Re: [Phys-L] Garth Paltridge: Climate Change's Inherent Uncertainties

[Richard Tarara <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>]

Bringing up hurricanes actually might shed some light on the general 
attitude of the populace towards global warming.  Everyone knows that 
hurricanes can be deadly and incredibly destructive yet their is a 
premium on seashore housing.  People choose to accept the risks (often 
without adequate insurance) for the 'benefits' of sea-side life.

It would seem that despite the general skepticism that gets the brunt of 
'our' attention, the real policy decisions will come down to HOW MUCH 
and HOW FAST.   Surprisingly, at least as I see it, the U.S. is moving 
towards reduced carbon emissions, higher efficiencies, lower per capita 
resource usage at a slow but steady rate such that it is getting harder 
and harder to say that the U.S.  (or Western Europe) are the main 
problems for the future. Clearly what happens in China and India over 
the next century will determine the ultimate trajectory of human induced 
green-house gasses.  The international political/economic issue then has 
to center on these developing areas and that becomes very 
difficult--especially in times of a weak global economy (check your 
retirement funds after after the last week or so!)  The summary of the 
Paltridge comments that Zeev posted really just state the obvious--with 
the science unable to narrow down the range of consequences (at this 
time) it is difficult to get the international cooperation and 
commitment for extreme action, but if that becomes possible and turns 
out wrong, science will take a hit in confidence.  [I'm not sure that 
going the other way and a "WE TOLD YOU SO' would fare much better.]  
While we here all know the difference between weather and climate, not 
so many of our non-scientist friends fully grasp this and a couple more 
winters like this one will make those on the edge teeter to the skeptic 
viewpoint.

The problem here can be viewed as even more severe if one takes a point 
of view that was expressed on another physics list.  That is, accepting 
that there are finite scientific, economic, and political resources 
available, what priorities should be set up to deal with possible future 
problems.  To the point--is Global Warming really likely to be an 
extinction event?  The next large meteor strike easily could be.  Global 
epidemics or a Yellowstone eruption could be more disastrous than rising 
sea levels.  A global economic collapse because we move too fast on 
global warming could rival an economic collapse because we do too little.

The decision (which really has to be international and global) about how 
much and how fast to deal with human-induced climate change is going to 
be very difficult.  The existing uncertainties in the science 
(uncertainties of degree) make getting the consensus needed even more 
difficult.  I would hope we do move fast enough, but that again involves 
China and India as central players and probably some major economic 
dislocations as North America and Western Europe will need to bear some 
of the costs. Again--tough to get that done.  Of course, at current 
usage rates we will run out of most of the fossil fuels in a couple 
centuries and based on the long term (very long term) geological and 
climatological data, the planet will recalibrate and recover in the long 
run.

:-)

rwt

[One of my energy simulation models  includes an international GW treaty 
requiring a 50 year phase out of fossil fuels.   In the model, that 
occurs randomly (after 10 years in) but when it happens early, makes a 
successful outcome of the simulation very difficult.]

Richard Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College

free Physics educational software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
New U.S.Energy management simulators now available.


On 2/5/2014 12:40 PM, John Clement wrote:
> The climatologists have acknowledged that there are a variety of forecasts
> of possible outcomes.  So what we do in light of the possible outcomes is a
> social and political problem.  The milder outcomes may not need immediate
> attention, but the severe outcomes need attention now.  It is like advising
> people whether they should evacuate before a possibly severe hurricane hits.
> Should you be on the safe side and order evacuation, or just issue an
> advisory.  Which is the best course????  I have been through several types
> of hurricanes and seen both ill advised evacuation fever, and well advised
> evacutation warnings, so this is a difficult call.  But at least peope don't
> claim that no hurricane is possible, while they will claim that severe
> global warming is not possible.  The reason for this was proposed by Lawson
> who found that things that you can't see are difficult to understand below
> the theoretical level of thinking.  Geological processes can be understood
> by people at the lower formal operational processes because they "could" be
> shown by time lapse photos.  Global warming because of its ultimate possible
> conseqeunces far in the future makes it a very difficult concept for most
> people below the formal operationa level.  Hurricanes can not we easily seen
> on TV so people pay attention to them.  Incidentally evolution is a concept
> that is mainly accessible to people at the highest level, and global warming
> rejection correlates with evolution rejection.  For evidence look at the PEW
> forum studies.

--