Erie PA gets 34 inches of snow - maybe coldest winter ever. And ... Global warming is happening? LOL. What a hoax.

Winter Storm Grayson is about to wreck havic on the east coast! And Grayson looks like a mean one! ?

https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/2018-01-02-winter-storm-grayson-southeast-ice-northeast-snowstorm

Citizen Runner wrote:There was a paper from a Russian astrophysicist a year or so ago suggesting that we were poised to enter a solar grand minimum which got a lot of play in the contrarian space. It didn't seem to be very well supported. Moreover the magnitude effect is likely small relative to our rate of anthropogenic warming.

Thanks CR, your links sent me on a bit of a reading adventure. The realclimate.org discussion includes a link to this self-published "paper":

I guess we will see whether these predicted oscillations in sun's radiation have greater control over the global temperature anomaly than anthropogenic forcings, or not, over the next few years to decades. You may recall my own naïve "prediction" (i.e. crude interpretation of the post-1850 global T anomaly signal) suggests the next 20-30 years to show roughly flat global T, bucking the overall increasing trend for some period. This sun stuff aligns with that, so of course it tickles my brain a bit. Again, time will tell...

My second question posed earlier was the more serious of the two. I'm keen to know opinions on how limited resources (time, people, money, ingenuity) ought to be divvied up to work to combat various coastal threats. Is AGW-driven sea level rise the most significant threat to coastal populations, do you think?

(As an aside, I know you think I'm some paid shill, and no intelligent person without a dog in the fight could stand by the positions I've advanced. The truth is I'm greatly concerned about the environment, and I don't work for, and have never worked for, any outfit with an agenda to pretend AGW cannot exist. Unlike most friends and colleagues railing against global warming, I've actually gone car-less to reduce my footprint, and over my work career I've invested considerable time, energy and effort in environmental clean up and sustainable development. But my work revolves around hazard and risk assessment, and in my experience, consequence - and risk - of natural processes is almost always overstated, which makes an honest cost-risk-benefit analysis of the path forward doomed from the start. I believe that human activity certainly affects the natural environment, and as such has affected global climate. I do not YET have an opinion as to the relative importance of anthropogenic influence, and perhaps more importantly, I read most of the predictions of future negative outcomes as indefensible, kneejerk overreactions. Of course the day may yet come when I choose a side in the debate more firmly...)

Your linked projection was put up in 2003. It projects a period of global cooling from the peak in 1998 to a minimum around 2030. The trends in GISS temperature for the 30 years preceding 1998, the currently available years following 1998, and the full period are as shown below.

If one didn't consider this hypothesis DOA given its problems with paleo data prior to the training period, it's not looking any healthier now.

Without some (bounded) agreement on causality and magnitude effect, I don't see discussion of mitigation alternatives as being worth the effort, but you could look at the IPCC WG3 report.

I can't imagine why someone would pay you to do this, but it's not impossible. I don't think I've ever suggested that you are a paid shill.

Citizen Runner wrote:I don't think I've ever suggested that you are a paid shill.

Winter Storm Grayson wrecking havic on the east coast! SOUTH CAROLINA is getting hammered by SNOW! Record breaking snow & cold for the Carolinas! Grayson is a mean one! ?

https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/2018-01-03-winter-storm-grayson-southeast-ice-snow-forecast

the shill wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:I don't think I've ever suggested that you are a paid shill.

It was either you or one other guy from back in 2014 that called me a shill, at which point I adopted the name.

Found the original name caller... late October 2014, I was posting as hmmmmmm? and discussing with you, and some dude named “Presumably man” told you that you were debating with a paid industry shill. I thought it was funny so I adopted the name. I think it’s ironic. Or not...

Citizen Runner wrote:Without some (bounded) agreement on causality and magnitude effect, I don't see discussion of mitigation alternatives as being worth the effort, but you could look at the IPCC WG3 report.

Are you suggesting that because we don't agree on causality or magnitude of AGW, we should not consider the relative merits of doing something about other coastal hazards relative to action on AGW-driven sea level change?

OK, then hypothetically, assume we agree, and that AGW is driving sea level rise within some generally accepted bounds over the next century (please feel free to define those bounds per your favourite projection). With that presumed agreement in mind, how then would we allocate resources to address AGW, and what effort/time/energy would we spend on other hazards affecting coastal populations?

BTW, I'm leafing through the IPCC WG3 report now which discusses mitigations. This is very interesting. What I can't find, which is a critical piece of the puzzle, is a clear overview discussion of the impacts with their relative importance that drives the need for mitigation. In order to understand the relative cost-benefit of proceeding with mitigation, it's critical to understand the loss we would be trying to avoid. That way we can compare the potential reduction in loss associated with the investment in avoiding that loss, and make an informed decision whether and how much to invest to reduce the loss.

In the case of coastal hazards other than sea-level rise (AGW-driven and natural changes), let's say for example ocean tsunami events, we can at least come up with a thumbnail sketch of average or typical loss, according to different metrics, by looking back at recorded events. For example, we can count the number of fatalities in the past century and work out some statistics (recognizing that the consequence and risk are driven by "black swan" events like the 2004 Indonesia earthquake-driven tsunami that killed > 200,000). Society's knowledge and understanding of these losses has driven some degree of action (tsunami warning systems; emergency response plans in many affected areas, etc), and you can be sure that the composite effort applied by society in mitigating this risk is commensurate with society's understanding of the potential losses and it's desire to invest resources to avoid these losses, ahead of investing for some other benefit.

In the case of modelled future climate and associated sea level rise, I have no clear picture what the expected societal impacts are expected to be, except in a very general, descriptive way. And society as a whole has, obviously, no clear consensus understanding of expected loss. Can you help elaborate / numerate / quantify the expected losses so we can have a meaningful discussion of the basis for whether / how much society should invest to slow climate change?

This might be a clearer overview of the question I was trying to pose.

If you like, we can extend the question to cover other expected AGW-impacts (which again I have no way to put into relative quantitative context, and would love any help you or others can provide), say for example more frequent flooding, or more frequent damaging storm / weather events (say tornados, hurricanes, droughts). Society has already adapted to manage the risks associated with these phenomena, which each cause massive losses regularly, in some cases through zoning restrictions (e.g., development restrictions in floodplains), or to largely accept them (as acts of god, if you will) and respond when the losses occur (e.g., most examples of major tropical storm damage).

If we can quantify the increases in these AGW-driven phenomena-driven losses, then the investment to avoid those increases in loss will surely never exceed the incremental increase in investment we would otherwise decide (society as a whole) to make to reduce the current level of expected loss by the same amount.

At the same time, we might consider whether there are offsetting benefits that reduce the overall societal effects of the increased expected losses. We don't tend to discuss AGW benefits to any degree, presuming somehow that the overall effect must be significantly negative. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. For sure there are some benefits (large areas newly available as productive land in previously too-harsh climates for example), but I wouldn't venture to suggest in any way whether they offset the harmful effects in any meaningful way. I only suggest it's an important part of a critical analysis of the problem.

Also, I have got the most recent IPCC impacts reports and have been reading them through also. So far I haven't found clear quantitative descriptions of expected impacts, rather only general descriptive text. For example, this is what it says about sea level change (conflated with ocean acidification in this case):

"Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas

Coastal systems are particularly sensitive to changes in sea level and ocean temperature and to ocean acidification (very high

confidence). Coral bleaching and species range shifts have been attributed to changes in ocean temperature. For many other coastal changes, the impacts of climate change are difficult to identify given other human-related drivers (e.g. land use change, coastal development, pollution) (robust evidence, high agreement)."

I can read that and feel a desire to do something if I can. But I have no basis to understand the relative importance of doing something relative to doing something else.

---

OK I will shut up now, hopefully my intended question is now quite clear.

You have not found because there is not quantitative descriptions of expected impacts. The IPCC reports are not scientific ones but rather political ones where everything is in generalities. You begin with the first IPCC report each successive one ramps up the fearmongering and the imminent calamities. Again, everything is vague and in generalities because the whole thing is a hoax.

the shill wrote:

BTW, I'm leafing through the IPCC WG3 report now which discusses mitigations. This is very interesting. What I can't find, which is a critical piece of the puzzle, is a clear overview discussion of the impacts with their relative importance that drives the need for mitigation.

Keep leafing. It's a 1400+ page document citing about 10,000 references and I can assure you that there is mitigation/adaptation cost/benefit discussion is in there. Following the references, one can find specific quantitative results and even open source cost/benefit models with which one can play with the various parameters.

That said, I'm not sure that a ranking of impacts is a particularly useful metric in cost/benefit analysis since there is not generally a one to one relationship between a specific mitigation approach and a specific impact.

Citizen Runner wrote:That said, I'm not sure that a ranking of impacts is a particularly useful metric in cost/benefit analysis since there is not generally a one to one relationship between a specific mitigation approach and a specific impact.

Decisions for mitigation, or other approaches to management (e.g., avoidance, acceptance) of risk can be (and often are) made with little to no information, on the basis of either gut feel (instinct) or experience. Significant risks require much better information to support responsible decisions. You and I might agree to risk $500 on, say, part of a bitcoin, for the 10-30% chance of earning $5000, with little or no understanding of the fundamental factors affecting bitcoin value. We'd do that because we can afford to throw away most of the $500 (say 70-90% probable).

If we are thinking about investing trillions (?) of dollars in adjusted societal behaviour to make a fundamental dent in greenhouse has emissions, global warming, sea level rise, ocean acidification and all the related subordinate effects, then we need to know, in some tangible way (dollars, people's lives, area of critical habitat or species that could be lost), the values of the things we will save (i.e., not lose) by making that investment.

In other words, it's critically important to understand, value and rank the impacts.

That you tell me to read 10,000 references and 1400 pages suggests you don't have the answer clearly in focus either, I presume? Perhaps you've formed the cost-risk-benefit conclusion based on gut feel or popular opinion?

There are inevitably assumptions in economic modeling that lead to uncertainty and tend to be the focus of criticism. Evaluating present vs future costs (discount rates) in particular.

There are also fundamental moral questions in assessing costs and benefits of a commons problem like climate change, that is the costs and benefits of using and mitigating fossil fuels aren't proportionally distributed across people and generations. Hence, a completely objective cost/benefit analysis is not reasonably possible.

That said, there are various cost/benefit models and scenarios documented in the WG3 assessment report and it's references. They have utility in at least constraining mitigation scenarios but with wide uncertainty.

it's not rocket science... global warming has been occurring since the end of the last ice age. And it'll happen again at the end of the next ice age. Seems like us humans tend to think of our tiny blip on the radar as the extent of changing weather patterns....

You’re working pretty hard to avoid answering my question, which I suggest is the single most important one in this discussion. This suggests that either you haven’t thought it through, or maybe you have and determined that a robust argument to act decisively doesn’t exist.

These questions are always hard. This actually is within my realm of experience and (expert?) knowledge. The fact that it’s difficult to calculate either or both the costs or benefits is not a reason to not do it. The moral objection is a red herring... we make comparative value judgements of this nature, as a society, all the time, although we may not necessarily state them or write them. We choose to allow bad things to happen to valuable resources (people, natural resources, etc) all the time when we would be perfectly capable, given infinite resources and motivation, to avoid those bad things. Sometimes cultural traditions get in the way of saving lives that could be saved (sharia law in some parts of the world, constitutionally protected guns rights in the USA, as a couple of good examples). Sometimes we lack the money to live free of risk (here I imagine thousands of poor squatters living below steep slopes in Rio or in unstable gorges in Guatemala City exposed to deadly landslides), and the rest of society takes no interest. I could go on all day about hunger, disease, opioid deaths and the like but hopefully my point is clear... the fact a topic may have clear moral sensitivities is not a limiting factor for society to decide whether and how to address it.

The AGW challenge has a whole different degree of complexity. It ties the world together in complex ways we can’t hope to quantify, and it’s existence and causative factors are many, complex and possibly chaotically intertwined. This does render the problem virtually intractable, so I agree with you vehemently that it is a hard problem, for your reasons and many more. But it’s THE key problem that needs to be tackled in order to develop the story that will resonate across society and lead to real action.

It’s called climate change not global warming. It’s not a hoax it’s a proven phenomenon. The climate will continue to polarize until we reverse the damage we have done to it, or it will do it itself. Think of it as payback. If someone sawed your ligaments one by one, you’d be mad and you would malfunction and try to hurt the bringer of bad things. Every time we cut down a tree or release refrigerant into the environment we saw a ligament. Ligaments take a long time to heal, just like nature. We should worship Mother Nature because from her we rose, and to her we will all return. She has more power than god because she has direct contact us with all of us and we should love her because she is the bringer of all things good.

the shill wrote:(1) the fact a topic may have clear moral sensitivities is not a limiting factor for society to decide whether and how to address it.

(2) But it’s THE key problem that needs to be tackled in order to develop the story that will resonate across society and lead to real action.

(1) and in fact, society often decides to look the other way in the face of impending great harm. I expect I don't need to rhyme off examples for intelligent educated readers.

(2) And this is, to a large degree, what I've been trying to claw out of you or others over these past 4-5 years. Not that it amounts to a hill of beans what "the shill" thinks, but if I were presented with a coherent, compelling argument in favour of acting, I'd quickly jump on board. And I imagine the millions of other thick, simple-minded people like myself who need "1+1=2" spelled out in this fashion might also see the light, turning the tide.

Two more (final? For today anyway... :-)) comments.

There are powerful psychological factors working to keep this debate stuck in the mud.

First, as a general rule, people naturally process all new information in a way to support their existing beliefs. Even new evidence that squarely contradicts belief gets processed by the brain to either support, or to at least not contradict, existing belief. So providing the non-believers with a bunch of factual information has no hope, right out of the gate, of winning over many new believers. Add to this that if you cry wolf one time (make one alarmist prediction that doesn't pan out), it PROVES to your opponent that everything else you say is a lie. Regardless of how true it may be. There is significant inertia in existing belief.

Second, we tend to value future loss (or gain) at a significant discount to its present value. You might spends $5000 repairing your roof today to avoid water damage of $10-15000 over the coming winter. But you would probably not spend $5000 today on insurance against that same water damage happening over the next 20-30 years. If you could buy an insurance policy for, say, $500 with the guarantee such water damage would be replaced anytime over the next 30 years, no questions asked, you might do that. But you almost certainly wouldn't pay $5000 for that guarantee. Part of that has to do with inflation, depreciation, and the actual value of today's dollars over the next 30 years, but a significant part of it comes from a psychological bias. All that to say, it's a very, very hard sell to pitch massive investment today to make the world more comfortable for descendants we haven't met and may never know. I'm not saying that's a good reason not to take action, just that the resistance to action has a natural basis in human psychology.