What I am worried about.

[Nic]

I have finally come to terms that humans are impacting the climate somewhat. But what no one seems to be asking is

would it just be better to not do anything about C02 emissions and adapt to the changes as they occur? Like building seawalls..ext. I fear that we may solve one problem, but then poverty would increase. The economy is being impacted already, we should get rid of all taxes on gas and end oil subsidies, and stop pushing technology (solar panels, wind mills) that we do not need yet and are bad for economic growth. You can't force someone to invent something that no one wants to buy.

[A-L-E-K]

why do people think the only consequence will be rising seawater?

[TerryM]

I have finally come to terms that humans are impacting the climate somewhat. But what no one seems to be asking is

would it just be better to not do anything about C02 emissions and adapt to the changes as they occur? Like building seawalls..ext. I fear that we may solve one problem, but then poverty would increase. The economy is being impacted already, we should get rid of all taxes on gas and end oil subsidies, and stop pushing technology (solar panels, wind mills) that we do not need yet and are bad for economic growth. You can't force someone to invent something that no one wants to buy.

What adaptation to ocean acidification, fresh water loss due to glacial retreat and snow loss, heat wave deaths, crop losses and biodiversity loss would you advocate?

Stopping oil subsidies is a no brainer, but dropping gas taxes would be as counter productive as anything imaginable. BTW Building higher sea walls didn't work out so well in New Orleans.

Terry

[Nic]

1) People should not rebuild BELOW SEA LEVEL like in New Orleans either.

2) Think of all the technological advancements in the past 50 years, it seems to be continuing at the same rate.

Possible solutions to problems above.

Crop loses- Pick different crops that grow in different weather conditions, there are plants for every growing condition imaginable. Also genetic modification

although controversial may be perfected in another 50 years. We also are not practicing sustainable farming either, we should begin to.

Water loss- In another few decades when it really becomes a problem technology will likely catch up, desalination technology, and condensing water vapor our of the atmosphere could be possible.

Population- There are just too many people in the areas forecast to be hit to worse by climatic changes. And the seemingly unrelated affect of religious groups "Catholic church" going into third world countries and telling them not to use contraceptives is a huge problem, If they would move into the 21st century maybe this would be less of a problem. Sorry if I offended anyone picking on the Catholic Church, I just don't understand why they want more members in the church even if they have to suffer their entire life.

Ocean acidification - Algae grows better under acidic conditions, algae is one of the most nutritious foods and is underutilized. Although I don't think it would

be pretty to look at.

I could be wrong but I think we can come up with solutions even ones I did not think of.

[Jonger]

Nic, fossil fuels are running out... We are in the biggest economic funk in decades and gas prices are sky-high. Those tar sands in Canada are the biggest pain in the ass to extract, yet its still profitable to do so... Thats because oil is getting more scarce.

Right now we are at 392ppm of co2, at best we can probably increase that to 500ppm before the rate of increase will plummet.

We really need to work on sequestration and rebury the gas in its solid form once more.

Read up on BioChar, its an amazing solution to our problem and it has secondary bonuses as well.

James Hansen has stated that Biochar could be our best solution.

[Snow_Miser]

I think we should strive to have as little of an impact on the environment as we possibly can. We should definitely do something about the pollution problem from fossil fuel industries.

[nflwxman]

1) People should not rebuild BELOW SEA LEVEL like in New Orleans either.

2) Think of all the technological advancements in the past 50 years, it seems to be continuing at the same rate.

Possible solutions to problems above.

Crop loses- Pick different crops that grow in different weather conditions, there are plants for every growing condition imaginable. Also genetic modification

although controversial may be perfected in another 50 years. We also are not practicing sustainable farming either, we should begin to.

Water loss- In another few decades when it really becomes a problem technology will likely catch up, desalination technology, and condensing water vapor our of the atmosphere could be possible.

Population- There are just too many people in the areas forecast to be hit to worse by climatic changes. And the seemingly unrelated affect of religious groups "Catholic church" going into third world countries and telling them not to use contraceptives is a huge problem, If they would move into the 21st century maybe this would be less of a problem. Sorry if I offended anyone picking on the Catholic Church, I just don't understand why they want more members in the church even if they have to suffer their entire life.

Ocean acidification - Algae grows better under acidic conditions, algae is one of the most nutritious foods and is underutilized. Although I don't think it would

be pretty to look at.

I could be wrong but I think we can come up with solutions even ones I did not think of.

I think you are making good points here, but I think you are missing a huge element in all of these. Cost. All of these mitigation factors will cost lots and lots of money. Unlike many in the field of climatology, I work in private business, so I often looks at these type of worldly problems in a dollar and cents kind of way.

The relocation of crops will change areas in the midwest forever. Genetic modification of plants to withstand certain conditions will cost an abundance of taxpayer dollars and/or company dollars. The US will ultimately lose it's reputation of having a growing friendly climate for mass crop yields of important foods and oils (wheat, corn, soybean).

-Desalination technology is very expensive in the large scale and should only be used as a last resort (i.e. Saudi Arabia). Shipping desalinized ocean water from the coasts to the middle of the country is not a cost effective measure over having natural freshwater located inland.

-Building massive seawalls to protect against storm surge would cost NYC over 500 billion dollars (at recent estimate). Since future sea level rise is highly dependent on the melting of glaciers and ice, it's hard to predict what type of infrastructure would ultimately help avoid a dangerous situation. Granted, this is very hard to put into dollars since we have no idea how much cost AGW has had on storms of our past (SANDY, ect).

All the technologies you mentioned above are great, but not substitutes for true mitigation of the climate issue. Have you kept up with wind technology? Many people seem so quick to dismiss wind when it now produces a lower cost of energy than coal and nuclear. In my time in the industry, the efficiency of wind turbines has nearly doubled (10 years).

[skierinvermont]

Some good posts already but I wanted to make two important points:

1) The philosophy behind the gas tax is to pay for road infrastructure. One of the fundamentals of capitalism is that governments should make people pay for externalities. Essentially, in a perfect economic system everybody pays for the full cost of the each service and good consumed. That creates efficiency. Because the government provides the road system free to users (except for some toll booths) it amounts to a subsidy for driving. Ideally everybody pays for the goods and services they consume directly. One way to do this is tolls (a very inefficient way of taxing because it costs $ to build the booths, pay the workers, etc.), track the number of miles everybody drives with a GPS device, or a Gas Tax!! A gas tax ensures that everybody pays for their usage of the road system. This means that people will drive cars at the economically optimal level, carpool at the economically optimal level, take buses and trains and the subway at the optimal level, take a plane flight instead of driving @ the economically optimal level. ETC. ETC. ETC. I am not sure if current gas taxes are @ the optimal level. To check compare ALL gas tax revenue to ALL road and highway construction spending. The two should theoretically be similar.

The gas tax is about economic efficiency and optimal economic outcomes. Without it we would have to have higher income taxes to pay for road infrastructure which would be using income taxes to subsidize driving. As you know, both subsidies and taxes create economic distortions that reduce efficiency and prevent optimal outcomes. The most efficient way to tax is to tax people for the goods and services they use so that market prices reflect the TRUE total costs.

2) Wind is NOT more expensive than other sources of energy and it is NOT a drag on the economy. Currently even without very large subsidies wind is by far the largest new source of power every year in the U.S. Even without these subsidies, wind would likely by one of if not the dominant new source of power in the U.S. because the total levelized costs are now on par with coal and gas. Most people don't realize this and are still stuck in a 1990s or early 2000s mindset. But as the technology has improved, and economies of scale have been created, the costs have come down and are now on par with coal and gas (as long as the wind mills are in relatively windy areas).

You are correct that solar is more expensive. Depending on the amount of sunlight a location receives it is probably 30-80% more expensive than conventional energy sources.

3) Given #2, and other technological advancements, it is not all that expensive to mitigate climate change (ie reduce emissions). There have been a number of studies done by well respected economists showing that the costs of mitigation are less than the costs of adaptation.

[CoastalWx]

I'm worried if my high of 40F today would have been 39F in 1872.

[OSUmetstud]

I'm worried if my high of 40F today would have been 39F in 1872.

total denier

[WeatherRusty]

I'm worried if my high of 40F today would have been 39F in 1872.

Regional climate change has a much larger impact if that 1F increase is in the annual average. I would expect you to acknowled that.

[CoastalWx]

Regional climate change has a much larger impact if that 1F increase is in the annual average. I would expect you to acknowled that.

It was having some fun. I think most people would acknowledge the fact the climate change is the last thing on their mind, except maybe a few on here.

[Vergent]

It was having some fun. I think most people would acknowledge the fact the climate change is the last thing on their mind, except maybe a few on here.

Most people have an I.Q. below 101. It is interesting that you identify with them. The temperature in an ice house is 0C all summer long...until the ice is gone. Arguing about air temperatures and ignoring mass balance is scientific ignorance. Earth is in an energy imbalance. Most of the energy goes to the heat content of the oceans. 10% goes to melting ice. 2% goes to the air as moisture content. A tiny fraction of 1% goes to the air as temperature.

The oceans are a huge heat sink that will take centuries to make significant climactic changes to. Ice in the antarctic the same. However arctic sea ice is going fast and we are already seeing 20C anomalies there. When the ice cap is gone there will be massive climactic changes. This is about to happen.

This is the hourglass for climate as we know it. Yet all we hear all this babbling about air temperature changes and how insignificant they are.

[skierinvermont]

Earth is in an energy imbalance. Most of the energy goes to the heat content of the oceans. 10% goes to melting ice. 2% goes to the air as moisture content. A tiny fraction of 1% goes to the air as temperature.

Where do you get the figure that 10% goes into melting ice?

I calculate that if we melt 500km3 of ice/yr (sea and land ice combined) that comes out to .01W/m2 which is only 2% if the globe's energy imbalance is .5W/m2.

[CoastalWx]

Most people have an I.Q. below 101. It is interesting that you identify with them. The temperature in an ice house is 0C all summer long...until the ice is gone. Arguing about air temperatures and ignoring mass balance is scientific ignorance. Earth is in an energy imbalance. Most of the energy goes to the heat content of the oceans. 10% goes to melting ice. 2% goes to the air as moisture content. A tiny fraction of 1% goes to the air as temperature.

The oceans are a huge heat sink that will take centuries to make significant climactic changes to. Ice in the antarctic the same. However arctic sea ice is going fast and we are already seeing 20C anomalies there. When the ice cap is gone there will be massive climactic changes. This is about to happen.

This is the hourglass for climate as we know it. Yet all we hear all this babbling about air temperature changes and how insignificant they are.

Yeah, you got me man.

[CoastalWx]

Where do you get the figure that 10% goes into melting ice?

I calculate that if we melt 500km3 of ice/yr (sea and land ice combined) that comes out to .01W/m2 which is only 2% if the globe's energy imbalance is .5W/m2.

Vergent is simply more intelligent then all of us.

[Jonger]

Vergent is simply more intelligent then all of us.

When you sell cars, you better know cars..... Doesn't mean you have the best cars though.

Jon

[TerryM]

Where do you get the figure that 10% goes into melting ice?

I calculate that if we melt 500km3 of ice/yr (sea and land ice combined) that comes out to .01W/m2 which is only 2% if the globe's energy imbalance is .5W/m2.

For Arctic Sea Ice alone, the annual figures I get are:

Last 3 years - 1210

Since 2007 - 1146

Since 2002 - 891

Source J Pettit Climate Graphs

Land based ice - say Greenland - would throw your figures off even further.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

For Arctic Sea Ice alone, the annual figures I get are:

Last 3 years - 1210

Since 2007 - 1146

Since 2002 - 891

Source J Pettit Climate Graphs

Land based ice - say Greenland - would throw your figures off even further.

Terry

Oh I suppose if he was using short-term averages it might get close to 10%. 1500km3 would be 6% of the earth's energy imbalance.

[Vergent]

Where do you get the figure that 10% goes into melting ice?

I calculate that if we melt 500km3 of ice/yr (sea and land ice combined) that comes out to .01W/m2 which is only 2% if the globe's energy imbalance is .5W/m2.

The most recent global mass balance figures I could find were several years old, and suggested about 5% for ice and 2% for air. The recent arctic sea ice losses, Greenland losses, and the current 0.03C/decade air temperature gains suggest that currently 5% is too small for ice and 2% too large for air. So call it an estimate based on incomplete data.

However, the 500km3 number came from where the sun does not shine. The arctic sea ice is losing 800km3/year. The current global number has to be -2,000km3 or more, which by your figures would be 8%.

[skierinvermont]

The most recent global mass balance figures I could find were several years old, and suggested about 5% for ice and 2% for air. The recent arctic sea ice losses, Greenland losses, and the current 0.03C/decade air temperature gains suggest that currently 5% is too small for ice and 2% too large for air. So call it an estimate based on incomplete data.

However, the 500km3 number came from where the sun does not shine. The arctic sea ice is losing 800km3/year. The current global number has to be -2,000km3 or more, which by your figures would be 8%.

The 5-yr average is -1100km3 for sea ice and -300km3 for Greenland and Antarctica. Total 1400 = 5.6%.

For Greenland and Antarctica I used 300Gt/yr ~= 300km3/yr

Coincidentally a km3 of ice weighs approximately a Gt.

500km3 is the 30-yr average.

1400km3 is the 5-yr average.

[Nic]

Wow, did not know I would fire off such huge discussion. Yeah some of my points are strange, but I admit I don't know much about economics yet. I am only a freshman in college. I want to be an agro meterologist possible involved with CME commodities exchange. Link below is a good explanation on what I want to do.

http://www.freshaj.c...-meteorologists

[Jonger]

Wow, did not know I would fire off such huge discussion. Yeah some of my points are strange, but I admit I don't know much about economics yet. I am only a freshman in college. I want to be an agro meterologist possible involved with CME commodities exchange. Link below is a good explanation on what I want to do.

http://www.freshaj.c...-meteorologists

Internet forums FTW. Imagine how hard it was to find people to discuss these issues with so casually 20 years ago.

I grew up a weather freak and had NOBODY to talk with about weather.

[LocoAko]

It was having some fun. I think most people would acknowledge the fact the climate change is the last thing on their mind, except maybe a few on here.

Plenty of people care about climate change.... as well they should. Your sarcastic diminishing of the issue does nothing to make it any less important.

[skierinvermont]

Wow, did not know I would fire off such huge discussion. Yeah some of my points are strange, but I admit I don't know much about economics yet. I am only a freshman in college. I want to be an agro meterologist possible involved with CME commodities exchange. Link below is a good explanation on what I want to do.

http://www.freshaj.c...-meteorologists

Yeah the 3 big objections I had were 1) wind is on par with coal and gas for total levilzed cost (the low price of gas right now makes gas the cheapest I think, followed by wind, then coal IIRC). 2) the gas tax is about economic efficiency and pays for the road system (we don't want the gov't subsidizing driving) 3) most estimates find the costs of mitigation to be less than mitigation (these are complex economic studies that I can barely begin to explain)

[Jonger]

Plenty of people care about climate change.... as well they should. Your sarcastic diminishing of the issue does nothing to make it any less important.

Heck, even if 0.1% of the US population cared, that's still 400,000 people.

[Vergent]

The 5-yr average is -1100km3 for sea ice and -300km3 for Greenland and Antarctica. Total 1400 = 5.6%.

For Greenland and Antarctica I used 300Gt/yr ~= 300km3/yr

Coincidentally a km3 of ice weighs approximately a Gt.

500km3 is the 30-yr average.

1400km3 is the 5-yr average.

So you get 5.6% while ignoring permafrost and alpine glaciers. We are getting closer. But, you are talking 5 year average, I am talking current rate. The rate is accelerating, and it is going to accelerate some more next year.

[skierinvermont]

So you get 5.6% while ignoring permafrost and alpine glaciers. We are getting closer. But, you are talking 5 year average, I am talking current rate. The rate is accelerating, and it is going to accelerate some more next year.

The loss of sea ice has actually decelrated in recent years. The big drop was from 2009 to 2010. Volume at the 2012 min was only 1200km3 less than the 2010 min, or 600km3/yr.

600km3 (the 2-yr average) is much less than 1100km3 (the 5-yr average).

Volume loss from Greenland and Antarctica may have accelerated slightly but no where near as much as arctic sea ice has decelerated.

If we include permafrost and glaciers it might bring the 5 year average to 6% of the energy imbalance.

The 2-yr average is 3.6%.

[CoastalWx]

Plenty of people care about climate change.... as well they should. Your sarcastic diminishing of the issue does nothing to make it any less important.

Caring about climate change and how much they care are two different things. Most people have it in the back of their minds with real life concerns of jobs, economy, paying bills, school payments...you name it.

[FPizz]

It was having some fun. I think most people would acknowledge the fact the climate change is the last thing on their mind, except maybe a few on here.

It was a funny line. I guess no one is allowed to have a sense of humor. People need to lighten up a bit. It was obviously a joke.