slug.com slug.com

11 1

Climate change: It could turn out much worse than we think

Climate and weather are considered to be complex adaptive systems (CAS) [en.wikipedia.org] . The overall behavior of the system of elements that constitute a CAS is not predicted by the behavior of the individual elements. CAS are characterized by their ability to change behavior in response to external influences, including very small influences. Interactions are non-linear, meaning that small changes in inputs, physical interactions or stimuli can cause large effects or very significant changes in outputs.

Because of the possibility that tiny initial changes can cause massive effects over time, climate leads to chaos. Predictions of future states of climate are impossible. Small errors and uncertainties in assessing an initial state of climate, e.g., as it is today, will lead to big errors in long-term predictions of later states of climate. Because of that, there are three possible future situations.

First, the climate predictions could turn out to be about what most experts believe now. Second, the climate situation could turn out to be significantly better, with no cause for concern. Third, the climate situation could turn out to be significantly worse than what is now believed, maybe bad enough to seriously damage civilization and maybe even lead to human extinction.

In view of that reality, what course of action makes the most sense if one wants to be conservative and minimize risk? Should policy be (1) do nothing because things might turn out to be just fine, or (2) try to do something to slow or reverse human caused climate change in case things do not turn out just fine? Does doing nothing amount to playing Russian roulette with civilization and maybe even the human species? If not, why not?

Germaine 6 Mar 6
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Here is my thing about CC. Before humans there was a time of no ice. Before humans there was a time of mostly ice. So, earth is a dynamic system that we live on. Whos to say less or more ice is bad besides that we humans have to deal with the exstreams. Whos to say it won't change and have more or less ice regardless of what we do until we can accurately understand this above mentioned phenom.

That being said I think we can recycle, be responsible with trash, advance and get all cool with alt energy etc. Just don't raise my taxes, or charge me more money to be responsible. Dont give billions of tax dollars to fake companies owned by politicians friends and don't call me a denier when u call weather, climate change, which changes all the time but u don't really know all how it works or how we really are effecting it because we r still working out our understanding.

@Daryl yeah I didn't say anything about doing the status quo. I just think corrupt gov misuse money, so they don't need more. I mean some reasonable regulations, ok, but our gov doesnt need more of my taxes, so don't use this "crises" to get more of my money. But why is less ice bad, and can we really stop that? Its just different? But again earth has known no ice b 4. Plus like China and India have like 2 billion people and no regulations...uhm we have like 300 million.....soooooo.... yeah lets be responsible but America doesnt control the world and don't take my money with this maybe crisis.

Humans were here long before the last ice age.

1
0

Horseshit, how are we suppose to believe anything about climate change. They keep changing the rules of a game that's already been played

2

[lomborg.com]
Björn Lomborg has written a lot about climate change. I appreciate his views.

I second that!

1

Too much rhetoric. They lied when this first started this stuff. They said they had the answer. They didnt allow peer review studies and said it was settled. Now because they were wrong or inaccurate they change the rename the issue. From global warming to climate change. Now they have better predictive models. And they say they can better select the options they wish to tell us. I can speak from experience. I was in the high arctic in the summer of 1974. Walking around cornwallis island. No ice. None. I was back in the arctic in Alert NWT in winter. Plenty of ice. Summer ofc1986, my friend showed me pictures of him swimming to a bergy bit in Alert. I think these idiots discoverred the Arctic. It existed and nobody looked at it. Someone discovers it again and the world is coming to an end.
The currentv question isnt about climate at all. Our government in Canada has enacted a carbon tax. Never has anything been so lied about in the history of man.

1

Well, it's all a betting game. So you have to weigh the probabilities and the pros and cons of any solution to make the most rational decision.

My thing is that if you look at the economic impact of any government-centric proposal that would actually make any difference, the impact is actually worse and far more probable than most of the predicted outcomes of climate change. And even then, the real impact these proposals would have on the warming trend is uncertain and negligible at best. But meanwhile you've crushed the economy (which isn't just about money, and does actually have a connection to human life and death) and you've destroyed liberty.

It's funny because (speaking unscientifically) you know what else you could call a CAS? Mankind.

Mankind has a remarkable ability to adapt. To invent new technology (which could either fix the problem or shield us from its consequences). No one is just going to sit in their Florida house and watch the sea levels rise above their heads.

If we're economically free and prosperous, we can move, we can adapt, we can innovate. The worst thing can do now is destroy our ability to do so by killing the economy, stifling innovation, and destroying liberty with regulations that will do very little to fix the problem.

0

The other day, by way of example, I read that NOAA records of sea level rises were not accelerating based on The Battery, NY tidal gauges going back to 1850 and, in fact, were linearly rising at a very modest pace. I bring this up as a matter of complexity in climate studies. First, whether the sea levels are rising or not has been based on relative measurements using tidal gauges. The complexity arises because the land as well as the sea levels can and do change. The New York City area has been slowly sinking ... subsidence ... because of the weight of the structures and infrastructure in that area. Areas of Finland appear to be rising because "sea level" has dropped... or the land is actually rising. If the value of A is dependent on B and the value of B is dependent on A, what can we conclude? [4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com]

It has been said often in various ways that "complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand, wrong answers". Hence, man-made global warming. If the metrics are questionable, the solutions are more so.

@Daryl Unfortunately, the hyperbole connected with the last 30-years of climate predictions has inured a large part of society to any real threat. Human activity on climate is most pronounced on regional climates from regional land use. Stripping forests for farmland is an obvious example. Human cities/urban areas are among the most egregious factors in affecting regional climate. Population in third world countries is still continuing to grow while Western nations are barely maintaining and often losing population (except when grown by immigration from third world countries).

And yet, climate hyperbole has failed utterly to accurately predict anything. The reason: climate models are simply too simplistic for complex and chaotic interactions. And, furthermore, 100 or so years of dubious measurements are far too short to examine anything but fluctuations that naturally occur. The assertions that "global warming" aka "climate change" aka "climate disruption" are responsible for contradictory events... more/less rain/snow/heat/cold/hurricanes/tornadoes/disease/weather-related deaths/plant growth/ etc. are irresponsible and subject to endless ridicule that undercut real science.

That fact that notable and reputable scientists disagree about future implications to the extent that they do is a reliable indicator that climate science is still in its infancy and prone to major shortcomings.

Is climate changing? A better question: has climate ever not changed?

@Daryl Some interesting reading by a climate scientist who represents a less frantic reaction to climate change: [judithcurry].

Click on the "About" link to see her background. I can provide you additional links to reputable scientists with similar positions. BTW, virtually no one "denies" climate change occurs; only to what degree and how human activity influences it AND what are the implications. That's a big AND.

1

Climate - It is already way better than what they predicted -
I'll just pull out a couple of things -
"Interactions are non-linear, meaning that small changes in inputs, physical interactions or stimuli can cause large effects or very significant changes in outputs." is wishy washy language. It is just as correct to say non-linear means large inputs could cause very insignificant outputs. I bring this up because increasing changes in CO2 concentrations cause diminishing changes in the greenhouse warming effect.

"Predictions of future states of climate are impossible." - ? No. The models are getting more sophisticated. Hopefully the inputs are more accurate. They are definitely predicting the future state of climate. Whether they are accurate or not will be discovered.

Actions if one wants to minimize risk: - OK, no. This presumes too much. The goal of anything and everything is not to minimize risk (stay home in bed under a blanket). The best way I've seen to approach the global warming issue is economically. What approach should be used to maximize wealth over the next 100 years? This can account for future losses due to global warming, sea rising, more storms, etc... The great thing about this approach is that someone has already done it and ranked it against other global economic issues. [copenhagenconsensus.com]

I don't know much about global warming, but I know with great confidence that giving more power to a bunch of lawyers in DC, who think they know anything about the environment, is an epic fail. This is based on very sophisticated models using very accurate inputs showing our government is filled with a bunch of smart idiots who are happy to ruin this country for political votes [sarcasm intended].

@Daryl
"global warming could be twice as warm as current climate models predict." Why stop at twice? How about half?
"This could mean the landmark Paris Climate Agreement – which seeks to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels – may not be enough to ward off catastrophe." - Was a failure the day it was created.
"The impacts and costs of 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) of global warming will be far greater than expected," - I'm thinking of a number that's greater than what you're thinking. - Is it $50 T - No, way higher.
"The past decade has seen an astonishing run of record-breaking storms" - We've only been recording storms for a decade?
"The oceans are warming faster than climate reports have suggested" - Especially if you consider what they were saying in the 70s.

A lot of fear mongering that will require parsing and review. Feel free on being more proactive. What kind of car do you drive? Do you elect to use the more expensive "renewable" electricity for your house? Invest in renewables? Don't have AC in the summer/set your house to 50 F in the winter?

1

I do not think you go from, its complex, to a multiple choice question between, Do Nothing, or Do something. Of course we do something, but what, and why is that the correct thing? This rhetorical reduction is not helpful and in its common usage is just a way to leverage that something as provide government control over fuel usage.

@Daryl It seems as if I was correct. You reduce the equation down to the role of central government to take command of the economy of energy or else nothing is being done. This is a stereo typical binary argument..nothing to see here, moving along.

1

I don't object to finding ways to reduce pollution etc, but I still think there is excessive fear over "man made" climate change, as the possibility exists the experts could very well be wrong.

3

I think we need to ignore the climate alarmists who push things along the lines of the green new deal. We also need to be smart and continue to try to develop clean sources of energy while using the resources available to us such as oil, gas and coal. I find it ironic that our meteorologists can’t get the three day forecast right yet we are supposed to believe that climatologists can tell us what’s going to happen in 50 to 100 years. Yes, I know climate is not weather. Climate is much more complex. I was around in the 1970s when scientists told us that we would freeze to death as a result of the coming ice age. It never happened. I am doubtful regarding the predictions being made and so are many scientists. Climate change has become such an emotional political issue, that I trust very little that is said regarding it. We need to be good stewards of this planet and look out for future generations but certainly not destroy our way of life to comply with fantastical predictions.

I think this is an actuarial question. There probably is a way to ballpark some answers here, using actuarial science

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:21601
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.