Monday, September 04, 2006

A sensible position

Can be found here. I might have re-written the title, if I were the editor, but I generally agree with the sentiment expressed that both adaptation and mitigation will be necessary to deal with the climate change problem.


Kit Stolz said...

Yes. Why are these positions so often thought to be mutually exclusive? When doctors treat a patient with a fever, they don't treat either the symptoms or the cause. They treat both. Is that so crazy?

EliRabett said...

You know, I have been saying that for years, but you have to recongnize that the adapt only crowd has also been out and about.

"And oh yes, since we are already committed to 2xCO2, and since as bad as 2xCO2 will be 3x CO2 is a lot worse, that means that any response will have to include both mitigation and adaptation. Anyone arguing that there is a simple choice between the two is simply simple or a simple charlatain. Of course, people who insist that adaptation is the only way, never put a cost on it. What is the value of Florida after all?"

Pay attention to Coby Becks comment at the end also which deals with some of the tactics used in this controversy.

George Landis said...

Yes, one should focus on both, however, since the political reality and practical "solution" to AGW will not be forthcoming to any large degree, then I would suggest putting most of the intellectual capital and cash capital and information into mitigation measures. As General Jack D. Ripper said in "Dr. Strangelove", they are on their way boys, and nothing is going to stop it.

Bill F said...

How much is Florida worth indeed?

Let me ask a question based off of that question. Which prediction do we have greater certainty about? For instance, we can calculate fairly accurately that melting all the polar ice on the planet will raise sea level by 20 feet. But what will be the effect on sea level of returning to 1990 CO2 levels from now until 2100 without going further with our reductions? We can model and predict what we think CO2 concentrations will be in 100 years if we do that, but that prediction has an error range in it. Based on that, we can then predict what we think global temperatures will do if CO2 levels reach the levels we predict them to, but that prediction has an error range built into it too. From there, we can also estimate how much polar ice will melt if the temperatures reach the levels we predict that they will; and based off of that, how much the sea levels will rise...but again, that prediction has an error range built into it. So with all that accumulated error built into those predictions, how certain can we really be that reducing our GHG emissions by some percentage will be enough to prevent Miami from going under water? We know that if we start now taking steps to prevent new construction within areas that would flood if all the polar ice caps melted and to relocate critical infrastructure out of those areas, that we can minimize the impact if the worst case scenario comes to pass. But what happens if we agree to cut all GHG emissions by 40% from 2006 levels, and by year 2050, it is clear that despite our successful efforts, the atmospheric concentrations are not responding as predicted and the temperature will end up being higher than predicted?

There are certain predicted effects from GW that we can readily anticipate and others that we can respond to fairly rapidly. The only response action that requires us to start today (or in the very near future) is mitigation. However, mitigation is the route with the greatest uncertainty in how successful our efforts will be. So are you willing to gamble with the future of Florida by putting all your eggs in the mitigation basket?

Andrew Dessler said...

Great question, Bill. Here's my opinion: if we get to 2050 and it turns out that 1) the climate is more sensitive than we thought to CO2 emissions or 2) despite our best efforts, atmospheric CO2 emissions are still rising rapidly, then I think it's time to explore geoengineering. We could probably design, build, and launch a space shield (or something equivalent) that would reduce solar energy falling on the Earth (and thereby offset some of the effects of CO2) in about a decade.


Bill F said...

Space shield? Not bad...not bad. I was thinking we could just wrap some aluminum foil around the sun. We could avoid the temperature problem by doing the mission at night.

Sorry, the aggie in me made me do it.

Peter K. Anderson said...

There is NOT possible a 'greenhouse effect' as the 'greenhouse theory' describes, and Temperature is NOT even a valid indicator of supposed UNNATURAL 'Climate Change' in any VALID manner of SCIENCE. So supposed remediations based on CO2 with regard to 'unnatural climate change' will have NO effect, there is NOT possible any 'CO2 based' effect to begin with. Also realise that the measured Temperature of a System is that measure of Kinetic Energy residual within the Materials constituting that System that is NOT directly involved in the production of the Processes of Turbulence within that System. In a System where-in the Mass of the most involved materials contained is proportioned in kilogramsx10^24, then alterations to Turbulence within those materials WILL release (or uptake) vast amounts of Kinetic Energy, and that this will then be observed as a RISE (or DECLINE) in the measured 'temperature' of the System with NO NEED for alteration of the RATE of overall 'new' Kinetic Energy production. Interaction of Oceanic (slower) and Atmospheric (faster) process will see the style of variation of TEMPERATURE seen so far.

Realise the 'temperature rise' oft mentioned is of the planetary surface, it is the planetary surface that is being rematerialed and it is the REMATERIALING that is altering Energy interactions in style and Spectrum of Energy that is producing the observed rise in median temperature. It is NOT possible for a 'greenhouse warming process' to even have been existent; the 'greenhouse effect' is inconsistent with the materials it involves as these materials present their ACTUAL behaviours, this is inclusive of those materials presented on the surface as well as with those 'bio-forms' of surface life as they exist NOW. It is NOT possible for the 'greenhouse theory' to produce in reality a 'warming effect' as it is supposed, with manipulation of Energy within the 'Infrared Region' with regard to the real materials present (including those materials involved/contained in 'life forms'.

Next notice the material in the link (with all thanks and notice to the author and references there in included):-

The Earth in it's orbit trails a small 'gas tail', this being retained by interactions of the Planetary Magnetic Field, Radiation and the upper edges of the Atmosphere. This 'Gas Tail' would be lost constantly, perhaps 'blown away' by the 'Solar Wind' or just left behind due to alteration of the velocity vector from the Earth's orbital motion if not for Gravity AND the Dipole 'plasma production'. The 'atmospheric density' of Venus can be explained by that now 'present' atmosphere being a production of the loss of the original 'atmosphere' as the Dipole field reduced to it's present 'practically nil' levels. The RAPIDITY of that 'field reduction', if sufficient, would create a 'surface pressure boil' increasing 'atmospheric density/mass' able to support higher store of kinetic energy. So a more Turbulent atmosphere would become warmer.

Also it is that Venus is NOW potentially losing its Atmosphere (rate related to gravity well determinations) and the overall conditions are related to the 'loss' of that original 'dipole' with then relationship made of notice to which 'Planets' in this Solar System present 'Earth-like Dipoles'. After 20 years of 'greenhouse hype', enough IS enough and to highlight this I notice that Mr Gore is to be in Australia this weekend to promote 'his Movie', containing as it does little TRUTH in reality, having just such mentioned in the 'title'.

The CONTINUANCE of 'life as we know it', if that is the 'common concern' of the present 'environmental activist', is NOT in any study of a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. Enough of this 'greenhouse nonscience'...after 20 years of nothing but opinion, movies and novels time to IGNORE the 'greenhouse lobby'.

The study in SCIENCE needed to protect 'life as we know it' needing both Political & Public notice & concern is in the production & consistent persistence of the Planetary Dipole, in both it's processes of production AND continuance. THIS is the 'sensible position'....with not ANY regard to the impossible 'greenhouse effect' and those other 'greenhouse related platforms'.

Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson