5 ms·

Bear with me, I've got a hypothetical for you. If absolutely, rock-solid research came out that concluded that climate change was not anthropogenic, would we s

by ryandvm 12y ago

Bear with me, I've got a hypothetical for you. If absolutely, rock-solid research came out that concluded that climate change was not anthropogenic, would we still be talking about reversing it? That is, say it's all due to solar cycles or cosmic smog or whatever. And assume that we'd still be under the specter of all the same nasty repercussions - would we be talking about reversing it or coping with it? And if it turns out that the global conversation would shift towards adjustment strategies - then isn't that what we should be talking about now? Because as a practical matter - reversing a 200 year old problem in the making is probably about as difficult as reversing a natural phenomenon. Of course another angle is forget the origin of the problem altogether and focus on costs. If it's going to cost 90 trillion to undo it all or 40 trillion to adjust - what should we do? Keep in mind that at this scale, money roughly translates to human lives (foreign aid, healthcare, education, etc).

mjevans 12y ago
Continuing that hypothetical: Most of the effects that climate scientists predict will happen as a result of increased global mean temperature are highly negative; from the extinction of many species to the loss of coastal habitats (for humans). In a non-political world we would compare the costs of climate engineering practices against the costs of taking the resulting losses from failure to act.
xexers 12y ago
who gets to control the thermostat? Some countries would want it hotter... others want it colder.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Dad always controls the thermostat. So we'd have to select the most father-like of countries. I hope you like thick sweaters and/or handheld fans, because the Country Like Everybody's Dad isn't made of money, and close the front door, because it isn't paying to heat and/or cool the whole world, plus the inside of your house, too.
Afforess 12y ago
Your hypothetical is a good one, and I would answer: yes we should still try to reverse it. Rising seas threaten coastal areas over all the globe. Changes in rainfall patterns will create new deserts (see the current California drought). A warmer earth is an overall negative change. Some places might be better off (permafrost in Canada, Siberia might be farmable) but the net change is negative. We change the climate in local regions all the time. Dams, coastal walls, etc all change the world to suit our needs. I see no reason the global climate is different.
- NoPiece 12y ago
  Is a colder Earth better, or is it 20th century Earth the perfect temperature?
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    The one we like the most is better. We're used to a specific kind of climate for the last few thousand years, so let's try going back to that first.
    - VLM 12y ago
      Which one, 11000 years ago there were two miles of ice where I sit typing this. That kinda sucked for the locals. Left some cool hiking terrain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age This caused the death of millions when Genghis Kahn's men needed to immigrate somewhere due to climate change. We'll probably kill a similar percentage of various cities in the next big climate change. The climate never has been constant and there is no "the official correct climate". Trying to force people is likely to result in war which is likely to, overall, kill more people than letting it do its thing. We're running out of stuff to economically burn anyway. Its not like we're only 0.0001% burned up or even 10% burned up. Soon enough, talking about rationing something we no longer have access to burn will be quite pointless. Voluntarily saving some for later is likely to have a pretty decent economic impact. Social engineering by modification of tax law is likely to save more centimeters of ocean than any strictly environmental or behavioral regs.
mhb 12y ago
at this scale, money roughly translates to human lives It does that at every scale.
0xffff2 12y ago
>Would we be talking about reversing or coping with it? I think the answer is an absolutely unequivocal "reversing it". Regardless of the underlying cause, I don't think that anyone would argue that the potential effects of global warming are anything less than catastrophic. In that light, it only makes sense to talk about adjusting to climate change when you've decided that preventing it in the first place is an entirely impossible task.
- danielweber 12y ago
  I think lots of people don't think global warming would be "catastrophic." Otherwise it would completely steamroll over any arguments against deploying more nuclear power.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    It's a typical human short-sightedness/availability heuristic. People can act if you shove the consequences directly into their faces. All it took is two planes crashing into skyscrapers to start two wars and reinvent both transportation and information security (for better or worse). But the climate change goes too slow, you can't really see the consequences, you need to trust the specialists, and that's where things fall down. Doubly so if you have democracy, since you can't really do anything important if you keep asking everyone for opinion.
- bprieto 12y ago
  I do. Maybe I'm just one and every other person on Earth thinks otherwise, but I just can't see the "catastrophic" unless it is stated in relation to how radical this climate change is and in what direction. Many more people die now from cold weather than from warm weather. So maybe a little rise in temperature is a good thing. And historic evidence shows that warmer climate meant more productive crops in the middle ages and in the roman empire. Maybe I am wrong, but I would need more solid evidence of the catastrophic consequences of climate change before sentencing millions of people to death because we choose to spend money fighting climate change instead of fighting malaria or improving access to clean water.
anigbrowl 12y ago
If our evidence was so rock solid we'd probably also have a better quantitative understanding of the extent to which we can alter the climate, and I'd expect energies to be divided about equally between adaptation and mitigation (eg by deliberately increasing cloud cover). Adaptation is so complex and expensive (since many cities are located on flood plains or in coastal regions for economic reasons) that delaying the full impact in order to implement adaptive measures would probably be economically justifiable.
mrfusion 12y ago
But do we even know the repercussions? I'm still not convinced it's all bad? Aren't the studies about all forests turning into the deserts the most speculative? Couldn't it just as easily produce more green spaces and habitable areas? (apologies in advance if this offends anyone)
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  We need more studies, of course, but we can't wait too long hoping that we'll luck our way out of the predicted negative consequences; we need to act on incomplete information.

by ryandvm 12y ago

mjevans 12y ago

Continuing that hypothetical: Most of the effects that climate scientists predict will happen as a result of increased global mean temperature are highly negative; from the extinction of many species to the loss of coastal habitats (for humans). In a non-political world we would compare the costs of climate engineering practices against the costs of taking the resulting losses from failure to act.

xexers 12y ago

who gets to control the thermostat? Some countries would want it hotter... others want it colder.

logfromblammo 12y ago
Dad always controls the thermostat. So we'd have to select the most father-like of countries. I hope you like thick sweaters and/or handheld fans, because the Country Like Everybody's Dad isn't made of money, and close the front door, because it isn't paying to heat and/or cool the whole world, plus the inside of your house, too.

Afforess 12y ago

Your hypothetical is a good one, and I would answer: yes we should still try to reverse it. Rising seas threaten coastal areas over all the globe. Changes in rainfall patterns will create new deserts (see the current California drought). A warmer earth is an overall negative change. Some places might be better off (permafrost in Canada, Siberia might be farmable) but the net change is negative. We change the climate in local regions all the time. Dams, coastal walls, etc all change the world to suit our needs. I see no reason the global climate is different.

NoPiece 12y ago
Is a colder Earth better, or is it 20th century Earth the perfect temperature?
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  The one we like the most is better. We're used to a specific kind of climate for the last few thousand years, so let's try going back to that first.
  - VLM 12y ago
    Which one, 11000 years ago there were two miles of ice where I sit typing this. That kinda sucked for the locals. Left some cool hiking terrain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age This caused the death of millions when Genghis Kahn's men needed to immigrate somewhere due to climate change. We'll probably kill a similar percentage of various cities in the next big climate change. The climate never has been constant and there is no "the official correct climate". Trying to force people is likely to result in war which is likely to, overall, kill more people than letting it do its thing. We're running out of stuff to economically burn anyway. Its not like we're only 0.0001% burned up or even 10% burned up. Soon enough, talking about rationing something we no longer have access to burn will be quite pointless. Voluntarily saving some for later is likely to have a pretty decent economic impact. Social engineering by modification of tax law is likely to save more centimeters of ocean than any strictly environmental or behavioral regs.

mhb 12y ago

at this scale, money roughly translates to human lives It does that at every scale.

0xffff2 12y ago

>Would we be talking about reversing or coping with it? I think the answer is an absolutely unequivocal "reversing it". Regardless of the underlying cause, I don't think that anyone would argue that the potential effects of global warming are anything less than catastrophic. In that light, it only makes sense to talk about adjusting to climate change when you've decided that preventing it in the first place is an entirely impossible task.

danielweber 12y ago
I think lots of people don't think global warming would be "catastrophic." Otherwise it would completely steamroll over any arguments against deploying more nuclear power.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  It's a typical human short-sightedness/availability heuristic. People can act if you shove the consequences directly into their faces. All it took is two planes crashing into skyscrapers to start two wars and reinvent both transportation and information security (for better or worse). But the climate change goes too slow, you can't really see the consequences, you need to trust the specialists, and that's where things fall down. Doubly so if you have democracy, since you can't really do anything important if you keep asking everyone for opinion.
bprieto 12y ago
I do. Maybe I'm just one and every other person on Earth thinks otherwise, but I just can't see the "catastrophic" unless it is stated in relation to how radical this climate change is and in what direction. Many more people die now from cold weather than from warm weather. So maybe a little rise in temperature is a good thing. And historic evidence shows that warmer climate meant more productive crops in the middle ages and in the roman empire. Maybe I am wrong, but I would need more solid evidence of the catastrophic consequences of climate change before sentencing millions of people to death because we choose to spend money fighting climate change instead of fighting malaria or improving access to clean water.

anigbrowl 12y ago

If our evidence was so rock solid we'd probably also have a better quantitative understanding of the extent to which we can alter the climate, and I'd expect energies to be divided about equally between adaptation and mitigation (eg by deliberately increasing cloud cover). Adaptation is so complex and expensive (since many cities are located on flood plains or in coastal regions for economic reasons) that delaying the full impact in order to implement adaptive measures would probably be economically justifiable.

mrfusion 12y ago

But do we even know the repercussions? I'm still not convinced it's all bad? Aren't the studies about all forests turning into the deserts the most speculative? Couldn't it just as easily produce more green spaces and habitable areas? (apologies in advance if this offends anyone)

TeMPOraL 12y ago
We need more studies, of course, but we can't wait too long hoping that we'll luck our way out of the predicted negative consequences; we need to act on incomplete information.