care about damages caused by natural disasters we should be spending money on the things that are likely to improve outcomes. Spending money reducing CO2 will likely increase the human suffering because money that could be used to harden human settlements against the weather will be divirted to ineffective CO2 reductions.

says the guy who relies upon studies that knowingly... that purposely... remove costs associated to those monies spent to, as you say, "harden human settlements against the weather" (i.e., mitigation/adaptation measure costs).

[waldo]

uhhh... your highlighting the 1950-2005 period is consistent, in that it's the same period that Pielke 2008 is based upon - hey? It is interesting that an ~35 year statistically significant trend (1971-2005) isn't one you'll accept... particularly when you've been the guy in the past trying to flaunt positions based upon ridiculous short-term trending intervals of less than 10 years. Hipppocrite!

There are well document ocean cycles such as the PDO which happened to change phase in the 70s. If a trend exists post 71 but not for the entire period then the more plausible explanation is storms follow a cycle. There are many many examples of dishonest alarmists exaggerating their case by ignoring data before the 70s.

oh please... step forward and make your case for PDO - you know actually substantiate something... provide something other than your own personal musings - hey? I mean, surely... there must be something out there - perhaps give your MLW denier cohort, jbg, a shout-out... although he declares a time management constraint, PDO has been his favourite go-to for the longest time. Perhaps you and he can work some magic!

Purely natural variations are the null hypothesis. The onus of evidence is on people claiming that it was something other than random noise. Cherry picking starting dates to produce a statistically significant trend does not refute the null hypothesis - in fact, it suggests that they are grossly over stating their case.

whaaa! You mean to say you don't have the means to follow-up on your bluster... you were the one that fronted the PDO as a causal link? Why so back-peddling quiet now that you've been challenged to put up, hey?

[TimG]

of course, in regard to damages, if you want to ignore a positive trend (albeit not statistically significant) in regards a 1950-2005 period.

The operative word is 'not stastically significant'. Cherry picking the post 1970 data does not make the argument more compelling - especially when the normalization algorithm is suspect.

just for the TimG MLW record... these unrelated factors would be what, again?

Population and economic growth swamp any hypothetical CO2 effect. Edited February 3, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

of course, in regard to damages, if you want to ignore a positive trend (albeit not statistically significant) in regards a 1950-2005 period... if you want to ignore an ~35 year statistically significant trend (1971-2005)... if you want to rely on studies that knowingly leverage data normalization methodologies that purposely remove mitigation/adaption costs - well... you can pretty much beak-off about anything - hey, TimG?

The operative word is 'not stastically significant'. Cherry picking the post 1970 data does not make the argument more compelling - especially when the normalization algorithm is suspect.

cherry-picking? Really? It seems the relevant studies you're relying upon have your boy Pielke either failing to address the period 1971-2005 (re: Pielke, 2008)... or... failing to refute the 1971-2005 trend (re: Crompton et al, 2011 (with Pielke Jr. being one of the 'et al')). I'd say that's a healthy dose of cherry-picking right there, hey? Of course, let me reacquaint you with the exact Pielke quote you failed to acknowledge earlier:

speaking of which, this is what your hero Pielke had to say in 2006:

Clearly, since 1970 climate change has shaped the disaster loss record.

so... your boy acknowledges the post-1970 influence of climate change on the, "disaster loss record"... yet... he won't go near it in any studies. How ripe are his cherries, hey? As for your continued suggestion the Schmidt et al, 2008 normalization is, as you say, "suspect", again, why didn't/hasn't your boy Pielke refuted your so-called, "suspect", Schmidt et al, 2008 normalization? What's he waiting for? (/snarc)

just for the TimG MLW record... these unrelated factors would be what, again?

Population and economic growth swamp any hypothetical CO2 effect.

huh! Yabut... those studies presume to remove the affect of population and economic growth (i.e., "normalize")... while at the same time... negating (as in excluding) any mitigation/adaptation costs intended to address what you deem the, as you say, "hypothetical CO2 effect". Why... TimG... this is purposeful data selection intended to bring forward a desired (pre-1970) result!!!

[TimG]

those studies presume to remove the affect of population and economic growth (i.e., "normalize")

The normalization is an attempt to determine the magnitude of the effect. Even if the CO2 effect was measureable it would still be tiny compared to other effects and therefore irrelevant.

[waldo]

The normalization is an attempt to determine the magnitude of the effect. Even if the CO2 effect was measureable it would still be tiny compared to other effects and therefore irrelevant.

easy to say, "tiny"... when your basis for saying, "tiny"... is a data normalization methodology that knowingly and purposely negates mitigation/adaptation costs... in order to bring about the, as you say, "tiny" impact (notwithstanding you ignoring the ~35 year statistically significant trend within the 1971-2005 study period).

as before, as is your consistent way, you fail to address the intensity (versus frequency) aspect... why aren't you speaking to the intensity hand, hey?

speak to the intensity hand - hey?

separated out, so as not to get lost in the mix... again, emphasis on the scientific founded linkage between AGW and the increased intensity of extreme events (Hurricanes / Cyclones). Side bonus should Timmay choose to take the "Pielke bait".

...respected hurricane scientist Chris Landsea.

we've touched upon the Landsea prima-donna act previously. Wait... what's this... has Landsea come back into the fold?

(and as a bonus, he's a co-author with K. Emanuel... re: TrueMetis earlier linked reference to an earlier 2005 Emanuel paper).

Tropical cyclones and climate change

- Nature Geoscience(2010)

Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes.

However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.

would you like... more?

The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones

- Nature (2008)

Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a 30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere1, 2, 3, 4. Over the rest of the tropics, however, possible trends in tropical cyclone intensity are less obvious, owing to the unreliability and incompleteness of the observational record and to a restricted focus, in previous trend analyses, on changes in average intensity. Here we overcome these two limitations by examining trends in the upper quantiles of per-cyclone maximum wind speeds (that is, the maximum intensities that cyclones achieve during their lifetimes), estimated from homogeneous data derived from an archive of satellite records. We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile, with trends as high as 0.3 plusminus 0.09 m s-1 yr-1 (s.e.) for the strongest cyclones. We note separate upward trends in the estimated lifetime-maximum wind speeds of the very strongest tropical cyclones (99th percentile) over each ocean basin, with the largest increase at this quantile occurring over the North Atlantic, although not all basins show statistically significant increases. Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind.

the preceding being

examples

of where the science is in terms of hurricane intensity being linked to AGW climate change... not frequency... intensity. Of course, the next-step usual dodge here is for denier lappers like yourself to run to Pielke Jr. and beak-off about "economics". Like you did just a short while back.

Let's have some fun - hey... summarize your go-to Pielke claim(s) - give me/us a target - hey? Honest, I'm not setting you up... trust me!

(I'll be gone for the rest of the day... so no need for you to hurry).

[Slim]

I am saying there might be some hypothetical reasons to believe that warming might affect the damages caused by weather but there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates that the magnitude of this hypothetical effect is large enough to matter. I used the example of relativity to show that a scientific effect can be both real and irrelevant in the real life situations that we care about.

Seems there are several studies done that support the idea of more intense tropical storms (as waldo provided) and the IPCC has this to say:

"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs (sea surface temperatures). There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period."

So I don't think we can discount it or trivialize this problem. We should probably be preparing for these more powerful storms.

I am saying the data to date provides no evidence for the hypothetical link because factors unrelated to climate have a much larger effect.

The IPCC disagrees with you. While you can claim otherwise, fact of the matter is you and I aren't climate scientists, and I'm going to believe the experts on this.

This means that if we care about damages caused by natural disasters we should be spending money on the things that are likely to improve outcomes. Spending money reducing CO2 will likely increase the human suffering because money that could be used to harden human settlements against the weather will be divirted to ineffective CO2 reductions.

The problem I see with this argument is that you seem to assume we can't both prepare for worse natural disasters AND fight to reduce CO2 emissions at the same time. Why can't we?

[TimG]

Seems there are several studies done that support the idea of more intense tropical storms (as waldo provided)

The same models say their will be fewer storms because the temperature differential between the topics and exatropics decreases. It is not clear whether the AGW will be a net positive or negative when it comes to hurricaine damages.

The problem I see with this argument is that you seem to assume we can't both prepare for worse natural disasters AND fight to reduce CO2 emissions at the same time. Why can't we?

Because the social resources available for non-productive assets is finite. If money is used in one way then something else with be sacrificed. If we are willing to invest resources to reduce future harm then we should focus on those investments that give the largest ROI. Adaption over 100 years is a much better strategy massive than CO2 emission reductions over 20 years. If someone could come up with a CO2 reduction strategy that is effective and scalable then I could support it. So far there is nothing on the table other than throw money at technology and pray. Edited February 4, 2011 by TimG

[Slim]

The same models say their will be fewer storms because the temperature differential between the topics and exatropics decreases. It is not clear whether the AGW will be a net positive or negative when it comes to hurricaine damages.

Which begs the question: which is better - more low-intesity storms that we are used to and prepared (sorta) for, or high-intesity storms that were not planned for when infrastructure was built. I would be inclined to believe that fewer storms that are more powerful would cause more damage. Of course, I don't know of any studies that have compared estimated storm damages without AGW forcing with estimated storm damages that take into account AGW forcing. Out of curiousity, doesn anyone know of any studies like that?

In any case, I would imagine that the high-intensity lower-frequency storms are more damaging overall.

Because the social resources available for non-productive assets is finite. If money is used in one way then something else with be sacrificed. If we are willing to invest resources to reduce future harm then we should focus on those investments that give the largest ROI.

That still doesn't mean you can't divert funds from other projects to combat both issues we've discussed.

Adaption over 100 years is a much better strategy than massive CO2 emission reductions over 20 years.

I strongly disagree with that, if only because of scientific estimates on positive feedbacks. That's not the only reason I disagree with you, though. I'll elaborate later.

[TimG]

Which begs the question: which is better - more low-intesity storms that we are used to and prepared (sorta) for, or high-intesity storms that were not planned for when infrastructure was built.

It really comes down to the numbers and we don't know what they are. It is possible that the magnitude of both effects is so small that the effect will never be measureable.

That still doesn't mean you can't divert funds from other projects to combat both issues we've discussed.

Almost all proposed mitigation policies are futile and will accomplish nothing useful. That leaves very few projects that would even be worth considering.

I strongly disagree with that, if only because of scientific estimates on positive feedbacks.

The claims of positive feedbacks leading to run away warming are largely nonsense. If the argument had any merit we would have seen run away warming years ago when the temperatures were at least 1degC higher than today (feedbacks don't care what the cause of the warming - they only care that warming occurrs).

[Slim]

It really comes down to the numbers and we don't know what they are. It is possible that the magnitude of both effects is so small that the effect will never be measureable.

Possible, but it sure sounds unlikely.

The results reveal that hurricane damages have a very skewed distribution with a

small number of hurricanes causing very large damages. The worst 10 percent of storms

are expected to cause 90 percent of the damages given the current climate. The worst 1

percent of the storms cause 58 percent of total damages. With warming, this distribution

gets even more skewed with the worst storms becoming even more harmful. The worst

10 percent of storms will cause 94 percent of damages and the worst 1 percent of storms

will cause 64% of total damages with warming. Because the damages are concentrated in

these large storms, adaptation planning should focus on these large and rare storms.

A lot of these studies are warning that any increase in temperatures will most likely dramatically worsen the high-intensity tropical storms. So yeah, you could argue that it's not certain... but that doesn't change the fact that it's very likely.

Almost all proposed mitigation policies are futile and will accomplish nothing useful. That leaves very few projects that would even be worth considering.

According to who? What study has determined this? I find it very troubling that you can so easily dismiss EVERY possible strategy to combat AGW.

The claims of positive feedbacks leading to run away warming are largely nonsense. If the argument had any merit we would have seen run away warming years ago when the temperatures were at least 1degC higher than today (feedbacks don't care what the cause of the warming - they only care that warming occurrs).

Are you saying that the science is wrong on this? Is the IPCC totally misguided?

[TimG]

Possible, but it sure sounds unlikely.

The models claim a increase in intensity of 2-10%. If we take 6% as the best guess you will find that most storms will not even change category. A few Cat 4 will become Cat 5 but they were already close as it is. Balanced against this is a 6-33% decrease in frequency. If we take 20% as the best guess that means one out five Cat 5 storms will never appear.

In short, the science does not support definitive claims that the AGW effect on cyclones will be large enough to matter. It might be but we dont know. Given the uncertainty It makes more sense to invest in storm protection than CO2 reductions because we will always benefit from storm protection even if the CO2 effect is of no consequence.

According to who? What study has determined this? I find it very troubling that you can so easily dismiss EVERY possible strategy to combat AGW.

Every strategy that has been put forward from carbon trading to renewable mandates to energy conservation measures are limited by cost. i.e. they are too expensive to be deployed at the scale required to make a difference. If they were even remotely economic they would already be widely used because nobody likes wasting energy or burning stuff if an alternative was available.

Are you saying that the science is wrong on this? Is the IPCC totally misguided?

Yes. They are scientists - not engineers. Stable natural systems simply cannot exist if they are prone to run away feedback. Edited February 4, 2011 by TimG

[Slim]

The models claim a increase in intensity of 2-10%. If we take 6% as the best guess you will find that most storms will not even change category. A few Cat 4 will become Cat 5 but they were already close as it is. Balanced against this is a 6-33% decrease in frequency. If we take 20% as the best guess that means one out five Cat 5 storms will never appear.

Out of curiosity, where do you get the 2-10% increase in intensity? And what is 'intensity' a measure of? Wind speed, minimum barometric pressure?

Anyway, the study I looked at stated that damages increase in very non-linear fashion as the strength of the storm increases, so a small increase in the intensity (of a stronger storm) will cause far more damages than several lesser storms.

Here's the study, if you're interested. I have glanced through a couple others, as well.

In short, the science does not support definitive claims that the AGW effect on cyclones will be large enough to matter. It might be but we dont know. Given the uncertainty It makes more sense to invest in storm protection than CO2 reductions because we will always benefit from storm protection even if the CO2 effect is of no consequence.

While I find your first statement there dubious, I agree there is no certainty. And we cannot wait for it, either, I fear.

Also, one thing I forgot to mention earlier is that funding CO2 mitigation will help to combat all the negative aspects of AGW, not just the potential for stronger storms. So it would be hard to argue that spending more on storm protection at the detriment of CO2 mitigation is a cost-effective solution, when reducing emissions would help prevent AGW and all the other crappy stuff that comes with it, too.

Yes. They are scientists - not engineers. Stable natural systems simply cannot exist if they are prone to run away feedback.

Well, I don't know how I can argue further on this with you if you cannot accept the consensus of the experts in the field. I'm not trying to be rude... I just don't know how we could continue the conversation if you dismiss their findings.

Every strategy that has been put forward from carbon trading to renewable mandates to energy conservation measures are limited by cost. i.e. they are too expensive to be deployed at the scale required to make a difference. If they were even remotely economic they would already be widely used because nobody likes wasting energy or burning stuff if an alternative was available.

You've touched upon a major obstacle: fossil fuels are just too damn cheap and easy to use for us to STOP burning them. That's the great thing about 'em. And you're right, alternative energies cannot easily replace fossil fuels yet. So we can wait for the technology to catch up (which is your position, yes?) or we push the process by introducing policies that encourage alt. energy developement and/or tax traditional fossil fuel use making them less cost effective (which will likely drive up energy prices, hurt the economy a bit, etc).

But we can't wait, as the scientists have told us. We have to start making some serious policy changes right away if we want to avoid the worst of the worst. And yes, in the short term, we'll probably take an economic hit. But it beats the alternative. Based on the information available to us, strong shifts in policy to cut emissions is the best option. How is this illogical?

[TimG]

Anyway, the study I looked at stated that damages increase in very non-linear fashion as the strength of the storm increases, so a small increase in the intensity (of a stronger storm) will cause far more damages than several lesser storms.

Again - unquantified speculation - not facts. If the effect was really strong we would have already seen it in the historical record. We don't (even your link acknowledges that). I put more weight on actual data than theoretical speculation.

Also, one thing I forgot to mention earlier is that funding CO2 mitigation will help to combat all the negative aspects of AGW, not just the potential for stronger storms.

Do the math. We could spend trillions and see little or no reduction in global CO2 emissions because economic and scalable alternative technologies simply do not exist and the regulations will simply cause CO2 emitting enterprises to relocate to places like China or India. However, if we spent trillions on sea walls and storm surge protection then that is virtually guaranteed to be useful.

Bottom line: CO2 reductions are the most inefficient way to deal with weather related risks. We are only talking about them because many people do not understand the economics. If you want to make the economic case for CO2 reductions then you must show that marginal reductions in harm 100 years from today will offset the massive expense today. I have yet to see any analysis with a reasonable discount rate that can show the cost benefit.

So we can wait for the technology to catch up (which is your position, yes?) or we push the process by introducing policies that encourage alt. energy developement and/or tax traditional fossil fuel use making them less cost effective (which will likely drive up energy prices, hurt the economy a bit, etc).

I don't oppose a modest carbon tax because we need taxes and a carbon tax is as good as any other consumption tax. However, carbon taxes will have next to zero effect on emissions because no politically acceptable tax would be large enough to change behavoir. If you care about reducing weather related risks then a carbon tax is a useless strategy.

Well, I don't know how I can argue further on this with you if you cannot accept the consensus of the experts in the field.

There is no "consensus" among experts when it comes to non-linear tipping points. The people arguing that such things are CAGW fanatics on the fringes of the debate or specialists looking for funding for their pet projects.

But we can't wait, as the scientists have told us. We have to start making some serious policy changes right away if we want to avoid the worst of the worst.

I really don't give a damn what some climate scientist has to say about economic policy. The economics of power production is not their field and they do not understand the cost vs. benefit equation.

I take the position if we want to deal with the identified risk then it is most cost effective to focus on building infrastructure that will decrease the harm caused by climate change. Policies aimed at reducing CO2 are a waste of money at this time.

Edited February 4, 2011 by TimG

[WIP]

Do the math. We could spend trillions and see little or no reduction in global CO2 emissions because economic and scalable alternative technologies simply do not exist and the regulations will simply cause CO2 emitting enterprises to relocate to places like China or India. However, if we spent trillions on sea walls and storm surge protection then that is virtually guaranteed to be useful.

Okay, let's say we take your advice and go with the Lomborg Solution of doing nothing about rising greenhouse gas emissions, and just spend the money to deal with the consequences.....so where does it end? Assuming that we just keep adding to CO2 and methane levels because it's too expensive and difficult to deal with them directly, what sort of adaptations will we have to deal with in the future, when CO2 levels are over 400 ppm, 800, a thousand, two thousand...I guess the sky is the limit when it comes to this sort of advice, because the advocates of the do-nothing strategy never have a plan for the more distant future, after the ice caps have melted, and the tropics are incinerating all plant and animal life with daytime temperatures over 140 degrees farenheit. It's happened in the past, and it will be happening in the future, if we just keep on doing exactly what we are doing now.

Bottom line: CO2 reductions are the most inefficient way to deal with weather related risks. We are only talking about them because many people do not understand the economics. If you want to make the economic case for CO2 reductions then you must show that marginal reductions in harm 100 years from today will offset the massive expense today. I have yet to see any analysis with a reasonable discount rate that can show the cost benefit.

This is a matter of survival, not economics! What is the cost/benefit analysis of making sure the human race doesn't become extinct in 200 years?

I don't oppose a modest carbon tax because we need taxes and a carbon tax is as good as any other consumption tax. However, carbon taxes will have next to zero effect on emissions because no politically acceptable tax would be large enough to change behavoir. If you care about reducing weather related risks then a carbon tax is a useless strategy.

Aren't conservatives and libertarians always telling us 'you get less of what you tax, and more of what you subsidize?' How come that doesn't apply here also, instead of just being pulled out for rightwing policy?

[Keepitsimple]

Okay, let's say we take your advice and go with the Lomborg Solution of doing nothing about rising greenhouse gas emissions, and just spend the money to deal with the consequences.....so where does it end? Assuming that we just keep adding to CO2 and methane levels because it's too expensive and difficult to deal with them directly, what sort of adaptations will we have to deal with in the future, when CO2 levels are over 400 ppm, 800, a thousand, two thousand...I guess the sky is the limit when it comes to this sort of advice, because the advocates of the do-nothing strategy never have a plan for the more distant future, after the ice caps have melted, and the tropics are incinerating all plant and animal life with daytime temperatures over 140 degrees farenheit. It's happened in the past, and it will be happening in the future, if we just keep on doing exactly what we are doing now.

That's a pretty easy one if one has an open mind. The answer is mitigation in the short term - like the next 50 to 100 years. What alarmists (AKA, social engineers) do not want to bring into the debate is that we will eventually transition from fossil fuels to alternate energy like fusion......and we will also develop the technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere - should we decide it needs to be done. It doesn't take too much imagination (or maybe it does) to picture the wonders that will transpire in the next 100 years - or even just 50 years - just look at where we were in 1910 - or 1960 for that matter. Technology development is exponential. Alarmists do not want this to be part of the debate. If you really think sea levels will rise - take the next 25 years and build a seawall - but frankly, I don't see the value of seaside property plummeting any time soon. It makes no sense to spend billions upon billions to "fight" CO2 and Mother Nature in what in all reality is a fruitless effort - so in spite of everything if you're still afraid - really afraid - move inland and invest in lots of sunblock....oh, and keep that shovel handy in the winter.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

It makes no sense to spend billions upon billions to "fight" CO2 and Mother Nature in what in all reality is a fruitless effort - so in spite of everything if you're still afraid - really afraid - move inland and invest in lots of sunblock....oh, and keep that shovel handy in the wonter.

myopic, isolationist, self-serving, deluded, denier extraordinaire. Simple says, "just build seawalls" - no biggee!!!" Simple says, "don't worry, be happy... a technology panacea is on the way - trust me!!!" Simple says, "to avoid the hurtin before my technology panacea silver bullet arrives, just move inland and invest in lots of sunblock!!!"

[GostHacked]

myopic, isolationist, self-serving, deluded, denier extraordinaire. Simple says, "just build seawalls" - no biggee!!!" Simple says, "don't worry, be happy... a technology panacea is on the way - trust me!!!" Simple says, "to avoid the hurtin before my technology panacea silver bullet arrives, just move inland and invest in lots of sunblock!!!"

The walls are not a bad contingency plan in case the whole reduction of CO2 fails. If the reduction does fail, you WILL need technological solutions to solve and perhaps reverse the trend.

[WIP]

That's a pretty easy one if one has an open mind. The answer is mitigation in the short term - like the next 50 to 100 years. What alarmists (AKA, social engineers) do not want to bring into the debate is that we will eventually transition from fossil fuels to alternate energy like fusion......and we will also develop the technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere - should we decide it needs to be done. It doesn't take too much imagination (or maybe it does) to picture the wonders that will transpire in the next 100 years - or even just 50 years - just look at where we were in 1910 - or 1960 for that matter. Technology development is exponential. Alarmists do not want this to be part of the debate. If you really think sea levels will rise - take the next 25 years and build a seawall - but frankly, I don't see the value of seaside property plummeting any time soon. It makes no sense to spend billions upon billions to "fight" CO2 and Mother Nature in what in all reality is a fruitless effort - so in spite of everything if you're still afraid - really afraid - move inland and invest in lots of sunblock....oh, and keep that shovel handy in the winter.

Forget rising sea levels! Over the last 10 or 15 years, we have learned that the planet has much graver concerns than coastal flooding. You don't have 50 to 100 years to dawdle and fiddle around with this issue. That's what the first proponents of global warming believed many decades ago because the concept that human activity could change the environment was still an incredible claim. But now, we are living with it, and it's getting worse, and cutting edge science is telling us that positive feedback loops like melting permafrost, are already underway. From Joe Romm:

U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm … the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised” — 1000 ppm

In the last two years, our scientific understanding of business-as-usual projections for global warming has changed dramatically (see “M.I.T. doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C” and “Hadley Center projects 5-7°C warming by 2100“). Yet, much of the U.S. public — especially conservatives — remain in the dark about just how dire the situation is (see “Gallup poll shows catastrophic failure of media, conservatives still easily duped by deniers“).

Why? Because the U.S. media is largely ignoring the story. Case in point: Where was the coverage of the Copenhagen Climate Science Congress, attended by 2000 scientists, which concluded with this Key Message #1:

Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

And last month, the Royal Society compiled this report of a hellish vision of what to expect over the next 50 years:

"In such a 4°C world, the limits for human adaptation are likely to be exceeded in many parts of the world, while the limits for adaptation for natural systems would largely be exceeded throughout the world."

Four of the articles of the report are available free online. In the abstract of "When could global warming reach 4°C?" :

Using these GCM projections along with simple climate-model projections, including uncertainties in carbon-cycle feedbacks, and also comparing against other model projections from the IPCC, our best estimate is that the A1FI emissions scenario would lead to a warming of 4°C relative to pre-industrial during the 2070s. If carbon-cycle feedbacks are stronger, which appears less likely but still credible, then 4°C warming could be reached by the early 2060s in projections that are consistent with the IPCC’s ‘likely range’.

Now, keep in mind that right now, during our present time, most of the World is trying to deal with food shortages and rising food prices. The world food supply and delivery system is only able to meet the minimum needs of our 7 billion population during optimal conditions (like 2009). Every time there are significant major weather events like droughts, flooding, heat waves, hurricanes/cyclones etc... there's a collapse in food supply. One of the big, overlooked aspects of the riots and calls for regime change in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, that are now spreading throughout the Middle East, is the impact that rising food prices are having on societies that are already struggling to feed the populace during the best of times. So now let's consider what Rachel Warren sees for what we will have to adapt to in a 4 degree C world: The role of interactions in a world implementing adaptation and mitigation solutions to climate change

3. Discussion

Table 3 shows that a 4°C world would be facing enormous adaptation challenges in the agricultural sector, with large areas of cropland becoming unsuitable for cultivation, and declining agricultural yields. This world would also rapidly be losing its ecosystem services, owing to large losses in biodiversity, forests, coastal wetlands, mangroves and saltmarshes, and terrestrial carbon stores, supported by an acidified and potentially dysfunctional marine ecosystem. Drought and desertification would be widespread, with large numbers of people experiencing increased water stress, and others experiencing changes in seasonality of water supply. There would be a need to shift agricultural cropping to new areas, impinging on unmanaged ecosystems and decreasing their resilience; and large-scale adaptation to sea-level rise would be necessary. Human and natural systems would be subject to increasing levels of agricultural pests and diseases, and increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events..............As climate changes, the drier regions of the planet are projected to become less and less habitable owing to increases in drought and desertification. Many humans and ecosystems would be expected to be forced to adapt by attempting to move into areas remaining sufficiently wet and not inundated by sea-level rise. This would result in a concentration of the human population, agriculture and remaining biodiversity in a contracting land area, leading to increasing competition for land and water. Integrated models could usefully be applied to determine when land and water supplies may become insufficient to satisfy the needs of human systems and the ecosystem services (such as wetlands, forests and biodiversity in general) supporting livelihoods.

In such a 4°C world, the limits for human adaptation are likely to be exceeded in many parts of the world, while the limits for adaptation for natural systems would largely be exceeded throughout the world. Hence, the ecosystem services upon which human livelihoods depend would not be preserved. Even though some studies have suggested that adaptation in some areas might still be feasible for human systems, such assessments have generally not taken into account lost ecosystem services. Climate change impacts, especially drought and sea-level rise, are likely to lead to human migration as people attempt to seek livelihoods elsewhere.

Now, faced with the evidence that changes are occurring, and occurring at an accelerating rate that's beyond the conservative projections of many climate reports of the past, I would conclude that we have to err on the side of the maximum projections of climate change models, and insisting on denying them for technical reasons is a head-in-the-sand reaction that is the actual irrational response.

Like I said before, there are sometimes reasons for being an alarmist, and refusal to hear the alarm bells is the response of lunatics who want to live recklessly! There are clearly no capabilities for most of the World's poor to manage future changes, and I doubt that any but a small handful will be able to adapt to a 4 to 7 degree warmer world. But, being the cynic that I am; after reading Gwynn Dyer's book: Climate Wars, I am convinced that we have a political and wealth class that sees the danger, and wants to pacify their slow-witted followers, as they prepare themselves and their families for a future hellish world!

[TimG]

what sort of adaptations will we have to deal with in the future, when CO2 levels are over 400 ppm, 800, a thousand, two thousand

Whatever we need to do. It is not like we have a choice since there are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels today that can be deployed at the scale required.

This is a matter of survival, not economics! What is the cost/benefit analysis of making sure the human race doesn't become extinct in 200 years?

Only delusional crackpots believe that the survival of the human race is at stake. Climate change is purely an economic problem and the cost of trying to prevent it must be weighed against the cost of dealing with it.

Aren't conservatives and libertarians always telling us 'you get less of what you tax, and more of what you subsidize?' How come that doesn't apply here also, instead of just being pulled out for rightwing policy?

Carbon taxes are not a magic wand. They cannot rewrite the laws of physics. More importantly, the gap between fossil fuels and their alternatives is too large for any plausible tax to overcome. This means a carbon tax will not impact CO2 production significantly. Edited February 5, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

In such a 4°C world, the limits for human adaptation are likely to be exceeded in many parts of the world, while the limits for adaptation for natural systems would largely be exceeded throughout the world

The outputs of unverifiable computer models are not something that we can afford to get too excited about. There are simply too many ways for a computer modeller to tweek the results in order to grap media attention, funding and recognition of peers. They have no credibility. The only thing we can say for certain is the planet will most likely warm in the future. This will be both good and bad. Edited February 5, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

The outputs of unverifiable computer models are not something that we can afford to get too excited about. There are simply too many ways for a computer modeller to tweek the results in order to grap media attention, funding and recognition of peers. They have no credibility. The only thing we can say for certain is the planet will most likely warm in the future. This will be both good and bad.

model hindcasts and projections have shown credible and useful results... your standard and predictable denier slam against models has been dealt with many times over in assorted MLW threads. Do you have something new to offer... other than your continued agenda driven (unsubstantiated) comments? Since you now cast all climatologists using modeling as dishonest, care to speculate why none of your denier team has been able to step forward and present a GCM that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming. I mean, really... if, as you accuse and label, "there are simply too many ways for a computer modeler to tweek the results", what's holding your denier team back from doing exactly that? Or do you claim the denier team to be, uhhh... too "principled" to engage in the same dishonest & fraud labeling you attach to climatologists using modeling... the labeling you, as always, provide without accompanying substantiation.