Bjorn Lomborg is a very interesting man. He says he believes that man-made global warming is real, but he does not believe the current policies of switching to wind etc. will work. He thinks we should tackle other more urgent issues and wait until a much cheaper solution is found, such as a cheap way to remove CO2 or a cheap way to power the world. I think he is partly right, in that the current policies won't work, but I don't think there is likely to be a cheap solution in the near future, but it is not impossible.
The problem is that we in the West have become brainwashed into believing there is a "climate emergency" and so the alarmists are not willing to wait until something turns up. The present hugely expensive policies are the only option, even though they are inadequate, so they will be pursued, until they are seen beyond doubt to be too expensive and inadequate, when people will rise up en masse and reject them.
Here is a link to the whole conversation between Bjorn and John Anderson, a former Deputy PM of Australia. It lasts almost 75 minutes and is all worth listening to, but if you want to cut to the part about climate change, it starts about 28 minutes in.
Depending how you rate warming we are now at 1.0C or 1.2C warming now. Difference between 1.5*C and 2.0*C is quite acute. It is a massive amount of more energy added to the earth to do so. Every aspect of warming has stronger damage form 1.5*C to 2.0*C. BLindly disbelieving the science puts us at risk in the world.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-compare-climate-change-impacts-at-1-5c-and-2c/
For example, an extra 0.5C could see global sea levels rise 10cm more by 2100, water shortages in the Mediterranean double and tropical heatwaves last up to a month longer. The difference between 2C and 1.5C is also “likely to be decisive for the future of coral reefs”, with virtually all coral reefs at high risk of bleaching with 2C warming.
A lot of things "could" happen, but there are other problems in the world that definitely "are" happening and Bjorn says that we should spend our money on fixing those things first, like preventing diseases.
ReplyDeleteScientific theory is something that is predictable. We know enough about AGW to know that more GHGs will warm the earth further than we are today.
ReplyDeleteWe know there will be damage to our crop harvests from increasing average temperatures on earth.
We know droughts and floods will increase in intensity causing more damage.
We know diseases will spread towards the poles from a warming earth.
These are truths that science proves through evidence.
"Scientific theory is something that is predictable. We know enough about AGW to know that more GHGs will warm the earth further than we are today." - That is if no other natural changes occur which could mitigate the warming. Also we don't know what extent the earth might warm. GW is not a proven theory, it is a hypothesis.
ReplyDelete"We know there will be damage to our crop harvests from increasing average temperatures on earth." - Again this depends on the extent of any warming. A small warming of 1 or 2 degrees would be beneficial to many locations. New varieties are constantly being developed which can grow at increased temperatures and withstand drier conditions.
We know droughts and floods will increase in intensity causing more damage. - The IPCC do not predict this.
We know diseases will spread towards the poles from a warming earth. - We are constantly developing new ways of combatting diseases with new vaccines and drugs.
The problem is that the current obsession with global warming is causing us to neglect other areas of great concern such as combatting diseases, improving access to clean drinking water and affordable energy.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-compare-climate-change-impacts-at-1-5c-and-2c/
Delete1.5 to 2.0 *C difference is noticeable.
wheat and corn production will go down while rise and soybeans will go up. If we can change, that's great. Can we change in time if we can't even reduce our carbon output quickly?
[[[[[[[ A small warming of 1 or 2 degrees would be beneficial to many locations. New varieties are constantly being developed which can grow at increased temperatures and withstand drier conditions.]]]]]]]
We know droughts and floods will increase in intensity causing more damage. - The IPCC do not predict this.
Deletehttps://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-one-point-five-degrees-two-degrees/#
Frequency of rainfall extremes over land
1.5*C up 17%
2.0*C up 36%
These are from scientific studies.
average drought length
1.5 *C 2 months
2.0*C 4 months
3.0*C 10 months
As you can see, there is science showing us what the future can be like. 3.*C is clearly crop failure where ever the drought happens to be that year.
AGW isn't simple. Multiple problems can overwhelm us while society is upset and cranky in its probelms that are difficult to resolve. The easiest way out to have the least amount of problems is keep FF in the ground and not create hell on earth for ourselves.
DeleteWe know diseases will spread towards the poles from a warming earth. - We are constantly developing new ways of combatting diseases with new vaccines and drugs.
DeleteWe are in a see saw economy now from covid. Putin has added another stress vector by going to war with Ukraine. Natural gas from Putin's actions spiked hurting the poorest of our population depending on it. 3*C warming will be way worse than the pain we have gone through recently with covid. 2*C will be difficult to stay under, ANd yet 3.0*C is the start of some dire circumstances on earth. God forbid 4.0*C would happen. The work is today to get onto clean energy.
That is if no other natural changes occur which could mitigate the warming. Also we don't know what extent the earth might warm. GW is not a proven theory, it is a hypothesis.
ReplyDeletehttps://allthedifferences.com/hypothesis-vs-a-scientific-theory/
Here is a table for the differences between hypothesis and scientific theory:
Hypothesis
a. A proposed explanation that explains a natural phenomenon, is not verified
AGW is well verified
b. Aren’t scientifically tested or proven
AGW is well tested and proven
c. It’s based on less information or data
AGW is extensively studied and confirmed by the data.
I must point out that there are many unknowns about global warming. We do not know how much warming there is going to be, hence the wide range given by the most recent IPCC report of anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. That is because we don't know and cannot model with any certainty the behaviour of clouds. Massive uncertainty and so not a theory.
ReplyDeleteBetting the farm on low on low temperature increase and not preparing for higher climate sensitivity puts us in a very possibly dangerous place. Climate sensitivity is basically an agreed upon 3*C with 560 ppm co2 as a center agreement. But reality could be higher.
DeletePrepare for the worst and hope for the best. Other actions have higher potential risks with greater amounts of foolish thinking.
So far we have had approximately 1 degree C. rise since 1850, (subject to a large amount of uncertainty) and no noticeable increase in extreme weather events (despite all the attempts to hype any events which do occur). The common sense approach would be to prepare to deal with extreme weather, knowing that there is no way we can prevent it.
ReplyDeleteIts basically being agreed upon in the science that climate sensitivity is estimated to be a little higher than the past estimates. As we learn more, we can zero in on how certain hard to quantify areas are going to react to higher radiative forcing.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
The 2013 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report reverted to the earlier range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C (2.7 to 8.1 °F) (with high confidence), because some estimates using industrial-age data came out low. (See the next section for details.)[23] The report also stated that ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1 °C (1.8 °F) (high confidence), and it is very unlikely to be greater than 6 °C (11 °F) (medium confidence). Those values were estimated by combining the available data with expert judgement.[58]
When the IPCC began to produce its IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, many climate models began to show a higher climate sensitivity. The estimates for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity changed from 3.2 °C to 3.7 °C and the estimates for the Transient climate response from 1.8 °C, to 2.0 °C. That is probably because of better understanding of the role of clouds and aerosols.[65]