Written by John Lounsbury
— Charles B. Warren contributed to this article
A recent article by Anthony G. Gelbert, originally posted on Doomstead Diner, was reposted here at GEI. The article discussed survival issues when global warming becomes catastrophic. That post produced an interesting comment stream which has been reproduced here.
Please share this article – Go to very top of page, right hand side, for social media buttons.
The article which prompted the following thread can be read here: How To Survive When, NOT IF, Catastrophic Climate Change Makes Earth’s Climate Unsuitable For Humans.
Here is the comment stream with discussion from Charles B. Warren and John Lounsbury:
CBW: well, folks, in geologic time climate may be a concern. as my time is about up, give or take a few decades, “what? me worry?” on the longer time scale but on the same level of frivolity –
JL: Love Brook Benton. Thanks for that share.
With regard to “geologic time”: The next 100-200 years may see climate change at a rate not seen very often in the last billion years of this planet. The ability of mankind to adapt – to rising sea levels, expanding desertification in some areas, and increased precipitation and flooding in others – may be challenged.
Changes that are accommodated over a few thousand years are much more difficult if they occur in 100-200 years – especially when the human population of the earth is 7 billion today and growing.
This may not be of concern to you or me with a very few decades remaining on the planet. But I have grandchildren and great grandchildren – and I am concerned for them and their descendents.
CBW: I’d be attracted to a Simon-Ehrlich type bet. What sort of benchmark would you like to set for the next decade? What data source can we both agree to be objective?
JL: I’m not sure that measuring a decade has much meaning.
We have gone through cycles of warming increasing for a decade +/- followed by a similar period of less and then repeating. Since the last 5-10 years has seen greater warming than before, the next decade could see a slowing.
If I were younger I would discuss a bet on climate change over a couple of complete cycles (40 years or more) but if you won I would have departed this life (and not have to pay up) and I won (if you’re still around) you would be of the hook.
The bet I would make is that the next 40 (or 50) years would see greater global temperature gain than the last 40 (or 50). We would have to select what measurement authority and medium (air, sea water, or something else) would be the reference.
This is a bet I would love to lose – especially if the gain was significantly less for the next time period.
CBW: The problem is that while i might be around for another decade or so, i suspect neither of us has much chance of being around another 40-50 years. meantime…
JL: The discussion is all very interesting but the lecture is 11 years old. Prof. Carter talks about the previous decade (1998-2007) which is part of the 20-year cycles (10 warming, 10 level or cooling) which has produced a net warming over the last 150 years or so. And in the 11 years since the lecture the rate of warming has not only resumed but has accelerated.
That doesn’t mean we cannot continue the recent cycle of slowdowns. In fact we should have soon another 10+/- year period of little warming or slight cooling if the pattern of the last century and a half continues. But CO2 levels have grown faster than previously so we may get an empirical test of the effect of CO2 which has now risen over to 400 ppm compared to 280 ppm that Prof. Carter mentions in his lecture for 2007. Is the effect enough to break the recent cyclic pattern?
He makes a big fuss over the current temperature change rate being the same as earlier periods before the the last ice age ended. That observation is irrelevant to the question about whether a crowded planet of 7 billion and growing population can adapt to the same rate of change now.
The question is not can the planet survive more rapid temperature changes. It has in the past and almost certainly do so in the future. The question is how will the human population of an ever more crowded plant survive? I do not have any speculation on that. I certainly hope we do not reach the point where the question is answered empirically in the negative.
Finally, it is extremely unfortunate that Prof. Carter delivers this lecture talking from the shadows. It casts an unnecessary pall over his message.
Let me just add – climate change and impact on civilization is still a debatable event. That discussion should continue. Hopefully we will learn more that is definitive in order to help mankind adapt to whatever happens and avoid doing anything unnecessary to compensate for something that doesn’t happen.
CBW: Dr Carter is dead. So here is a more recent talk by The Weather Channel Guy who makes the point that “the money” is on warming:
This is not to say that I think pumping the atmosphere full of CO2 is either smart or risk free, just that even Bill Clinton opines that the continued poverty of billions of people is not an answer… and they will want cheap power to fuel their aspirations. Lomborg proposes – http://www.lomborg.com/cool-it
JL: The Weather Channel Guy talks about weather for the CONUS. His super cold winter of 2013-14 here was accompanied by one of a series of abnormally warm winters in Alaska. See https://accap.uaf.edu/sites… and http://www.climatecentral.o….
The operative world is global and this guy is cherry-picking local observations.
I think the biggest problem we have in this discussion is uncertainty. People do not deal well with uncertainty. The “settled science” statements do not help the discussion because the science is evolving. The majority of people deal with uncertainty by either ignoring it or denying it.
The prudent course of action would be to determine what actions would be good hedges against the damaging outcomes with minimum waste if the outcomes are not so damaging.
My personal thinking is that use of fossil fuels should be minimized even if global warming has more benefit than harm. Reasons:
1. Pollutants such as mercury, other heavy metals, sulfur gases, nitrogen gases are produced by burning fossil fuels (natural gas less so). Coal burning particulates are also an environmental burden. Coal ash has repeatedly decimated local environments.
2. The economic cost of solar and wind (especially solar) will ultimately be the cheapest source of energy. Even if the dirty fossil fuel practices are continued, coal and oil specifically are going to be priced out of the market to the extent that solar energy can be utilized. If the economic costs of fossil fuel environmental contamination were to be recognized, solar is already much, much cheaper (rather than just competitive as pricing is calculated today).
……………………..
It is even possible that future generations may see the emergence of solar as the dominant source of energy, supplemented by wind, hydro, and geothermal sources. Energy grids should become more efficient with such distributed sources of generation and the development of new energy storage technology. The several molten salt storage plants being built are one example of new technology that will be transformational.
…………………….
Ultimately economics may drive out fossil fuels and we could then deal with the end of the current inter-glacial period that is competing with increasing greenhouse gas warming. A climate analyst whom I know has told me he thinks global cooling would be an easier technical challenge for mankind than excessive global warming.
Bottom line: Future climate projections are fraught with uncertainty and mankind does not deal well with uncertainty.
CBW: uncertainty. yup. now, for instance, solar and wind are subsidized in much of the developed world… but the real opportunities for them are exactly where the largest amount of emissions will emerge in the future. for relatively low intensity energy use in dispersed locations, solar and wind are ideal… but i’ll bet it’s institutionally a lot easier to buy a generator powered by diesel or gasoline. i can’t do anything about that personally, nor, probably can you, but…
Editor: This discussion could have ontinued but it seems both participants have decided to move on to other projects. We suggest the most important theme that emerged from the discussion is both participants seem to agree the biggest factor in climate change debate is what we don’t know. Both participants seem to recognize the limits of their knowledge. This is quite an unusual occurrence in climate change discussions today.
