Jump to content

Risks to Global Economy


Recommended Posts

Yes, there is risks to the global economy but there also risks to millions of people dying from climate change and let me refer u to the recent storms in the British Isles, which got slammed with floods and had hefty erosion happen to their coast line. http://www.globalresearch.ca/stormy-times-climate-change-and-instability-as-predicted/5500530

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok... but the point is rational policies that fit into the category of mitigation do exist. So some steps towards mitigation are technologically and economically feasible.

I don't disagree and I also don't oppose carbon taxes. My complaint is the entire political debate is only about nonsensical strategies (100% renewables, C02 reduction targets and time tables, carbon trading, et. al.). On top of that, people who point out that those nonsensical strategies can't work are attacked as 'deniers'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know that. If one extrapolates the current trends the rise will be less than a meter. Greater estimates are based entirely on model outputs which makes them hypotheses - nothing more.

True about models. We need them though, even if they're imperfect (it's impossible to account for all variables). We have to make some kind of educated hypothesis on the future, because significant changes are possible, but you have to take into account their flaws.

Nothing new. Humans have always had to deal long term shifts in the weather (e.g. medieval warming period). We simply have more technology available to a now which can only help.

We have the technology to help now yes, but we now also have the technology that has allowed big population growth along with massive construction of modern buildings and infrastructure.

Even without climate change some places would become less productive due to farming methods/over population and that costs money to change. Basically, no matter what we do we need to spend money on adaption and developing wealthier societies with access to low cost energy is the best way to pay for it.

But what I'm saying is that along with the other changes that already occur and need adapting to, the adaptation to man-made climate change is going to add to those costs, likely dramatically. What you're saying is "low cost energy is going to cause these changes so we can't get rid of low cost energy because we'll need it to pay for the changes (and others that already occur)", which is a circular argument and doesn't really make sense.

We need to calculate the potential likely costs of not doing anything & adapting vs the likely costs of mitigation. That's pretty much what we're talking about here. Not just economic costs either, but things like human health costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just economic costs either, but things like human health costs.

Such costs are likely negative since more people in the world die from cold than from heat, even in countries like Australia (they have highest mortality rates in winter). The world average global temperature is still way below room temperature, so warming the climate a few degrees likely will make it more habitable for a tropical species like humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what I'm saying is that along with the other changes that already occur and need adapting to, the adaptation to man-made climate change is going to add to those costs, likely dramatically.

You have no basis for the qualifier "likely dramatically". There is a lot of speculation and there are many people who see political or personal benefit from the belief that climate changes costs will be large. But speculation and self interest are not facts. The best we could say is there is a possible future scenario where adaptation costs will increase dramatically as a result of climate change but based on real experience to date those costs could also be indistinguishable from the costs of the adapting to weather which we already have to pay.

For example, if a hurricane hits a populated area and the winds are 5% stronger due to climate change then the the overwhelming majority of the costs associated with that hurricane are simply costs related to weather. Moreover, if the frequency of hurricanes drops because of the warming then the total cost to adapting to hurricanes could actually go down.

What you're saying is "low cost energy is going to cause these changes so we can't get rid of low cost energy because we'll need it to pay for the changes (and others that already occur)", which is a circular argument and doesn't really make sense.

The societies most vulnerable to weather events are poor societies. They need energy to build the defenses they need but if that energy is too expensive they stay poor and vulnerable. The same equation applies to wealthier societies because there is only so much wealth available to pay for infrastructure and with higher energy prices people will not be able to afford as much. Access to energy is a requirement for adaption.

We need to calculate the potential likely costs of not doing anything & adapting vs the likely costs of mitigation.

Large scale reductions in global CO2 emissions are not going to happen given the technology currently available and the pressures of a growing population. So any money spent on mitigation is futile. Adaptation is the only option on the table. The only debate is between people that want to piss money away on useless gestures because they hope some magic will occur and those that look pragmatically at the technology available to us today. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such costs are likely negative since more people in the world die from cold than from heat, even in countries like Australia (they have highest mortality rates in winter). The world average global temperature is still way below room temperature, so warming the climate a few degrees likely will make it more habitable for a tropical species like humans.

It will make it more habitable for earth organisms in general. Under the ice in Antarctica you'll find remnant of ancient plants/trees that grew on the land mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree and I also don't oppose carbon taxes. My complaint is the entire political debate is only about nonsensical strategies (100% renewables, C02 reduction targets and time tables, carbon trading, et. al.). On top of that, people who point out that those nonsensical strategies can't work are attacked as 'deniers'.

you do disagree as you won't/can't fathom any thoughts towards mitigation in your perpetual Adapt-R-Us-Only position taken throughout your history of MLW posting. When you reach for something like '100% renewables', that is nothing more than your unwillingness to accept any shift toward renewables. You won't accept facts that show, country depending, that no changes in existing supporting infrastructure are needed to be able to shift and introduce between 18%-25% renewables into the mix of overall energy sources... no changes whatsoever.

as quoted, you use the phrase "political debate" in the context of "nonsensical mitigation" (nonsensical in your view), yet you absolutely know that the proper requirements framing/discussion is one that includes the tri-fold grouping of mitigation, adaptation and prevention - that all 3 are required. You incorrectly choose to declare "your nemesis" is only foisting a mitigation strategy, while ignoring adaptation.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will make it more habitable for earth organisms in general. Under the ice in Antarctica you'll find remnant of ancient plants/trees that grew on the land mass.

The more pertinent issue to us however is the Bottleneck we and just about every other organism on Earth have to pass through to reach the promised land of a CO2 rich paradise.

People who wax eloquently about how wonderful it will be seem to have squat to say about the interegnum between now and then especially how long or survivable it will be and what sort of impact it will have on human civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such costs are likely negative since more people in the world die from cold than from heat, even in countries like Australia (they have highest mortality rates in winter). The world average global temperature is still way below room temperature, so warming the climate a few degrees likely will make it more habitable for a tropical species like humans.

I would have serious doubts as to the validity of any study that tried to prove that. The places where you are most likely to die of heat are often the same places where health care is poor or non-existent, making a medical diagnosis of heat as a contributing (or primary) factor much less likely. In many poor places of the world, which are most often the hot parts of the world, if an elderly person (and here elderly may mean late 50s or early 60s) dies with no obvious cause, nobody is calling a doctor.

And even if you could demonstrate that this correlation exists, the assertion that it follows that warming will be positive for human health is simplistic to the point of being preposterous. It wouldn't account for tropical diseases, parasites poisonous or otherwise dangerous animals that would be able to expand their ranges.

It wouldn't account for cutoff points - there are professors have come to the conclusion that parts of the world will become uninhabitable due to excess heat and humidity. If the ideal temperature for people is ~20 degrees C, then it's easy to show that it is far cheaper and more effective to adapt to cold than heat. It's no great hardship for people to live in places where it routinely drops more than 60 degrees below the ideal and many people live where it can get to 80 degrees below ideal. I don't think that anyone is about to argue that people will live at 60 or 80 degrees above ideal.

It wouldn't account for weather and precipitation changes that result in unusual droughts or floods, with attendant food and water shortages. Nor would it account for health problems as people flee their homes and become refugees.

Most of all, it's not going to account for wars, which will inevitably happen whenever populations are under stress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more pertinent issue to us however is the Bottleneck we and just about every other organism on Earth have to pass through to reach the promised land of a CO2 rich paradise.

People who wax eloquently about how wonderful it will be seem to have squat to say about the interegnum between now and then especially how long or survivable it will be and what sort of impact it will have on human civilization.

You're right. The issue is less one of state than of transition. All organisms (people included) adapt to their surroundings. And when surroundings change, there is a painful period of re-adaptation. During that period, some will move, some will die, and some will thrive. And when it comes to people, some will start shooting each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no shortage of people who try to grab headlines by saying the end of the world is nigh. The real question is what is the real likelyhood that any of these scenarios will play out as the doomsayers claim. Given the track record of past 'end of the world crises' (e.g. the food shortage that was going to depopulate the planet by 2000s) it is reasonable to assume that whatever happens it will NOT be anything close to what the doomsayers claim.

You really need to separate the actual science (e.g. things we actually know) from the speculation. Putting speculation into a peer reviewed journal does not make it more plausible.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no shortage of people who try to grab headlines by saying the end of the world is nigh. The real question is what is the real likelyhood that any of these scenarios will play out as the doomsayers claim. Given the track record of past 'end of the world crises' (e.g. the food shortage that was going to depopulate the planet by 2000s) it is reasonable to assume that whatever happens it will NOT be anything close to what the doomsayers claim.

You really need to separate the actual science (e.g. things we actually know) from the speculation. Putting speculation into a peer reviewed journal does not make it more plausible.

Focusing on one tiny portion of my argument doesn't really constitute honest debate but I've come to expect no less.

And your outright dismissal of scientific work based on some other completely unrelated work and your impugning of the motives of these scientists is frankly unworthy of comment. But again, I've come to expect no less.

Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no shortage of people who try to grab headlines by saying the end of the world is nigh. The real question is what is the real likelyhood that any of these scenarios will play out as the doomsayers claim. Given the track record of past 'end of the world crises' (e.g. the food shortage that was going to depopulate the planet by 2000s) it is reasonable to assume that whatever happens it will NOT be anything close to what the doomsayers claim.

You really need to separate the actual science (e.g. things we actually know) from the speculation. Putting speculation into a peer reviewed journal does not make it more plausible.

Except most peer reviewed science confirms global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except most peer reviewed science confirms global warming.

So? The globe is warming but that does not mean it is bad or that we will not be able to adapt to any changes. What you would like to claim is the "science" that says that a bad future is ahead is equal to the science that shows that CO2 is a GHG and the planet is warming. It is not. The latter is a well established fact. The former is nothing but speculation from a field where scientists are rewarded for exaggeration with research grants, tenures and a spot lights in the media. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So? The globe is warming but that does not mean it is bad or that we will not be able to adapt to any changes. What you would like to claim is the "science" that says that a bad future is ahead is equal to the science that shows that CO2 is a GHG and the planet is warming. It is not. The latter is a well established fact. The former is nothing but speculation from a field where scientists are rewarded for exaggeration with research grants, tenures and a spot lights in the media.

That same peer reviewed science says that global warming is happening, and that humans are causing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't account for cutoff points - there are professors have come to the conclusion that parts of the world will become uninhabitable due to excess heat and humidity.

You need wetbulb temperatures to exceed 35 C. To do that you will need global warming of about 7 C above preindustrial temperatures (because equatorial regions warm slower). With an ECS of about 2 C, you would need about 3168 ppm eq of CO2. Even if we take into account that only about 75% of GHG radiative forcing change is due to CO2, you would still need about 1727 ppm of CO2. Even then, you could still live in Persian Gulf areas, you would just need air conditioning, or be nocturnal.

And there are parts of the Earth that are already uninhabitable. They are called the poles.

I would have serious doubts as to the validity of any study that tried to prove that.

Well if a study was trying to prove something, that would be dogmatic.

What studies should do is test hypotheses and see where the evidence leads them.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm

Cold weather kills 20 times more people than hot weather.

Seasonal mortality rates don't lie:

goklany_winter_deaths_figure4.png

But the obvious fact that humans are tropical species that are relatively hairless, covered in sweat glands, like room temperature to be 20-25 C, and evolved in East Africa is lost on you.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more pertinent issue to us however is the Bottleneck we and just about every other organism on Earth have to pass through to reach the promised land of a CO2 rich paradise.

People who wax eloquently about how wonderful it will be seem to have squat to say about the interegnum between now and then especially how long or survivable it will be and what sort of impact it will have on human civilization.

That's totally true and I agree. Long-term, centuries from now, it may be good for humans and other life, short and medium term it probably won't. When organisms are forced to adapt to abrupt changes in ecosystem & climate, many die or go extinct, that's just life. The biggest unknown about all of this isn't the warming IMO, which has lots of precedent in earth's history, but the amount of CO2 being put in the atmosphere in such a short time at levels that are far higher than at any point in at least the past million years. Risks of ocean acidification etc. are hard to predict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest unknown about all of this isn't the warming IMO, which has lots of precedent in earth's history, but the amount of CO2 being put in the atmosphere in such a short time at levels that are far higher than at any point in at least the past million years.

A massive solar flare or large meteorite are a known risk that could completely destroy our civilization. Yet we simply accept those risks and hope for the best. Why should the *unknown* risk of CO2 increases be more of a concern given that we can't really do much about the rising CO2 levels (marginal reductions in the CO2 output at great expense do nothing to stop the overall rise). Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need wetbulb temperatures to exceed 35 C. To do that you will need global warming of about 7 C above preindustrial temperatures (because equatorial regions warm slower). With an ECS of about 2 C, you would need about 3168 ppm eq of CO2. Even if we take into account that only about 75% of GHG radiative forcing change is due to CO2, you would still need about 1727 ppm of CO2. Even then, you could still live in Persian Gulf areas, you would just need air conditioning, or be nocturnal.

Look at the link I posted. They've already had wetbulb temperatures of 34 C. Air conditioning only works as long as you stay inside and as far as people being nocturnal, give your head a shake.

And there are parts of the Earth that are already uninhabitable. They are called the poles.

And since nobody lives there, the cost of adaptation is zero. Contrast that with the cost of adaptation of places where millions of people live.

Cold weather kills 20 times more people than hot weather.Seasonal mortality rates don't lie:

As I've already explained, you can't get reliable statistics on this from poor countries that lack decent healthcare. And those poor countries tend to lie in the hottest parts of the earth.

But the obvious fact that humans are tropical species that are relatively hairless, covered in sweat glands, like room temperature to be 20-25 C, and evolved in East Africa is lost on you.

That would be relevant if we walked around naked. (if you do, please don't tell us - nobody needs that image). As I already said, it's easier and cheaper for people to accommodate colder weather than warmer weather.

Honestly. Do you think your inane argument makes more sense if you repeat it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've already had wetbulb temperatures of 34 C.

Yes, but that's not being at wetbulb temperatures of 34 C for extended periods of time. Rather, that's just the peak wet bulb temperature. People can survive in saunas, which have a much higher wetbulb temperature. Humans can easily survive in 39 C wetbulb temperatures for 24 hours without dying. Maximum wet bulb temperatures for extended periods of time on earth are like 31 C.

Air conditioning only works as long as you stay inside

Indoor heating only works as long as you stay inside, yet the people that live in the South Pole station spend most of the time inside.

as far as people being nocturnal

People that live in the south pole are nocturnal for 6 months at a time. Some people take night shifts, etc.

And those poor countries tend to lie in the hottest parts of the earth.

Too bad environmentalists are against fossil fuels to bring them out of poverty.

As I already said, it's easier and cheaper for people to accommodate colder weather than warmer weather.

It depends on how cold vs how warm. A lot easier to adapt to 30 C than -30 C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on how cold vs how warm. A lot easier to adapt to 30 C than -30 C.

One last time because I tire of dishonest debate.

If the ideal is room temperature (20 C), then the equivalent to -30 isn't 30C, it's 70 C. Can you wrap your head around that? I've snowmobiled in -30 C weather, I can't even fathom being outdoors in 70 C.

So, I'll tell you what. I'll dress how I want and go outside in -30 C. You dress however you want and go outside in 70 C. Let's see who can last longest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the ideal is room temperature (20 C), then the equivalent to -30 isn't 30C, it's 70 C.

I don't agree with your 'equivalence relation'.

Many parts of the Earth reach -30 C. Basically nowhere reaches 70 C.

Global average temperature is 15 C, below room temperature.

Global warming warms polar regions more than equatorial regions, so reduces temperature variance.

Obviously there is temperature asymmetry where being X degrees below optimal is preferable to being X degrees above optimal.

The net benefit of warming is a priori indeterminate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A massive solar flare or large meteorite are a known risk that could completely destroy our civilization. Yet we simply accept those risks and hope for the best. Why should the *unknown* risk of CO2 increases be more of a concern given that we can't really do much about the rising CO2 levels (marginal reductions in the CO2 output at great expense do nothing to stop the overall rise).

Neither of the 1st 2 things you mentioned are happening. Massive CO2 increases are.

Obviously we can do something about CO2, if there's a will. Or we may not do much and continue increases in CO2 over the next several decades. If we do decrease, we won't get off them completely, it's more of matter of how much CO2 output will be reduced and how quickly we start moving to other sources of energy over the next century, if at all.

Depending if we reduce or increase our CO2/GHG output and by how much will determine how fast the earth is apt to warm this century, barring some surprise event like a volcano or change in solar activity. IPCC scenarios go anywhere from 1.5C to 4,0C increase by 2100 depending on our CO2 activity.

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of the 1st 2 things you mentioned are happening. Massive CO2 increases are.

The others are singular events that if they do happen will be catastrophic.

CO2 rising is an event but it is not necessarily catastrophic.

Obviously we can do something about CO2, if there's a will.

Sure. Come up with a plan to kill of 5 billion people or so and it would certainly reduce emissions. But the premise behind my statement is there are no reasonable actions that would result in a significant reduction in global emissions given the technology available to us. That could change if new tech appears but we can't count on that. We can only plan based on the assumption that we have the tech available to us today and that is not enough to reduce emissions while keeping a modern society functioning.

If we do decrease, we won't get off them completely, it's more of matter of how much CO2 output will be reduced and how quickly we start moving to other sources of energy over the next century, if at all.

Why is there a rush? Given the fact that anything we can reasonably do will have little effect then why should we make big sacrifices for nothing? Invest in R&D and if or when a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels appears it will be used and our CO2 emissions will drop rapidly. Until we have that tech we have no choice but to hope for the best.

IPCC scenarios go anywhere from 1.5C to 4,0C increase by 2100 depending on our CO2 activity.

The biggest factor in all of these scenarios: population growth estimates. Slow population growth equals slow CO2 emissions growth. So it seems to be the only discussion should be about stopping population growth if this was about solving the problem in the most efficient way possible. But I am pretty you don't want to talk about such policies for ethical and pragmatic reasons which is fine. But why should I support policies which I think are futile for exactly the same reasons just because you want feel like we are "doing something"? Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. Come up with a plan to kill of 5 billion people or so and it would certainly reduce emissions. But the premise behind my statement is there are no reasonable actions that would result in a significant reduction in global emissions given the technology available to us.

Earlier in the thread, I listed some reasonable actions we could take that would reduce emissions and you yourself agreed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...