Skip to main content

In the previous diary, I argued that skeptics of global warming held themselves to different working standards than the scientific community. Skeptics produce virtually no raw data or field research themselves, do not come up with their own climate models, their predictions are not detailed. They do not try to clarify things better, but sow confusion wherever they can.

Here I consider two reports from the skeptical camp, which at least have some predictions in numbers. The first article, of July 20, criticizes Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) Climate and Economy Act, now under consideration in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It claims that Bingaman's measures would avert at most 0.008 C of global warming by 2050, and would cost $331 billion. The second report from Lombard Street Research predicts $18 trillion price of preventing global warming, 45% of the global GDP.

When you see these statements, the questions arise:
  1. What exactly does it mean that some measure would cost those billions of dollars?
  2. What would be the damage costs (in similar units) of the climate change if we take no measures?
  3. What does it mean to stop or prevent global warming? If Bingaman's measures alone can decrease temperature, can we say that the warming is stopped?
  4. What are realistic measures and goals we can pursue?
In honesty, the last question does not have to pop up by itself from those numbers. It is the question I wish to answer first.

The hard data is that the CO2 concentrations rose by 40% in the last 150 years, and now it is 30% higher than it ever was in the preceding 420 millennia. How exactly greenhouse gases and the climate interact, we do not know much. But the prospects are not favorable. The point is that we still keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere more than the nature can cope with. The CO2 concentration is increasing, and the risk exists that higher temperatures will result in massive forest fires and methane instability in oceans, which would mean a run-away hell on Earth.

I propose a simple immediate goal for dealing with the climate change: stabilize the CO2 concentration. This has to be done sooner or later. Delay can only increase eventual costs of requisite measures, it seems. Certainly physical and moral damage of the warming would be greater. Along the way, we should learn as much as possible about climate dynamics, which means more active research than just speculations, so that we would know better whether we need to do more.

In the light of this articulation, the two cited reports do not tell much (if anything) what should or should not be done. They cite some vaguely specified high costs for ambiguous measures or obscure goals. At this point all sides - skeptics, politicians, scientists - can be more specific what should be achieved and which costs should be avoided.

Regarding the cost balances, one may distinguish the following details:

  • government spending;
  • affected industries;
  • decrease of economy versatility;
This should be compared against:
  • damage of climate change;
  • availability of natural resources;  
  • economy lift from advanced energy technologies.
With more specific numbers we may have more interesting debate then.

Again, the problem of climate change deserves diligent attention. Skeptics should contribute as much objective knowledge as scientists. To get some inspiration, one may consider the work of Dr. George Divoky. He already devoted 30 years to study black guillemots (birds) on the Artic Cooper Island. That study gave one of the first undeniable indications that the climate is warming. Click on the picture to read a story published more than 3 years ago.


Originally posted to ray z on Tue Aug 23, 2005 at 01:12 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Question of Uncertainty shows Bush (none)
    What really pisses me off is the way that the Bush administration has refused to take action on global warming because they claim that there is uncertainty over whether the recent climate change is man-made.  While I will admit that there is a chance (a small chance, but not totally statistically insignificant) that the concurrent rise in temperatures with rises in man-made carbon emissions represents merely a coincidental correlation due to natural temperature cycles rather than a causality.  However this is an administration that went into a PRE-EMPTIVE WAR BECAUSE OF UNCERTAINTY - that is the uncertainty over whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs.  

    This is a fundamental hipocrisy.  On the one hand, uncertainty is the primary motivator behind a war against a contained nation that has bogged down and killed American troops, but on the other hand, uncertainty is the reason NOT to take steps to ward off an environmental crisis, that if it pans out as expected, could lead to billions being cast into death and poverty.  The hipocrisy is murderous and mind-blowingly angering.  If nothing else, I would just like to see some consistency: if the potential risks due uncertainty over the possibility of WMDs justified the War in Iraq, then why doesn't the potential risks of global warming - something where there is even less uncertainty but even more potential danger - warrant bold and immediate action as well.

    Or he could also just come out and tell the truth and say he's just being a toy of his corporate friends so at least the electorate can make an informed decision in upcoming elections.  Oh well, I guess a boy can dream...

    I am an ILL State Assassin. Legalize Qualo. Those in or around Chicago - listen to Boers and Bernstein on 670 AM The Score 10AM-2PM. You'll be glad you did.

    by Larry Horse on Tue Aug 23, 2005 at 02:01:57 AM PDT

  •  The Question of Uncertainty shows Bush's hipocracy (none)
    What really pisses me off is the way that the Bush administration has refused to take action on global warming because they claim that there is uncertainty over whether the recent climate change is man-made.  While I will admit that there is a chance (a small chance, but not totally statistically insignificant) that the concurrent rise in temperatures with rises in man-made carbon emissions represents merely a coincidental correlation due to natural temperature cycles rather than a causality.  However this is an administration that went into a PRE-EMPTIVE WAR BECAUSE OF UNCERTAINTY - that is the uncertainty over whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs.  

    This is a fundamental hipocrisy.  On the one hand, uncertainty is the primary motivator behind a war against a contained nation that has bogged down and killed American troops, but on the other hand, uncertainty is the reason NOT to take steps to ward off an environmental crisis, that if it pans out as expected, could lead to billions being cast into death and poverty.  The hipocrisy is murderous and mind-blowingly angering.  If nothing else, I would just like to see some consistency: if the potential risks due uncertainty over the possibility of WMDs justified the War in Iraq, then why doesn't the potential risks of global warming - something where there is even less uncertainty but even more potential danger - warrant bold and immediate action as well.

    Or he could also just come out and tell the truth and say he's just being a toy of his corporate friends so at least the electorate can make an informed decision in upcoming elections.  Oh well, I guess a boy can dream...

    I am an ILL State Assassin. Legalize Qualo. Those in or around Chicago - listen to Boers and Bernstein on 670 AM The Score 10AM-2PM. You'll be glad you did.

    by Larry Horse on Tue Aug 23, 2005 at 02:02:29 AM PDT

    •  Entered twice and hypocrisy misspelled a bunch (none)
      I think that means it's time to go to bed!

      I am an ILL State Assassin. Legalize Qualo. Those in or around Chicago - listen to Boers and Bernstein on 670 AM The Score 10AM-2PM. You'll be glad you did.

      by Larry Horse on Tue Aug 23, 2005 at 02:10:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Global warming is like (none)
    ID. God did it. With the Raptures commin' and all that, who gives a shit???
Click here for the mobile view of the site