There is no group of things we can do to avoid all potential harm or damage from increased levels CO2.
This does not mean that there is nothing we can do to meaningfully impact future global warming, or that efforts to reduce global warming are less important than efforts to adapt to what warming will occur.
Basically, everything we do to reduce global warming, or at least slow it down a bit, will also reduce the costs required for (and lives and property lost in) adaptation.
If you add up enough "single thing"s, you get to a real, meaningful reduction. If I replace my incandescent bulbs with LEDs, I reduce my energy use (and, incidentally, save money). If I get a solar panel on my roof, I generate extra electricity without generating CO2. Enough things like that, done by enough people, adds up to a fairly significant reduction.
Do I really have to repeat what other sources of energy other than oil and coal?
But is it worthwhile? I do not claim to know how much Earth will warm and you and I should be rightfully skeptical of any one who says they do know. But what if the effects are severe? Do we want to take that chance, just so we can drive gas guzzling SUVs, have acid rain, have accidents in our pants every time the toilets back up at a nuclear power plant and rely on unstable regimes like that in Iran to supply our energy needs? I don't think so.
And if we can stop global warming, does it really matter whether we stop 70 metres or 70 inches of sea level rise? The truth is that the people who are most reliant on the effect of carbon dioxide having a precise effect on our planet is those who think that said precise effect is zero.
<"But what if climate change isn’t the disaster we fear but instead one more obstacle that humans can meet, one that may spur innovation and creativity as well as demand ever more resilience?>
If the innovations are improved ways to use the power of the Sun, the wind and the atom, sure. And if civilization is resillient, it can handle new energy sources.
The issue is that meaningful action to stabilize CO2 concentrations within a short time frame will involve economically devastating conservation measures in first world countries. People aren't going to do without their cars, their meat, their huge houses and 24/7 consumerism when crunch time seems so far away. It's one of those things like nuclear war - it might be devastating, but there's nothing the average person can do to prevent it, so they don't worry about it.
Since we won't sacrifice economic growth for CO2 stability, it doesn't matter whether GW is man-made or not. Adaptation will be how we deal with it, not prevention. The question is to what extent man can adapt to a significantly warmed world. Food security is already an issue, however, most of our grains are fed to livestock and need not be, if push comes to shove. As long as we have fossil fuels. we can transport water, and build catchments and reserviors to keep stormwater local and not send it to the ocean. There's a lot we can do, but we're also talking about 7 billion+ people and counting, so any adaptation will be far different than any adaptation man has attempted in the past.
DK
If we can, we musn't (because otherwise evil conspiring treehugging scientists will hijack Ottawa and his SUV).
If there is even an only partially idiotic "argument" that we cannot, then no form of copied and smeared anti-science BS stinks too badly.
If we can, and there actually is no Treehugger Moon Matrix Rothschild UN conspiracy, then of course the whole thing is just scientists making stuff up to get funding. That is why physics and chemistry are just myths by which smart people oppress "honest" joes like Ottawa. Airplanes, nuclear weapons, post-it notes, and moon landings are all just fantasies created by greedy scientists.
If we can, and there is no Rothschild IPCC conspiracy, and all science is not just a way that teachers victimized us by making us do homework, then it must be all some big mistake. If we cherry pick enough endpoints, we can get to bottom of this mistake. Especially since the mistake changes week by week depending on whatever Wattsup tells Ottawa with or without inspiration from Billy.
...
. We are now emitting about 120 times as much carbon dioxide as all the world's volcanoes put together, and the world's oceans are absorbing CO2 rather than releasing it. Yet the concentration in the atmosphere has gone from 280 ppm to almost 400, so where is it coming from? It is rather obvious, since we are putting 300 billion tons of CO2 into the air each year by burning fossil fuels. Clearly, man is the cause and therefore it is within our power to change it. Doing so would mean a loss in profits of fossil fuel companies, and they have spent a considerable amount of money to make sure that we do not address the issue by either a carbon tax or carbon trade agreement.
Global warming is doing extensive damage to the earth and its ecosystems, and it is certainly in our best interest to address it. The reference below explains why some of our politicians are wrong on this issue and addresses what the real costs are for not doing so,
Everyone of your quotes, excluding the last one, could and should be prefaced with "Due to the effectiveness of the denial industry puppets ..."
As for your last quote? Perhaps it should be stated as, ... There will be a great deal that we will have to adapt to. We can only hope that our civilization is resilient enough to make these forced adaptations.
As for your added Reuter's article? Reuters is putting a lot of "what ifs" in there for them to be applying any well reasoned thoughts into it. They could have been just as easily been saying that CO2 defies the Laws of Physics and is not a greenhouse in OUR atmosphere. .. This would be just as reasonable for them to say.
We can take meaningful actions. Here is a economically achievable and affordable plan to convert the whole of Australia over to renewable energy for power consumption in 10 years.
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carb...
So yes we take meaningful actions ... if we WILL is another matter.
Should we? Of course, diversification of power supplies, fuels and lowering our costs (economic and environmental) are all great reasons to reduce our emissions ... not to mention the health and environmental benefits too.
I have heard people say that the amount of CO2 (and other such things that supposedly heavily contribute to global warming) that we put out into the world is about .001% compared to what the earth gives off naturally (from things like -for example- volcanoes).
There are places where there is global warming. There are places where there is global "cooling" if you would call it that.
Our temperatures fluctuate allot. We can even see that from our history. You'll hear them say on the weather reports "Oh, we haven't seen this kind of weather in 50 years!"
But that's the point! It did reach those temperatures: 50 years ago. It's not anything new. Our planet is just fluctuating.
I think it is extremely important that we take care of our planet. If we do that, we help ourselves too. But I also think that our planet can take care of herself. We do our part, and the earth will do hers.
The gun debate here in the states is a good analogue.
What you get are politicians standing up and pontificating on their soap boxes saying the same things that have been said in the past. They want to appear like they care. It doesn't matter if what they propose is counterproductive. What matters is that they show they care.
Recent fiscal cliff shenanigans are another good example. They create a crisis to deflect from their real issues so that they can continue their irresponsible ways. It is true for Democrats and it is true for Republicans.
Politicians are very poor at solving real problems even those real problems that they create. What they are good at is convincing people that they care and that they are trying and that seems to keep the sheeple happy until next election cycle.
I heard today that California has discovered a trillion dollars worth of shale oil. It is kind of funny when they are trying to restrict drilling and costs are skyrocketing that those skyrocketing costs are actually helping to increase the reserves and incentives for more production.
You author is a pessimist and although a warmist, seems to be more a part of the problem than a solution. In fact some of his verbiage seems to come right out of the deniers handbook.
He says we can't have an effect and criticizes those who try to educate us to the reality of GW
I have to label him as a denier.
Many countries have reduced coal fired power plants and plan to eradicate them completely. Coal is the biggest producer of CO2 or the fossil fuels. Just that will make a difference. Many countries are now generating a significant portion of their power via wind and solar alternatives. This reduces CO2.
America is like the develop mentally disabled cousin who can't understand science and too busy to worry about it. We are slow to change but one we get on track things begin to happen.
I just read an interesting opinion piece from a warmer. Here are some select quotes to give the gist of the message:
"The obvious fact is that that mankind has done very little to prevent significant future global warming and there is little reason to expect anything will change during the next few decades." as evidenced by..."...after decades of ineffective conferences and agreements, including those at Kyoto, Rio, and Copenhagen, CO2 is increasing steadily with no reduction in the upward trend (see graphic)."
**Agreed**
"To have a significant impact on temperatures later in the century we need HUGE reductions in carbon use worldwide, and it won't happen."
**Agreed**
"Some folks concerned about the lack of progress on global warming are desperately trying to get action by hyping the past and current effects of global warming, suggesting we are already seeing a large increase in extremes (floods, cold waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, disease, heat waves, etc.). Bill McKibben, Climate Central, and Skeptical Science are some of the worst offenders..."
**Been saying that all along**
"Most of their claims are unfounded or exaggerated, but even with the willing, if not enthusiastic, amplification of the press, it appears that people either don't buy the claims.."
**Been saying that all along**
"But there is a great deal we can do to adapt to the new climate and give our civilization some resilience to the change."
**Been saying that all along**
For once, I fully agree with a warmer.
Your thoughts?
Source: http://cliffmass.blogspot.ca/2013/01/the-inevitability-of-global-warming-and.html
Author: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/mass.html
We're going to have to adapt in any case. The longer we delay meaningful action on emissions, the more it's going to cost and the more extreme it will have to be to be meaningful.
Edit - re your added details
That's a hopeful statement only for those who are willing to be creative and innovate - diametrically opposite to the do-nothing crowd.
