Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[rassabossa]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... with one exception - putting some trust in the science and the people who do the science would seem to be a more rational position than denying it because they don't like the conclusion, or the implications.

Eyes open vs eyes closed.

I think that renewables and even the grail of fusion - these are the great market opportunities for the future, and the deniers are successfully deterring the US from leading in this area. The Chinese are developing and deploying new technology, including pollution reduction, at a far faster pace than the US. They're eating your lunch in this area.

The Chinese are also investing heavily in the LFTR technology we foolishly abandoned when we came up with the bomb.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Neo

...

2. Are you trying to save lives?

a. From the IPCC: “in order to keep warming under the 2°C (3.6°F) threshold agreed on by the world’s governments at a 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 will have to be 40 to 70 percent lower than what they were in 2010. By the end of the century, they will need to be at zero.”

b. Can anyone say with a straight face that this would not come with a monumental reduction in the standard of living for everyone on this planet?

c. It is a reasonable assumption that there would be more death and suffering following the IPCC measures than if we focus on adapting to climate change instead of trying to change the climate back.

d. Just a 15% drop in worldwide GDP accompanied the great depression from 1929 to 1932. I believe that a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas by 2050 would lower worldwide GDP by more than 15%.

e. The great depression was probably a contributing factor to the start of WWII.....

How Much Will It Cost to Solve Climate Change? | Technology Review

May 15, 2014
Major reports are concluding that stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change is possible and can be done at a relatively low cost. But the details of the reports make it clear that when you factor in real-world issues—such as delays in developing and implementing technology and policy—the cost of solving climate change gets much higher. Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050, according to a report released this week by the International Energy Agency. That sounds like a lot of money, but the report also concludes that the switch to low-carbon technologies such as solar power—together with anticipated improvements in efficiency—will bring huge savings from reduced fossil-fuel consumption. As a result, the world actually comes out slightly ahead: the costs of switching will be paid for in fuel savings between now and 2050.

Last month a major report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that efforts to stabilize levels of greenhouse-gas emissions would require investments of about $13 trillion through 2030. It also noted that reducing emissions would reduce the rate of economic growth (as a result of such factors as higher energy prices). But it would do so by, on average, less than a tenth of a percentage point per year between now and 2100.

How much will it cost to cut global greenhouse gas emissions? | London School of Economics

October 2014
Economists continue to model the costs of investment to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and the different routes these cuts could take to avoid dangerous climate change. Earlier this year, the IPCC published its comprehensive report on climate change mitigation. It concluded that staying within 2°C of warming, the threshold recognised and accepted by the world’s governments to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, is still feasible, providing action is taken to swiftly and sharply cut emissions. The question is, how much could that investment cost?

In its review of the latest scientific evidence, Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change earlier this year concluded that ensuring greenhouse gas concentrations do not exceed a level that would offer a 66 per cent chance of avoiding global warming of more than 2ºC would mean losses in global consumption of 1-4% in 2030, 2-6% in 2050 and 3-11% in 2100. These wide ranging estimates depend on many assumptions which are openly acknowledged in the report, including measuring against a baseline in which climate change does not occur and ignoring the economic co-benefits of reducing emissions, such as an improvement in local air quality.

For example, a recent report by the New Climate Economy (PDF) estimates that these co-benefits in many cases swamp the costs of reducing emissions. In China, a recent study* found that PM2.5 pollution has been linked to 1.23 million premature deaths in 2010 (median estimate) – or, put in monetary terms, damages equivalent to 9.7–13.2% of China’s GDP. The health damages caused by local air pollution alone are larger than the estimated cost of decarbonisation. Gains from reduced congestion, less waste and inefficiency, innovation spill-overs, energy security and fiscal reform from carbon pricing, further offset the costs of emissions reductions the report shows.

The Cost of Climate Change | Natural Resources Defense Council

What We'll Pay if Global Warming Continues Unchecked

Global warming comes with a big price tag for every country in the world. The 80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions needed to stop climate change may not come cheaply, but the cost of failing to act will be much greater. New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four global warming impacts alone -- hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs -- will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today's dollars) by 2100. We know how to avert most of these damages through strong action to reduce the emissions that cause global warming. But the longer we wait, the more painful -- and expensive -- the consequences will be.
FULL REPORT IN PDF

Counting the Cost of Fixing the Future | New York Times

September 2013
In May, to little fanfare, the Obama administration published new estimates of the “social cost of carbon,” a dollars-and-cents measure of the future damage — from floods, pandemics, depressed agricultural productivity — that releasing each additional ton of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere would cost.

The new numbers are likely to be more important than the low-key announcement would imply. They suggest climate change could cause substantially more economic harm than the government previously believed. But they also suggest there is a legitimate debate to be had about the cost of preventing it from getting worse.

Perhaps the most startling conclusion to be drawn from the new estimates is that the sacrifice demanded of our generation to prevent vast climate change down the road may turn out to be rather small.

The typical passenger car emits a ton of CO2 in about two and a half months of driving. Under one set of assumptions, the government’s number-crunchers determined that the damage caused by an additional ton of CO2 spewed into the air in 2015 would amount to $65 in today’s money. That’s 50 percent more than was estimated just three years ago.
This could justify fairly aggressive policies to slow emissions of CO2. A tax of $65 per ton of CO2 to force polluters to pay for the damage would add $0.56 to a gallon of gas. Exxon, say, might have to shell out $8.1 billion to cover the 125 million tons of CO2 it spewed last year. Farms might have to pay $35 billion.

Under a different set of assumptions, though, the social cost of carbon came out to only $13.50 a ton. This would amount to a gas tax of less than $0.12. Considering the fierce debate over what to do about climate change, this does not seem like that much money at all.....

Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option| The Guardian

April 2014
The IPCC has now released all three of the reports that comprise its 2014 Fifth Assessment of climate science. The first report tackled the physical changes in the global climate, while the second addressed climate impacts and adaptation, and the third looked at climate change mitigation. Ironically, after the second report was published, many media outlets argued that the IPCC was shifting its focus from global warming prevention to adaptation, seemingly unaware that its report on mitigation was scheduled to be published just a few weeks later.
Other media outlets have incorrectly argued that the IPCC reports conclude it's cheaper to adapt than avoid climate change. This error stems from the fact that the second report says about the costs of climate damages,

"the incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of ~2°C are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income ... Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range ... Losses accelerate with greater warming, but few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above."

The third report then said about the costs of avoiding global warming,

"mitigation scenarios that reach atmospheric concentrations of about 450ppm CO2eq by 2100 entail losses in global consumption—not including benefits of reduced climate change as well as cobenefits and adverse side‐effects of mitigation ... [that] correspond to an annualized reduction of consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median: 0.06) percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year."

The challenge is that these two numbers aren't directly comparable. One deals with annual global economic losses, while the other is expressed as a slightly slowed global consumption growth.
....
Avoiding Global Warming is Cheaper than Adapting

The bottom line is that economists can't even accurately estimate how much climate damages will cost if we fail to take serious steps to slow global warming. On the other hand, taking those steps can have a negligible impact on global economic growth. The IPCC report also makes the point that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become. In determining that mitigating global warming is affordable, the IPCC used the following scenarios.

"Scenarios in which all countries of the world begin mitigation immediately, there is a single global carbon price, and all key technologies are available, have been used as a cost‐effective benchmark for estimating macroeconomic mitigation costs"

It's important to understand that our choices aren't to either reduce carbon emissions or to do nothing. Our options are to either reduce carbon emissions or to continue with business-as-usual emissions that will cause accelerating climate change and damage costs beyond what we can accurately estimate. From an economic perspective, and from a risk management perspective, this should be a no-brainer. As economist Paul Krugman put it,

"So is the climate threat solved? Well, it should be. The science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice and vested interests. What could go wrong?"

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you actually go past the media and read the science reports, you wouldn't have seen much "needle pegging forecasts of doom, radical economy destroying proposed fixes, and the religious cult like behavior of some climate scientists and their environmentalist sycophants" in the scientific findings. Most of that noise are distortions and fabrications from those who don't want you to authorize the government to do ANYTHING.

Put politics to one side, and just read the science.

Ha ha. Is this the comedy channel? Michael Mann, Al Gore, Bill Nye and the whole IPCC come immediately to mind. You realise that the with the IPCC's whole being revolving around the issue of AGW, it is no different to tobacco companies defending their "product"? Remember when Jackdale, I think, tried to liken deniers with tobacco defending their product by linking a YouTube video of a bunch of executives sitting before congres denying that tobacco was addictive? Say hello to the IPCC!

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's a great link. I find nothing to disagree with, especially the recommendations, repeated above. Why are so many here against such actions, using BS excuses like "climate scientists are wrong", "conspiracy", Climategate and "soshulist agenda" as their reasons?

Funny. That's exactly my stance and you have seem to found plenty to disagree about. You alarmists come across as extremely disappointed when it is pointed out (repeatedly) that the world isn't already descending into Armageddon, due to AGW.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

From same article:
(3 ft + 1 ft = ... ?)

They seem pretty clear on the 3 ft part, anyway.

Yes. Sea level is rise is about to increase 10 fold, any day now. It's risen around 8 inches total since humans first started measuring, well before the internet came along.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[savoir]

Did someone order a serve of Michael Mann ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Funny. That's exactly my stance.

Except when parroting all the denier, 'alarmist' conspiracy crap. as you immediately do again...

and you have seem to found plenty to disagree about. You alarmists come across as extremely disappointed when it is pointed out (repeatedly) that the world isn't already descending into Armageddon, due to AGW.

I know it makes it easier for you when you lump me in with your 'alarmist' straw-people. But if you were to search all my posts for something 'alarmist'... you'd come up empty. Not that I'd expect you to, this is just CF. If you do actually support that position, why are you so comfy with all the anti-science crap?

My whole point has been how people, apparently including you, need to sh!t on climate science in order to make your points.

(and now a little something for the masses )

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect
From same article:
(3 ft + 1 ft = ... ?)

They seem pretty clear on the 3 ft part, anyway.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yes. Sea level is rise is about to increase 10 fold, any day now. It's risen around 8 inches total since humans first started measuring, well before the internet came along.

That stuff came from YOUR linked article. Didn't make it past the soundbite, I see.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ha ha. Is this the comedy channel? Michael Mann, Al Gore, Bill Nye and the whole IPCC come immediately to mind.

Er....... Only one of those 4 has published any work on the climate.....

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That stuff came from YOUR linked article. Didn't make it past the soundbite, I see.

Which came from Gord's reference. My point is I find it somewhat amusing that anything bad m'kay is somehow linked to climate change which is then somehow linked to AGW.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

Er....... Only one of those 4 has published any work on the climate.....

Pedantics will get you nowhere. Or would you prefer I start digging into the credentials of those in charge of the IPCC? The point was all are allegedly politically agnostic, but I admit I could be wrong on that.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Except when parroting all the denier, 'alarmist' conspiracy crap. as you immediately do again...



I know it makes it easier for you when you lump me in with your 'alarmist' straw-people. But if you were to search all my posts for something 'alarmist'... you'd come up empty. Not that I'd expect you to, this is just CF. If you do actually support that position, why are you so comfy with all the anti-science crap?

My whole point has been how people, apparently including you, need to sh!t on climate science in order to make your points.

(and now a little something for the masses )

If we agree on the same thing there'd be no argument. I say climate change is happening. I say the predicted effects are a beat up. I say there's no smoking gun linking co2 to climate change and that AGW is only a component of climate change. I say our attempts to "rectify" our climate are a futile waste of time except for reduction of CO2. I say better spend money on experts to fix the problem if in fact there is one and not on more climate researchers and yes i do say that there is something fishy going on starting with the IPCC.

I class alarmists (which is a word only started using during the course of this thread) as those that keep regurgitating up doom and gloom scenarios, all with "could", "predicted" or "may" preceding their claims.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Though you might be interested in this clip from Australia's tv program called 'The Project'.

Waleed Aly stuns Twitter with renewable energy, climate change report

[senormechanico]

I went sailing today.
What did you warming enthusiasts do besides bleat about glowbull warming?
I have to admit though, it got up to 59 degrees today with sun all day long.

Happy proselytizing from your mother's basement.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If we agree on the same thing there'd be no argument. I say climate change is happening. I say the predicted effects are a beat up. I say there's no smoking gun linking co2 to climate change and that AGW is only a component of climate change. I say our attempts to "rectify" our climate are a futile waste of time except for reduction of CO2. I say better spend money on experts to fix the problem if in fact there is one and not on more climate researchers and yes i do say that there is something fishy going on starting with the IPCC.

I class alarmists (which is a word only started using during the course of this thread) as those that keep regurgitating up doom and gloom scenarios, all with "could", "predicted" or "may" preceding their claims.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I got to give it to you Reefmagnet, you stick to your guns. your determined.