1 How sensitive is our climate to CO2, how much will warming a doubling of CO2 cause, this should not be a guess, but at the least a very firm estimate with data to back it up.
Why? It could have some value to know how much warming could happen, but that is not crucial information. If you see an electrical cable lying around, do you really need to know whether it has 500 volts or 50,000 volts to know not to touch it.
2 How much damage less benefits will some warming cause.
See my answer to number 1.
3 How likely is it that considering the whole worlds differing opinions on this matter, that we can even reduce it (India and China vs western governments)
Not if we don't even try. And if the West leads by example, China and India could follow.
4 What would be the cost of a small reduction or a stabilization be, not only in $'s but also in prosperity and economic slowdown.
Why would it cause an economic slowdown? Renewable energy creates more jobs than conventional energy.
5 Do we know if it would be better spending money to adapt to some warming rather than trying to stop it.
To answer this question, it might be good to have precise figures for the answers to questions 1 and 2. But if we don't, the best answer is to minimize our effects on nature.
6 If we do carryout actions to reduce CO2 are we prepared for what unforeseen consequences might happen, in Mans history and his relations with Nature there has always been unforeseen consequences.
Global warming is actually a good example of what was an unforseen consequence. In fact, even when scientists figured out that Earth could warm because of humans burning fossil fuels, they took decades to figure out that the warming would have consequences. Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar thought that global warming would be good.
How? Unless they sell us the wind turbines, the solar panels and nuclear reactors, or if they themselves saw the benefits of being more efficient, they would gain nothing. And if they did sell these wind turbines, solar panels, and nuclear reactors, they will naturally use these same products to provide their own energy needs.
Frankly, you're going to pick an answer that says we shouldn't do anything.
However, you really don't know what you're talking about.
Consider: " How likely is it that considering the whole worlds differing opinions on this matter, that we can even reduce it (India and China vs western governments) "
You seem to think that everywhere else there is no effort at all to reduce CO2.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/...
Now I expect that you're going to complain that China is now the largest emitter of CO2.
Which is correct.
Because of all the American jobs that have been moved to China.
The good news is that in China they do know that global warming is a problem.
And their fossil fuel industry isn't convincing the idiots around the country that AGW is fake.
And, when the government of China decides to get serious, unlike the US, it's able to do that.
Since a good portion of their water supply, from the Himalayas is threatened, they're likely to do something.
Which might shame the US into doing something as well.
Edit: "Additional Details - On statement 4 I forgot cost to the environment, I mean windmills, solar farms, and bio-fuel plantations are not exactly environmentally friendly."
Neither was the Dust Bowl - driven by hot dry air - which could return. Frankly, windmills and solar farms are very environmentally friendly in comparison.
Oh! The old, "Let's wait and see what happens!" ploy. Simply brilliant! How old is THAT dog, Kano???
1. Let us face some already well established facts with this one. No matter how much the planet warms there will always be people of the mindset that will say it is all natural or that it is not that bad. The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics simply do not exist for people of such a mindset. I suspect such people put more trust in the incantations from the Harry Potter series than than do in the actual science.
2. You want to experience the actual damage before you can assess the damage? The logical people will access any potential damage and try to mitigate them before they become a reality. The logical people elevate their homes above the likely flood levels when they build in a flood plane. The less logical people will take their chances and build at ground level.
3. Well, I actually agree with you on this one, Kano. Seeing as to how people are convinced that their opinion is of some real importance when it comes to the understanding of science. Another hurdle to jump is that for as long as the policy makers ignore the science then it is unlikely that anything will be done. Here is another fact for you to consider. The longer we wait to start serious mitigation efforts the less likely it will be that they will influence a change that would matter. You are helping to promote the delays to actions that would at the very least mitigate the warming to a point that many species might be able adapt to. Your "no actions now" approach us the surest way to see that many species will not have a chance to adapt in time.
4. You look at only one side of potential costs, Kano. Before anyone can talk costs then you must look at the cost associated with actions taken as opposed to no actions being taking. If you lack foresight you will only look at the costs associated with action. There is also a cost associated with inaction.
5. You are assuming that any warming will not exceed the ability of many species to being able to adapt. Adaptation is possible IF the changes do not occur too fast or become too extreme. Our current rate of climate change is happening at a pace that has always lead to mass extinctions in the past. Deny that, if you will, but it does not change what has happened in the history of this planet.
6. Really? There have been unforeseen consequences to man's actions before? But that somehow does no apply to human activity warming our climate above and beyond the natural variability within the climate system? Just how insincere do you plan to become, Kano? The only way to correct our wrongs is by efforts to do so. When you leave them as they are then will remain forever a wrong.
The biggest tool in the environmentalist's handbag is the Precautionary Principle. Sure it sounds good on paper and it basically means that even though we don't know enough now to make a good decision we're going to do X anyways just in case.
And that's fine when X has little consequence but in the case of AGW, X has huge consequences. And that's not to mention the Y and Z unforeseen consequences.
And when X has large consequences, people ask the very questions you just asked here. And most people would not accept the consequences of X based on high uncertainty which is exactly why climate science uncertainty is downplayed and there are strong pushes for a "consensus".
That's basically the gist of this issue. Anybody highlighting uncertainty is a heretic. And it's all in plain sight so ignoring it all is just being idealistic and close minded (not to mention unscientific).
Yout first question was basically "Is there a problem with our CO2 emissions? the short answer is no.
Our CO2 emissions have an effect on the global temperature of a number small enough to not matter. A graph of man's CO2 emissions beginning at the beginning of the industrial revolution was compared to the graph of the average temperatures of each year. The graph of the CO2 emissions quickly doubled in height in the first ten years continuing to rise steeply until it was about 10 times our pre industrial revolution levels in recent years. You know what the graph of the average temperatures did? It rose up and down sporadically going from bottom to top and bottom again repeatedly. But only across about .5 degrees Fahrenheit. What does this tell you about how sensitive our atmosphere is to our CO2 emissions? That we have an effect of almost nothing.
Sorry for sounding so, angry or obnoxious but frankly I find this whole global warming debate comical and childish as we have only been keeping up with average temperatures for 50 years and so really don't have any solid data to compare to. Measure temperature and CO2 emissions for 500-1000 years and then we will be able to decide if global warming is an issue.
"3 How likely is it that considering the whole worlds differing opinions on this matter, that we can even reduce it (India and China vs western governments) "
I am from the UK and much of the rest of the world is pretty up to speed with the gravity of the situation. There is no obvious cohesion, but at least there is little of the active denial you see in the US.
When china decides to do something about it, they have the socio-politic systems in place that will allow them to do so, long before US gets around to it.
Global Warming ended in 2012 and earth's environment is controlled by nature. All non solids that rise into the upper atmosphere separate into nothingness by nature to protect earth, so the sun's rays can warm the surfaces to grow plants that create oxygen for all species from earth.
1. If you're standing on the street and you see a car coming towards you, do you wait until you know the exact speed of the car, and whether or not it's going to turn the corner or otherwise avoid you, or do you get out of the street? We do not need to know exactly how much warming CO2 will cause, or exactly how much damage or harm it will cause, to know that it's likely to cause harm and we should try to minimize that harm. We have rough estimates, backed with data. We don't know for sure if they are correct (such is the joy of science), but they're pretty solid and well-backed.
2. The issue is more the speed than necessarily the absolute temperature. Both the world's biota and human infrastructure are set up for the world as it has been. We expect water in certain places at certain times, temperatures favorable to the crops we grow in various places, and so on. To look at one relatively simple and quantifiable matter, imagine the cost of moving all of our port facilities and rebuilding or protecting all of our coastal cities if and when sea levels change significantly...
3. China's and India's emissions are high total, but still fairly low per capita. If we in wealthier Western countries figure out the technology to make renewable energy at relatively low cost, then countries like India and China will cheerfully adopt the technology. But we are only likely to make that progress if we make it a real, substantial priority, which means giving renewable energy favorable status and removing that favorable status from fossil fuels.
4. We probably won't know the costs until we start seriously looking at the issue. I suspect in the long term, it will save us money, because once you set up a solar or wind plant, subsequent energy is (as far as I know) very nearly free. There are some maintenance costs, but that's true of *any* form of power (or do you think coal power plants run themselves?)
and, on your additional details on the topic, do you think coal power plants spew nothing but rainbows and kittens? Even aside from CO2, coal power plants put a crapload of nasty stuff into the air. Soot, radioactive particles, and so on. If I had to chose between living next to a coal plant, or living between a wind farm, a solar farm, and a biomass plantation, guess which one I'd pick? And there are ways to reduce the environmental impact of those things (such as putting solar panels on land we're already using for other things--I don't know why more parking lots aren't shaded by solar panels, at least here in the sunny Southwest)
5. No, nothing in this life is certain, but a sensible, modest investment in renewable energy could potentially save us a *lot* of grief down the road. If for no other reason than that coal and petroleum *are* finite. In a sense, we've already run out of "easy" petroleum, it's getting more and more expensive to extract. If we can find a viable renewable alternative, then we can stop giving so much money to Middle East dictatorships and other countries we really don't want to be supporting.
6. Yes, there are always possible unforeseen consequences, but that cuts both ways, m'friend. We shouldn't be doing massive-scale geoengineering projects without all due scientific caution, but I hardly think switching to LEDs and putting up a few solar panels will have worse consequences than keeping on with coal and petroleum running everything.
Remember, the goal is not "no harm". That is, in essence, impossible. The goal is *less* harm. The goal is to find the path that will give us the most good stuff with the least damage and cost. And "business as usual" is *not* that path.
edit:
Yes, but do you stand there figuring out the *exact* speed of that car, and making sure that it's not going to turn, before you get out of its way? Or do you assume that a car that appears to be coming your way might hit you, and make a reasonable effort to not be in its way? Note, I didn't say "make a mad dash for the nearest curb the instant you see a car that might possibly hit you". I said "stop standing in the middle of the street when you see a car coming".
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Scientifically, everything is natural and normal. To attempt to change nature is in itself 'unnatural' and futile.
Until someone can demonstrably prove that man made climate is happening and that it is catastrophic, doing nothing is sensible. Don't fool with Mother Nature unless you know what you are doing.
To prove a point, what scientific evidence or action came out of the recent COP19 conference? Now you have all these great minds conferring on a scientific subject and the only thing of substance that came out of it is that of dividing up the booty they steal from us tax paying suckers.
That has no where near any sensibility. But that is as close as to the answer to your question.
CR: The question is about sensibleness not climate sensitivity. Ha! Ha! I guess you didn't have a copy and paste about sensibilities, but climate sensitivity is close enough for you. Ha! Ha! You are so funny!
My thoughts are before we take action, there are certain things we should know.
1 How sensitive is our climate to CO2, how much will warming a doubling of CO2 cause, this should not be a guess, but at the least a very firm estimate with data to back it up.
2 How much damage less benefits will some warming cause.
3 How likely is it that considering the whole worlds differing opinions on this matter, that we can even reduce it (India and China vs western governments)
4 What would be the cost of a small reduction or a stabilization be, not only in $'s but also in prosperity and economic slowdown.
5 Do we know if it would be better spending money to adapt to some warming rather than trying to stop it.
6 If we do carryout actions to reduce CO2 are we prepared for what unforeseen consequences might happen, in Mans history and his relations with Nature there has always been unforeseen consequences.
Not properly
