Global Warming is real, but will not be a catastrophe

[Gavin Andresen]

I didn't read through the whole "what is the Libertarian solution to Global Warming" thread, so excuse me if I'm saying what somebody else has said.

And I'm not a climate scientist (although I am married to a geologist who is a professor in the same department as Ray Bradley and several other world-class climate scientists), so I can't assess the scientific literature and pick apart various estimates of CO2 sensitivity or urban heat island effects on weather stations or ...

But it seems to me pretty clear that there is a clear consensus among scientists that Global Warming is happening and we're almost certainly the cause.

So the question for me becomes:  how big a deal is it, for both people and our environment?

According to the climate scientists, we've been warming for 100 years now, and nobody seemed to notice.

I know there are worries that there will be a 'climate tipping point' -- that warming will shut down the gulf stream or make the Greenland Ice Sheet fall into the ocean all at once or ocean chemistry changes will make all that methane down there suddenly bubble up to the surface. I'd be very interested in evidence that any of those things have ever happened in the past (because on a geological time scale the Earth's climate has varied a LOT).

And I'm certain warming will be bad for some species-- maybe polar bears will go extinct. Then again, a warmer environment will be good for some species, and I recently read an interesting article about new species arising to fill empty ecological niches much more quickly than biologists expected (I dont' remember the details, but they were seeing new species arise over a period of decades instead of centuries or millenia). I think we all (biologists included) have a bias towards species that already exist, and have trouble having faith in Nature's ability to adapt.

So given that the world was a MUCH warmer place back when the dinosaurs were roaming around, and given that most people most places in the world didn't even notice an almost 1° C rise in temperature over the last century, I just don't think it will be a global catastrophe.

Which is a good thing, because I don't think the kind of global agreement that would be required to reduce carbon emissions has any realistic chance of happening-- the incentives for a country or region to cheat (and burn lots of cheap fossil fuels) are just too great.

[1713968180]

1713968180

[1713968180]

1713968180

[1713968180]

1713968180

[1713968180]

1713968180

[P4man]

ocean chemistry changes will make all that methane down there suddenly bubble up to the surface. I'd be very interested in evidence that any of those things have ever happened in the past

There is strong evidence its exactly that that killed the dinosaurs.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/07/25/did-methane-cause-the-mass-extinction-that-made-way-for-the-dinosaurs/

[RodeoX]

I hope you right Gavin. There are many unknowns in warming up the atmosphere.  One disturbing observation is the melting of the permafrost. When it melts it releases stored CO2. This causes further warming and melting. The amount of CO2 stored in permafrost dwarfs the amount we put in the sky via burning fuel. If it goes, the world may very well be a place humans can not live.
The oceans are also a great concern. As coral reefs die around the world, a major carbon sink is being lost. Other carbon sinks include the giant tropical forests that existed on the Earth until recently.
The last fact that concerns me is the inaction I have seen so far. About 25years ago I attended a lecture on this topic at a science museum where I worked.  It was shocking to see the initial data and to ponder what it could mean. I was young and more optimistic at the time. I assumed the serious people of the world would be jolted into action. What has actually happened since then is that we have not even been able to reduce the rate of growth of greenhouse gases, much less reduce the total. Businesses concerned only with the next quarter hire fake scientists to work against the worlds efforts.  And in our scientifically illiterate society global warming is treated as a "belief" rather than the repeatable, testable fact that it is.
Again, I hope your right. The Earth has not always been a place where humans can live, and there is no logical reason to believe it will support human life in the future.

[Hawker]

I live in England and if global warming works out, I can make a vineyard to replace my potato patch.  Sadly I've been waiting 20 years for the promised hot summers but no joy yet

[yogi]

Sorry to disappoint everyone, but there's an ice-age on the way.

[Hawker]

Sorry to disappoint everyone, but there's an ice-age on the way.

True.  Apparently we are in whats called an interglacial which means a small break in a major ice age.

[Gavin Andresen]

Again, I hope your right. The Earth has not always been a place where humans can live, and there is no logical reason to believe it will support human life in the future.

How far back in history do you have to go to find a time when the Earth couldn't support human life?

If I recall correctly, CO2 concentrations were pretty darn high when the dinosaurs where walking around. There were no people around then, but I don't see any reason why we couldn't live in a much warmer, wetter world.

There is strong evidence its exactly that that killed the dinosaurs.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/07/25/did-methane-cause-the-mass-extinction-that-made-way-for-the-dinosaurs/

You got it backwards. The dinosaurs came after the mass extinction of other species.

Which is kind of my point: if there IS a mass extinction event, then that sucks for the species that go extinct. But new species will arise that are well-adapted to the new climate. And we humans are a pretty darn adaptable species...

[RodeoX]

Sorry to disappoint everyone, but there's an ice-age on the way.

True.  Apparently we are in whats called an interglacial which means a small break in a major ice age.

True. we are likely in an interglacial. But it is unclear how the additional CO2 will effect this cycle. In the last 100yrs. we have released carbon that took millions of years to accumulate. Remember that gasoline is a solar based fuel, and a million years of solar collection is a lot of energy.

[RodeoX]

Again, I hope your right. The Earth has not always been a place where humans can live, and there is no logical reason to believe it will support human life in the future.

How far back in history do you have to go to find a time when the Earth couldn't support human life?

If I recall correctly, CO2 concentrations were pretty darn high when the dinosaurs where walking around. There were no people around then, but I don't see any reason why we couldn't live in a much warmer, wetter world.

I'm not sure? I know we could not have lived before the oxidation event, but how far back is a good question. I doubt temperature would be the issue.
My concern for the future is not just a warmer earth, but an increasing heating one. A few degrees warmer would be a challenge, but our inventive minds survived the ice ages. (That is what a few degrees colder looks like.)
but what about 5 degrees warmer? The Earth would look much different then. It could speed up the desertification of the planet, perhaps leaving vast areas uninhabitable. It would be mankind's greatest test.

[FirstAscent]

Evidence points to the fact that species are being forced to migrate north (in the Northern Hemisphere) at the rate of 8" a day. Work the math out. The problem is, when a species has to migrate, say 50 miles north, they run into barriers - i.e. no more swamp, or urban developments, etc. There habitat disappears, and they die. Extinctions happen at a rate far greater than new species replace them. Do not confuse normal extinction and new species occurrences with rapid extinction events.

Now, when lots of species go extinct rapidly, the rest of the ecosystem gets disrupted too fast for it to adapt, and that results in further degradation of a balanced system. A cascading effect occurs all the way up to predators and all the way down to bacteria, which are responsible for cleaning up waste and revitalizing the soil, etc.

Basically, it has been demonstrated that the productivity of an ecosystem is proportionate to the diversity (i.e. more species) within a region. Productivity means how much can be grown and how fast, or how much can be reconstituted, recycled, etc.

We are observing drastic effects, as described above. Also, there is the ice albedo feedback loop. Ice reflects heat. Liquid water absorbs heat. As the are of land ice melts, a feedback loop occurs in which less heat is reflected into space, which in turn causes further heating, which in turn melts more ice, etc.

Furthermore, as the oceans absorb more heat, more evaporation occurs, which can result in more severe storms, but within an on average hotter climate. Severe weather results, which makes life difficult and more dangerous.

There is a tipping point, and it's happening.

Another interesting point to consider: the last Ice Age had sea levels hundreds of feet lower than now. Imagine the opposite of an ice age.

[FlipPro]

This is very simple Gavin, and I will explain to you why you're wrong...

This is Greenland



It's a country in the north Atlantic ocean that is covered by layers and layers of FRESH WATER ice.

The ice cap is now losing 225 billion tons of ice per year, and ice mass loss is spreading up the west and northwest coasts

Greenland Ice Sheet holds in its mass 7 meters of global sea level rise.

With 7 Meters of of sea level rise, that's enough to kill hundreds of millions of people.

This is just 1 country, 1 scenario, and one result.

Global meltdown would be beyond "catastrophic".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGBMzfxtOio
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/global-warming-greenland-meltdown-continues-to-accelerate/question-2219923/
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120091&page=1

[Hawker]

This is very simple Gavin, and I will explain to you why you're wrong...

This is Greenland

..snip...

It's a country in the north Atlantic ocean that is covered by layers and layers of FRESH WATER ice.

The ice cap is now losing 225 billion tons of ice per year, and ice mass loss is spreading up the west and northwest coasts

Greenland Ice Sheet holds in its mass 7 meters of global sea level rise.

With 7 Meters of of sea level rise, that's enough to kill hundreds of millions of people.

This is just 1 country, 1 scenario, and one result.

Global meltdown would be beyond "catastrophic".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGBMzfxtOio
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/global-warming-greenland-meltdown-continues-to-accelerate/question-2219923/
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120091&page=1

You do know that less than 1000 years ago, Greenland was an agricultural land settled by Vikings?  If humanity survived without issue back then, whats changed to say that now we need Greenland to be covered by ice?

[FlipPro]

This is very simple Gavin, and I will explain to you why you're wrong...

This is Greenland

..snip...

It's a country in the north Atlantic ocean that is covered by layers and layers of FRESH WATER ice.

The ice cap is now losing 225 billion tons of ice per year, and ice mass loss is spreading up the west and northwest coasts

Greenland Ice Sheet holds in its mass 7 meters of global sea level rise.

With 7 Meters of of sea level rise, that's enough to kill hundreds of millions of people.

This is just 1 country, 1 scenario, and one result.

Global meltdown would be beyond "catastrophic".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGBMzfxtOio
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/global-warming-greenland-meltdown-continues-to-accelerate/question-2219923/
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120091&page=1

You do know that less than 1000 years ago, Greenland was an agricultural land settled by Vikings?  If humanity survived without issue back then, whats changed to say that now we need Greenland to be covered by ice?

If you read what I said, I never said humanity would not survive... I simply said it would be catastrophic. And BTW you are wrong, the ice sheet in Greenland is atleast 100,000 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

[Hawker]

This is very simple Gavin, and I will explain to you why you're wrong...

This is Greenland

..snip...

It's a country in the north Atlantic ocean that is covered by layers and layers of FRESH WATER ice.

The ice cap is now losing 225 billion tons of ice per year, and ice mass loss is spreading up the west and northwest coasts

Greenland Ice Sheet holds in its mass 7 meters of global sea level rise.

With 7 Meters of of sea level rise, that's enough to kill hundreds of millions of people.

This is just 1 country, 1 scenario, and one result.

Global meltdown would be beyond "catastrophic".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGBMzfxtOio
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/global-warming-greenland-meltdown-continues-to-accelerate/question-2219923/
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120091&page=1

You do know that less than 1000 years ago, Greenland was an agricultural land settled by Vikings?  If humanity survived without issue back then, whats changed to say that now we need Greenland to be covered by ice?

If you read what I said, I never said humanity would not survive... I simply said it would be catastrophic. And BTW you are wrong, the ice sheet in Greenland is atleast 100,000 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

Yet its a historical fact that the Vikings settled there and nowadays the place is only just starting to return to that state of being fit for agriculture.

[FlipPro]

This is very simple Gavin, and I will explain to you why you're wrong...

This is Greenland

..snip...

It's a country in the north Atlantic ocean that is covered by layers and layers of FRESH WATER ice.

The ice cap is now losing 225 billion tons of ice per year, and ice mass loss is spreading up the west and northwest coasts

Greenland Ice Sheet holds in its mass 7 meters of global sea level rise.

With 7 Meters of of sea level rise, that's enough to kill hundreds of millions of people.

This is just 1 country, 1 scenario, and one result.

Global meltdown would be beyond "catastrophic".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGBMzfxtOio
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/global-warming-greenland-meltdown-continues-to-accelerate/question-2219923/
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120091&page=1

You do know that less than 1000 years ago, Greenland was an agricultural land settled by Vikings?  If humanity survived without issue back then, whats changed to say that now we need Greenland to be covered by ice?

If you read what I said, I never said humanity would not survive... I simply said it would be catastrophic. And BTW you are wrong, the ice sheet in Greenland is atleast 100,000 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

Yet its a historical fact that the Vikings settled there and nowadays the place is only just starting to return to that state of being fit for agriculture.

Yes they settled in the coastal areas of Greenland, however most of the ice was still there.
Here's a picture illustrating Greenland at the time.



Now lets go back to your original statement, which was basically making the assumption that there was NO ICE back when the vikings settled, when the reality was that the majority of the ice was still there.

And that the only parts of Greenland that were "agriculturally fit" were the coastal areas.

This "warm" period that Greenland went through during the years 800-1200 is nothing compared to what we are seeing now...

[FlipPro]

Our CO2 levels are astronomical



This isn't rocket science folks... Bitcoin is harder to get than this FFS.

[Gavin Andresen]

Maybe it is because I am married to a geologist, but I tend to look at a longer timescale. When the dinosaurs were around CO2 concentrations were up around 3000ppm.

I'm not saying there will be no effects of global warming-- I am claiming that we, and mother nature, will adapt.

We could argue about whether it would be less expensive or better to change our behavior now rather than just adapt later-- last I looked, adapting by (for example) moving inland and abandoning low- lying cities and countries was estimated to be cheaper than spending money to reduce CO2 emissions.

[P4man]

Which is kind of my point: if there IS a mass extinction event, then that sucks for the species that go extinct. But new species will arise that are well-adapted to the new climate. And we humans are a pretty darn adaptable species...

I dont think scientists are claiming global warming will eradicate all life from earth. Although one cant completely exclude that if a runaway effect turns our planet in to Venus. The point is that the impact will be massive. As adaptable as you claim we are, just look how difficult we find it to adapt to the rather modest changes we are seeing so far. Sure, our species are under no risk of extinction yet, but go ask Australians how they are adapting. Ask sub saharan inhabitants. So Im not sure what your point is. Something along the lines of "its not likely more than a billion people will die, and a few billion people will suffer, so whats the problem" ?

[ThomasV]

So given that the world was a MUCH warmer place back when the dinosaurs were roaming around, and given that most people most places in the world didn't even notice an almost 1° C rise in temperature over the last century, I just don't think it will be a global catastrophe.

oh no, it will not be a catastrophe for all species. some bacteria, insect and jellyfish will actually thrive.. 

We are right now in the middle of a massive species extinction, that happens to coincide with human expansion.
Most mammal species are threatened of going extinct. 90% of the fish have disappeared since 19th century.

And it's not a catastrophe?

of course life will survive. it takes only a few years for a strain of bacteria to adapt to new conditions.
however, evolution takes millions of years for more complex species such as mammals

[FlipPro]

Which is kind of my point: if there IS a mass extinction event, then that sucks for the species that go extinct. But new species will arise that are well-adapted to the new climate. And we humans are a pretty darn adaptable species...

I dont think scientists are claiming global warming will eradicate all life from earth. Although one cant completely exclude that if a runaway effect turns our planet in to Venus. The point is that the impact will be massive. As adaptable as you claim we are, just look how difficult we find it to adapt to the rather modest changes we are seeing so far. Sure, our species are under no risk of extinction yet, but go ask Australians how they are adapting. Ask sub saharan inhabitants. So Im not sure what your point is. Something along the lines of "its not likely more than a billion people will die, and a few billion people will suffer, so whats the problem" ?

That's what I am trying to ask, what IS Gavins point?

Lets all just abandon all our coastal cities like New York and L.A , and lets all move to OKLAAAAAAAAAAHOMA!!

LOL? Seriously Gavin? 

If you are looking at this from a "cost perspective" I think you are severely missing the point, which I think seems to be the problem with all global warming / climate change refuters.