"The existence and cause of climate change is not up for debate — in a similar way that gravity is no longer up for debate"
This is an exaggeration. Yes, it's clear the the earth is warming and man's emissions contribute to the warming. But, unlike gravity, many big debates remain: What's the value of climate sensitivity? How long will it be before the planet warms by some fixed amount, say 2° C? How much harm and how much benefit has global warming brought? How much harm and benefit will it bring in the future, and when will that happen? Has global warming affected windstorms, floods, droughts and other natural catastrophes? Will it affect them in the future? If so, by how much? Does the world currently have the ability to reduce CO2 emissions enough to make a significant difference? What would be the cost of such reduction in CO2 emissions? Who would bear that cost?
These questions were ignored by the Obama Administration. Hopefully the Trump Administration will do a more sophisticated analysis.
David, you're criticizing them for something they didn't write -- they wrote "the existence and cause."
An op-ed isn't the appropriate forum for your questions.
Nor do the answers matter much. We're going to get a lot of warming over this century -- probably 2-3 C above preindustrial levels by 2100, perhaps more. That is a lot of warming, and we don't need an exact value of climate sensitivity to recognize we have to sharply cut CO2 emissions.
David in Cal wrote: "How much harm and benefit will it bring in the future, and when will that happen? Has global warming affected windstorms, floods, droughts and other natural catastrophes? Will it affect them in the future? If so, by how much? Does the world currently have the ability to reduce CO2 emissions enough to make a significant difference? What would be the cost of such reduction in CO2 emissions? Who would bear that cost?"
There have been many efforts to answer these questions. Just because you don't know about these efforts doesn't mean they are a mystery.
Who will bear the cost? CO2 emitters should be the ones -- but the costs will fall all across societies and national boundaries -- in effect, a subsidy to the rich, from the poor.
5 comments:
"The existence and cause of climate change is not up for debate — in a similar way that gravity is no longer up for debate"
This is an exaggeration. Yes, it's clear the the earth is warming and man's emissions contribute to the warming. But, unlike gravity, many big debates remain: What's the value of climate sensitivity? How long will it be before the planet warms by some fixed amount, say 2° C? How much harm and how much benefit has global warming brought? How much harm and benefit will it bring in the future, and when will that happen? Has global warming affected windstorms, floods, droughts and other natural catastrophes? Will it affect them in the future? If so, by how much? Does the world currently have the ability to reduce CO2 emissions enough to make a significant difference? What would be the cost of such reduction in CO2 emissions? Who would bear that cost?
These questions were ignored by the Obama Administration. Hopefully the Trump Administration will do a more sophisticated analysis.
"Hopefully the Trump Administration will do a more sophisticated analysis."
Thanks, David, that's the funniest thing I've seen this week.
David, you're criticizing them for something they didn't write -- they wrote "the existence and cause."
An op-ed isn't the appropriate forum for your questions.
Nor do the answers matter much. We're going to get a lot of warming over this century -- probably 2-3 C above preindustrial levels by 2100, perhaps more. That is a lot of warming, and we don't need an exact value of climate sensitivity to recognize we have to sharply cut CO2 emissions.
David in Cal wrote:
"How much harm and benefit will it bring in the future, and when will that happen? Has global warming affected windstorms, floods, droughts and other natural catastrophes? Will it affect them in the future? If so, by how much? Does the world currently have the ability to reduce CO2 emissions enough to make a significant difference? What would be the cost of such reduction in CO2 emissions? Who would bear that cost?"
There have been many efforts to answer these questions. Just because you don't know about these efforts doesn't mean they are a mystery.
Who will bear the cost? CO2 emitters should be the ones -- but the costs will fall all across societies and national boundaries -- in effect, a subsidy to the rich, from the poor.
I'm very happy and optimistic about the actions I expect Scott Pruitt to take regarding climate change.
Very happy indeed.
Post a Comment