Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse'

Let's accept for the moment that global warming is occurring and that the cause manmade, i.e., CO2 emissions. If this is true, there is NOTHING we can do about it, except prepare for change.

China is #1 in CO2 emissions. China's CO2 emissions are increasing SO FAST...

If every home in America replaced existing lights with CFLs – compact fluorescent bulbs – the US reduction in CO2 emissions would be offset by Chinese emissions in fifteen weeks.

If – starting immediately – US car manufacturers sold nothing but battery-powered cars with zero CO2 emissions and miraculously found a way to charge them with 100 percent solar or wind power with no CO2 emissions, Chinese CO2 increases would offset our CO2 reductions FASTER THAN NEW CARS COULD REPLACE OUR EXISTING VEHICLES ON THE ROAD.

If the USA decreased its CO2 emissions to zero (impossible, of course), this decrease would be offset by China's increases in about 10 years.

People keep talking about climate change AS IF THEY COULD SOMEHOW MAKE A DIFFERENCE. The truth is that if climate change is manmade and is really occurring, there is NOTHING we can do about it.

Apple Developer wrote:

The person to whom you are replying was being sarcastic

well, according to that particular poster, apparently he was. But how could anyone tell? He posted comments that are basically verbatim what most of the right wingers post on here, like, I don't know, "attack of zombie fetuses/DWIGHT SCHRUTE/My name is Lance, etc, etc bro' .

And oh yeah, YOU seem to agree with his general attack on global warming science (maybe not BIG OIL science though of course, how convenient).

Could you please give us back some of our lost faith in mankind and tell us that YOU TOO were "being sarcastic"/trolling with this post:

"The problem with global warming is that it has no scientific credibility and is pure and utter bullshit that members of the anti-industrial movement expect us to accept based on nothing more than their prestige. Their reasoning goes as follows: "We are prestigious scientists, therefore, you are to accept whatever conclusions we promote without questioning our methods or motivations, and if you're against us, then you're against SCIENCE itself!" That's how people like you try to intimidate opponents of your pathetic pseudoscience. "

I mean, if you were even a little serious, you are dumber than dirt.

I believe the earth may be temporarily warming. There is a good probability that it is correlated to human activity. Do scientists completely understand it? I doubt it.

In the 70s, it was theorized that we were headed for another ice age. In the 80s, the depletion of the ozone layer was going to kill us. Then came global warming in the 90s and now it is called climate change. Scientists are constantly changing their theories on various topics, admit their past mistakes, yet think they are correct in the present time.

I personally think we should plant more trees and reduce our carbon footprint, but I think there are bigger problems in this world than a projected 2 degree temperature increase over the next 50 years.

Actually, none of those numbers are true.

What are the odds that the average monthly temperature (for the planet) is colder or warmer than average this month? It should be 50-50, if nothing systemic is going on. Kind of like flipping a coin. Half the time hotter, half the time colder.

But if you are 27 years old or younger you have never lived in a month that was colder than average (again, for the whole planet).

What are the odds that you can flip a coin and get heads 320 times in a row?

Something is going on.

You made a massive error in the most critical assumption. You claim CFLs cost $5-6. They actually cost about $1-1.25. So pony up the extra 25-50 cents and save some energy.

If 5 dollar CFLs don't light up my garage when it's 5 degrees out-I'm sure the bargain bin $1.25 model won't either.My critical assumptions are the cost of LEDs-which are functional for this application, the cost of incandescents, and the cost of electricity.

Goldenboy wrote:

You made a massive error in the most critical assumption. You claim CFLs cost $5-6. They actually cost about $1-1.25. So pony up the extra 25-50 cents and save some energy.

Rainy Day wrote:

I believe the earth may be temporarily warming. There is a good probability that it is correlated to human activity. Do scientists completely understand it? I doubt it.

In the 70s, it was theorized that we were headed for another ice age. In the 80s, the depletion of the ozone layer was going to kill us. Then came global warming in the 90s and now it is called climate change. Scientists are constantly changing their theories on various topics, admit their past mistakes, yet think they are correct in the present time.

I personally think we should plant more trees and reduce our carbon footprint, but I think there are bigger problems in this world than a projected 2 degree temperature increase over the next 50 years.

Just a few corrections:

1) In the 70s a few scientists theorized that we might be headed for a new ice age. This was not the overwhelming majority of climate scientists but it was considered to be a reasonable conjecture. Reasonable enough to do a bit of research on it. Said research did not result in any conclusive findings to back up the idea of an impending ice age. As a result the notion was largely tossed aside. This is how science works.

EXCEPT - It was not tossed aside by pop culture. Instead, it was picked up by Time, Newsweek and the like in order to sell magazines. Pop culture magazines.

Shockingly, people confuse such pop culture magazines with peer reviewed journals.

Global climate change was initially theorized by a few scientists. This was not the overwhelming majority of climate scientists but it was considered to be a reasonable conjecture. Reasonable enough to do a bit of research on it. Said research DID result in corroborating evidence. LOTS of corroborating evidence. As a result, the notion is largely accepted throughout the scientific community. This is how science works.

This science has been published in massive quantities, in constantly increasing detail in peer reviewed journals.

Shockingly, people confuse such peer reviewed journals with pop culture magazines.

2) The ozone hole was and is very real. It has essentially nothing to do with climate change (look it up if you are interested). The global community saw the science behind the depletion of the ozone layer and took very effective action (again, feel free to look it up - you can get started here if you have an interest:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depletion_of_ozone)

That people cite the ozone hole issue in order to bolster the case AGAINST climate change science and climate change action is beyond shocking. It is absolutely mind boggling. The ozone hole issue is a perfect example of (a) human activity having a clear global impact, (b) science helping us see the problem, (c) people taking scientists seriously enough to do something about it, (d) nations working together to find solutions, (e) solutions being implemented and (f) solutions being effective to solve the problem.

And this is an argument for ignoring the warnings of the scientific community on climate change how again?!?

3) Thinking that "a 2 degree temperature increase over the next 50 years" is not that big of a deal shows that you do not understand the issue. The issue is not that a spring day in San Jose may be 72 degrees rather than 70 degrees. This is irrelevant. What is relevant are large scale weather pattern changes including potential changes in the ocean's currents. What is also relevant is the fact that there are known, very, VERY large positive feedback mechanisms regarding the global climate that could change things on a scale you really don't want to see. When dry areas become wet, arable lands become desert, rains that entire continents depend upon dry up, the human race will not be thinking 'this is no big deal'. They will be too busy fighting wars on a scale never before seen to feed billions whose lands are no longer livable. 7+ billion people have located themselves and built up infrastructure to support themselves based upon the climate of the planet that we live on. Change that climate rapidly, shift where the rains fall, how much water flows through the rivers, where crops can grow...and do it in the span of 50 to 100 years and what you get will not be a pretty sight.

Please consider waking up.

[quote]No Way wrote:

I may have gotten 60 watt bulbs, so you may be correct on the price.

Freedom as you describe it is not perfect, because by definition, it impedes on the freedom of others.

[quote]

How does my burning 200 watts, for 20 hours a year impact your freedom???

Let's do a carbon analysis. I'll light my garage using a coal fired plant-the "worst" kind. Coal has a heat value of about 6000 KWh/ton. Converting to lbs-that's about 3 KWh/lb. When coal is burned in a power plant, somewhere between 33 and 40 percent is converted into electricity-the rest escapes as waste heat. To make our math easy-we'll assume my power plant is old and inefficient-33%. So, for me to get 1 KWh of electricity, I have to burn 1 pound of coal. So, to run my light for 20 hours a year-I need 4 Kwh of electricity, so I dump 4 lbs of coal into the atmosphere. Let's say this goes on for 10 years-that's 40 lbs of coal into the atmosphere.

Alternatively, I drop 50 bucks for the LEDs-and burn about 1/6 the electricity. Over the same decade, I drop 6.6 lbs of coal into the atmosphere. So my carbon sin would cost me 49 bucks or so (because I will save a little money on my electric bill) and I save 33.3 lbs of carbon from fouling our planet. That's a nearly $1.5 per pound.

Carbon offsets on the open market go for about 25 dollars a TON. LEDs in my garage would cost $3000 per TON. That's 120 times the market rate.

That's why irrational environmental regulation makes me so mad. Light bulbs are not evil-they are tools. Different situations call for different tools. Just as a rational person would not buy a 200 dollar drill to hang a picture-one would not buy a 50 dollar pair of light bulbs that will only be burned a few hours a year. It's a government mandated misappropriation of resources. That expenditure of 50 dollars will have NO IMPACT on the global temperature. I would much rather-and in fact have-spent the 50 dollars on CFLs and LEDs in my home-where they are running for 3-8 hours per day-and where the energy savings offsets the increased capital cost.

I saw an hour long video on the history of the global cooling/global warming/climate change crowd. If I can find it again, I will link it here. It is truly eye-opening...for those with open minds. Truly sinister things among that crowd.

Wait--are people seriously going to take half of this thread to discuss one person's light bulbs? And somehow think that that is dealing with AGW/climate change?

Get a room.

You're missing the point. You're correct that your two bulbs don't make a difference. However, if everyone does the same thing as you and says their two bulbs don't make a difference, then that will make a difference.The DoE estimates that switching to LEDs will avoid the construction of 133 power plants by 2025 and save the US $280billion, all while reducing demand on our already overloaded grid.

Oh yeah? wrote:

[quote]Seen one seen them all wrote:

The earth doesn't orbit around the sun, dip $hit. It orbits around a spot between the two.[quote]

Wrong, numbnuts. That "spot"--the Earth/Sun barycenter--is actually within the Sun itself (because Sol's mass is hundreds of thousands of times greater than Earth's, and Earth is only ~93 million miles from Sol).

Earth orbits the barycenter, which is well within the Sun; so it's perfectly accurate to say Earth orbits the Sun.

I suppose using your primitive definition, the sun orbits the sun, too. I'd rather stick to the fact that both the earth and sun orbit around a point between the two.

I can back up all these figures. Let's take the easiest one to illustrate.

China CO2 emissions

2002 3,000 million tons

2011 9,700 million tons

Average annual increase: 670 million tons

US CO2 emissions

2011 5,461 million tons

In my post, I claimed, "If the USA decreased its CO2 emissions to zero (impossible, of course), this decrease would be offset by China's increases in about 10 years."

5,461 divided by 670 = 8.15 years... that's even less than the "about 10 years" in my post. This confirms my point that there is nothing that we can do to prevent climate change, if in fact is is occurring.

Source:

and

I can do the math for the other assertions as well. Since China's annual increases change depending on the starting point and US emissions also vary by year, the figure using the most recent data might be somewhat different than my comments about CFLs and electric vehicles, but they will be in the ballpark of my original post.

Educated Neanderthal wrote:

Oh yeah? wrote:

[quote]Seen one seen them all wrote:

The earth doesn't orbit around the sun, dip $hit. It orbits around a spot between the two.[quote]

Wrong, numbnuts. That "spot"--the Earth/Sun barycenter--is actually within the Sun itself (because Sol's mass is hundreds of thousands of times greater than Earth's, and Earth is only ~93 million miles from Sol).

Earth orbits the barycenter, which is well within the Sun; so it's perfectly accurate to say Earth orbits the Sun.

I suppose using your primitive definition, the sun orbits the sun, too. I'd rather stick to the fact that both the earth and sun orbit around a point between the two.

Look, if you want to be a dick about it I'll just point out that you are clearly incorrect (or INCORRECT as good old Flaggy likes to say).

Here's a hint for you: The earth is not exactly the 2nd most massive body in the solar system.

Educated Neanderthal wrote:I'd rather stick to the fact that both the earth and sun orbit around a point between the two.

There is absolutely no way to choose a single "fixed" point and declare that two bodies (among a group of more - many more... - than two) orbit around that "point." First, there is no such thing as a "fixed datum" in the universe. One is free to choose some arbitrary point and declare it the "fixed" origin of some arbitrary frame of reference, but it is also moving, and needs to be defined in reference to some thing (some other body). Second, the so-called "orbit" is a multi-body problem, which is mathematically insoluble. We can make simplifications to the math (e.g. treat the sun and earth as a two body problem), or easier still we can make crude measurements and ignore the mathematical model, but in either case we are introducing some form of error, which is likely of little importance but in any case underlies the fact that your claim, to the effect that "both the earth and sun orbit around a point between the two," is meaningless semantics.

I have a paper in Nature almost a quarter of a century ago and we characterized it as climate change. This is the appropriate characterization because the changes extend beyond the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans.

You can have any opinion you want but you are not entitled to your own facts. The basic 'fact' in the case of GCC is that human activities increase the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere.

No scientist I know disputes that fact [I am sure that you can dig up a few reputable scientist who hold a different opinion but it is on the order of 1000+ to 1].

Disputes really begin at the next level, which is: what do such increases lead to? there is more grounds for dispute here, as the degree to which climate is affected is uncertain, although the changes 'to-date' are consistent with the models that we used a quarter of a century ago, whereas 'no net effect' is becoming extremely unlikely.

Disputes are going to be greatest when it gets to the question of: What should we do about it? Here, the opinion that the costs of doing something are likely to outweigh the costs of GCC has a larger number of adherents and are not so 'fringe'. One key complication is that controlling greenhouse gases is a 'free-rider' problem. That is, if Europe and the US expend a lot of resources to control GG emissions they will benefit without spending money. Thus, the threshold for 'it costs more than the benefits to me' is lower. That is why international agreements are necessary (but not sufficient) for getting on the right side of the cost-benefit analysis.

So, where do you fit in here? Do

1 Deny that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) have increased because of human actions [this is the lunatic/uneducated fringe]

2. Agree that at least a significant portion of the changes in concentration are due to man-made but that the changes are minor and not worth bothering too much about.

3. The changes are real and costly, but the costs to us (e.g., the US) are too high to do much about.

Note that #3 is actually a continuum position because there are some pretty cheap things to do and they would move us down the damage curve. Also, there is disagreement on which items are 'cheap' to do, and some otherwise reasonable parties have notions that most think too extreme.

34223 wrote:

It was well below zero degrees (F) at my house this morning. I'm not buying the bunk from The Hot Earth Society.

Anyone who confuses weather with climate does not really understand enough to be debating anything of substance on climate change.

I also would not be surprised if it was not well below zero F this morning ... that significantly narrows where you might be living. Thus, you are likely really a troll.

Those assumptions are poorhttp://china.lbl.gov/sites/china.lbl.gov/files/2050_Summary_Report_042811_FINAL.pdf