In addition to looking at the degree of severity-or lack of same-it would be a good idea to look at the degree(s) of reaction and/or inaction. On a scale of 1 to 10, let's say that 1 is no reaction at all...zero, nada, zip, and 10 is global, draconian action.
These are the two extremes, typified at 10) as 'alarmism' which might include replacing all fossil fuel powered vehicles with an alternative form of transportation, dietary restrictions/changes, carborn taxes, etc. The other extreme-(1) is typically described as 'denial;' there is no problem, it is just normal cyclical weather, stop spending money on research and continue to use fossil fuels.
Based on those two extremes, I think it is self-evident that 10) would be worse. Taking extreme action for a problem that we cannot yet quantify could cause far more immediate social, economic and geopolitical harm than a longer view. When we don't know for sure what the outcome will be-hence your three scenarios-it would just as insane to be at 1) as it is to be at 10).
However-and here is the catch: nobody is proposing 10), while there appear to be significant numbers of people who are proposing 1), at least if this forum is representative of the real world in any way.
Much of what could be said about AGW, and its effects, are speculative. I find it funny that denilaists use uncertainty as an excuse to continue to mess with Earth's atmospheric composition. If we do not know what we are messing with, we should not be messing with it.
The benefits of warming can be realized by moving to warmer climates. And we do not need a warmer Earth because of food shortages. It is mostly in tropical regions where people are starving. Crop failures to to early frosts are rare in such nations as Russia and Canada.
On the other hand, the most important things that we do know about carbon dioxide and its effects are basic sixth grade science. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared. I do not need a Cray supercomputer to tell me that adding it to the atmosphere will cause warming. And warming melts ice.
But can overreacting cause harm? If we act without considering the consequences of the action, yes, we can do more harm than good. For example, desiring Obama to stop the Keystone Pipeline is an irrational plan to fight global warming. If someone honestly believes that we must stop global warming at all costs, they should stop driving cars. If there were a real plan not to need the oil, Keystone Pipeline would not be built because of a lack of a market. But if people continue to use as much gasoline as ever, if Keystone is not built, people will just use OPEC oil instead. And OPEC oil is not green. In OPEC countries, enough natural gas is flared and vented to provide the total annual natural gas consumption of Germany and France.
http://www.esmap.org/esmap/sites/esmap.o...
Nevertheless, there is almost no evidence that alternative energy sources are harmful. Some people would risk rising sea levels to save a few birds from wind turbines. Who is putting non-human fauna ahead of humans? And claims that the smallest amount of radiation is dangerous are not scientific because there is no way to get a statistically significant sample to test such a claim, especially if we are talking about the tiny amounts of radiation released during the normal operation of nuclear power plants or even Three Mile Island or Fukushima.
To me, overreacting to global warming means leaving more hydrocarbon fuels in the ground than we really have to. But even then, if people think that fighting global warming could be bad for the economy, peak oil will be much worse.
It's a strange situation, the longer you wait to react, the less likely any reaction would do any good. The CO2 levels have recently passed a point of no-return milestone so some global warming will occur anyways regardless of what you do. Any reaction now won't stop it, it might prevent it from getting worse but we don't know that either. Early in the argument, the choice was the simple graph where on one axis you had AGW is false and a response is un-necessary and AGW is true and a response is needed while on the other axis you had do something and do nothing. The graph then worked out to be do something and if AGW is false, you're just out some money, some significant money but it is just money but if a response was needed then the response would pay off; then the option of doing nothing was if a response wasn't needed then great but if a response was needed, you're screwed. Hence the only choice where being screwed wasn't a possible outcome was to do something. However, we've done very little so now either decision leaves us screwed just to varying extents.
So as to your question, sorry too late, you snooze, you loose, you should've asked that years ago, now the choice is just whether or not to soften the impact. I suspect the question is really whether or not anything could be safely done to soften the impact and I suspect it's no.
There's still the chance that the milestone marker was inaccurate as we've never been through this before and only have ice core records of prehistoric occurrences to go by. But we have no evidence that may be the case.
The odd thing is that it's basically the deniers that are determined to prove the AGW believers true. Had the AGW believers been allowed to act early then had their actions worked we would never really have known if the actions were necessary and the money well spent. Of course, whatever you try to do would be expensive to the economy, and to people's employment so there is merit to conservatism but the conservatism is also essentially painting ourselves into a corner. So what's worse, the disease or the cure...
You are implying the negative impacts rather than exploring the positive impacts.You are also implying that humans are not a natural forcing on the climate. There's not a consensus that the 40% increase of atmospheric CO2 levels (since 1870) is causing dramatic changes in our climate. There is a dramatic change in vegetation since 1870 and it is all positive. This means that CO2 is more of a life creator than a threat to life. Most real greenhouses raise the level of CO2 to promote more growth of plants. More life means more activity and has relatively no adverse effects on humans. CO2 is not a poison and never will be in its current application.
Natural Climate Variability is very able to use the extra CO2 in our atmosphere towards a more positive scenario than you have suggested. Can you tell the difference between getting into a swimming pool that is 80 degrees F and a pool that is 81 degrees F? Try it and I bet you can't tell which is warmer. Try a pool that is 42 degrees F and compare it to one that is 43 degrees F. This is the current difference in temperatures that alarmists are using as a basis for alarm. This assumes that temperatures will stay constant though. When temperatures vary by as much as 40 and 50 degrees F on any given day, then there isn't much of a change that people can tell. The only drastic change in the climate is the one that alarmists tell people. The change in the climate is minimal because human impact is minimal.
One thing you leave out in favor of overreaction is that burning of fossil fuels causes air (and water) pollution which causes increases in many illnesses causing increased health care costs, lost production due to increased sick days, premature deaths. Moving to clean renewable energy would greatly reduce this drag on the economy.
It is impossible to make a rational choice without knowing the weighted utility of each path. This requires knowing the probability of that global warming will occur, the probability that the claimed adverse consequences will ensue, and the cost and probable effectiveness of the interventions.
All of the assertions for high probabilities of anthropogenic global warming are based not on empirical evidence, but on the opinions of experts, including those (non-validated) opinions codified into climate models. The same is true for the predictions of catastrophic 'effects'.
Research on forecasting indicates that forecasts by experts are no better than forecasts by novices.
None of the forecasts used to predict AGW are scientific.
Thus, any actions taken upon the belief that scenario A or B is true is an application of the precautionary principle. This is a terrible way to make policy; it (wrongly) assumes (without evidence) that acting entails no risk. It is an act of faith, not rationality.
Galliana & Green (2009) estimate that the cost of decarbonizing the world economy will be $2280 trillion by 2100. Their estimate includes some highly optimistic assumptions about the rate of progression of related technology. Carlin estimates that the real number may be 10 times greater.
Each $14 million will induce another statistical death (based on US economics; the same $14 million is likely to kill many times more people in the third world, where the live closer to the edge). Thus, the human cost of decarbonizing the economy is likely to be more than 162 million dead, and possibly more than 1.6 billion.
That is above and beyond the (non-fatal) suffering caused by the economic impacts on lifestyle, energy poverty, etc.
Given the unscientific nature of the forecasts of AGW, and especially absent empirical validation of the models, the weighted utility of scenarios A and B cannot be estimated; they are speculation.
The only rational choice, given the current state of the science, is to take no action.
I don't see the point of this question, and anyway you left out one scenario.
D. AGW will be beneficial causing an increase in plant biomass greening the planet and improving crop production.
Anyway the only actions being taken are rules, regulations and taxes all negative, 100 billion spent and the only reduction in CO2 has come from economies becoming poor and industrial and personal activities waning.
That 100 billion could have been spent on planting a billion trees which would've cut back on CO2 much more.
This is the exact same argument I have about over reacting or under reacting to the eminent Martian invasion. Of course we have to over react. We need to start building anti Martian satellites NOW.
Obviously overreacting.
There is no AGW.
Obviously, there are costs to responding to AGW. And there is at least *some* possibility that AGW will not cause any significant harm. I think most sane people agree we shouldn't, for example, quit using fossil fuels before we can put alternatives in place, or ban cars, or other extreme measures, absent harder evidence that such measures are truly warranted. But the degree of action that would be reasonable is at least partly a matter of the degree of harm that would be caused if we don't act.
Let's assume there are 3 basic possibilities.
A. AGW will be very harmful if we take no action. Think frequent megastorms, several-foot sea level rise, extreme droughts and floods, millions of deaths. Only fairly dramatic action will prevent most or all harm, though moderate action will reduce harm.
B. AGW will be moderately harmful if we take no action. Think a moderate increase in droughts and floods, noticeable but not catastrophic increase in severe storms, and so on. Moderate action will prevent harm.
C. AGW will not be harmful, and/or the warming is not caused by CO2, and/or there will not be significant warming. Basically, this would be any or all situations where, one way or another, there is no particular harm caused by human CO2 emissions. No action is needed to prevent harm from AGW
So, in your estimation, what harms would be caused if we react to the wrong scenario, that wouldn't have been caused if we reacted correctly? Please pick at least one of these pairs: we react to A and C happens vs we react to C and A happens, we react to B and C happens vs we react to C and B happens, or we react to B and A happens vs react to B and C happens. That is, please include your guesses for the harms caused by at least one "we overreact to AGW" scenario, and one equivalent "we underreact to AGW" scenario. But include as many other scenarios as you wish, of course.
And, based on that, what do you think would be worse in general, underreacting to AGW, or overreacting to it?
As usual, links to scientific sources are always welcome.
