Major US Gov Study says Climate Change will shrink US economy and kill thousands

Like when they predicted that storms would start getting way worse?

 

that's a nice article but it seems to me it dodges the issue of attribution: what percentage of the problem at Norfolk is due to subsidence? and what percentage is due to climate change? Then we must ask of the latter category, what percentage of climate change can be attributed to anthropogenic causes (i.e. 'man-made global warming') and what percentage is naturally occurring?

My understanding of the Chesapeake Bay situation is that most of the problem is due to subsidence, not climate change. The question of what must be done in response is of course a separate question.

 

I'm for expanding nuclear power also due to engineering factor of safeties improving significantly over the past couple of decades but boy is that analogy absolutely horrendous.

 

Policy wise, they have been technology agnostic, ergo, let business do what business thinks is best, but remove restrictions favouring one or the other, they can get caught up in broader trade policies (like chinese solar panel dumping), but there's nothing specific to them. Trump admin as far as one can tell, just wants the cheapest prices feeding through, i don't think they particularly care what it is.

 

Love this. The comment about the Chinese is particularly true and one I've heard many industry insiders say.

But what makes America great is it's ability to elevate itself leading others to follow, instead of playing down to the level of the Chinese ... who are now burning methane extracted from the ocean floor for more energy.

 

There were advanced safety factors engineered in the mid 20th century, included leak free construction in case of a meltdown, but big oil campaigned against them every going live. All the money and subsidies went into fossil fuel.

 

I think the undertalked about issue of climate change these next ten years will be the spike in homeowners insurance. It won’t just be felt by coastal elites. Companies will gouge middle American just as much in their own respect.

I think Dems should start focus on the economics in middle America and homeowners insurance is something that affects all Americans even if you don’t own it still impacts what your rent is.

 

You can always find reasons to put your head in the sand and rationalize that something is happening slowly isn't really happening. At some point, you have to wonder to yourself, if there is scientific consensus and every world leader (until Trump) has signed an international accord to battle climate change - why do you as an individual still have such serious doubts?

This isn't something that started being discussed in the past few years - it's been something scientists have been warning about since the 1970's. We're approaching 50 years of science saying this is real, and the evidence only becomes more and more overwhelming.

At what point do you realize that our whole livelihood is at risk - rich or poor and we are setting ourselves up for literally a world of hurt. If you have a scientific mind, than you must at least acknowledge the hypothesis that it is real and that the window is closing on preventing the catastrophic effects. And if you can get that far, you owe it to yourself to get off those right wing blogs and do your own independent homework to find out why so many scientists are saying it's real (and it's not because of the "science industry")

 

and I have been doing my own homework for the past ten years and none of it has involved right wing blogs. If I may make a gentle suggestion to you . . . you might read Mike Hulme's excellent book Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Hulme along with Curry is one of the few actual climate scientists to have familiarized himself with the philosophy and sociology of science as it applies to climate science. This book is a terrific reflection on his broad (and broad-minded) approach to the subject.

 

Let's take out the political and sociological aspects - those have little interest to me in this debate regarding the science of it.

10 years ago I didn't think climate change was as much of a problem as I do now. Why did I change my opinion? Because I actually got my undergrad in physics, and while that doesn't make me an expert at all, it did enable me to read through the research and understand a lot of the science behind it. In science the gold standard is being able to predict a result that can only be explained by the hypothesis put forward. In the 80's, climate scientists predicted that the release of CO2 would cause warming in a certain sections of the atmosphere but causer COOLING in the upper atmosphere which seems paradoxical - but makes sense when you consider that increased co2 in the upper atmosphere would make it easier for heat to be released into outer space thus cooling it faster (the same mechanism as releasing the heat as the thermal radiation downward back to the surface). The same science predicted that it would be the night time temperatures near the surface that would increase far more dramatically then daytime temperatures. Both of these predicted effects have transpired exactly as predicted and there is none of the explanations given by climate skeptics address this result. This is scientifically the gold standard and it is saying without any doubt that increases in CO2 is the direct cause of climate change. Increase solar activity would not produce this result.

The 2nd debate is whether that the increase is manmade or not - and for that the science is even more clear since there is no other source that can account for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere today.

So set aside politics and culture for a minute - because the science is clear. There is no debate. Anyone who is saying otherwise must address what is causing nighttime temperatures to increase and why our outer atmosphere has cooled while our inner atmosphere has warmed. And there is only one explanation for that phenomenal which by the way isn't just observed on Earth but on other planets as well.

Now we can sit here and debate what will happen when and how severe it will be or how much it will cost - will it be a $100 billion a year or a $1 trillion a year? How bad will it be?

But even the best case scenarios are quite devastating to our future as we have built our society for the status quo and are ill equipped to deal with the change that is coming. We may very well not be able to stop this change, but it is possible to slow it down enough to buy us time to find solutions and at the very least adopt. Doing nothing will have consequences that all of us will find regrettable. When you have 7 billion people and a declining pie of both food and economic opportunity - what do you think will happen? Do you want to even play this game? We can talk about the sociological impact and all that now, and debate what will happen - will we adopt or will there be war and devastation?

Or we can try to do something now that will make that debate moot. We can do something now that won't hurt the world economically, but it will hurt the fossil fuel industry.

 

Hulme clearly states climate change is happening due to human activities - but humans have to prioritize their goals and ideals as a result. In that way, I agree. Humans will always have a large footprint, even without coal and oil, the solution would be not over populating so those on this planet can live a good life. Also leaving designated areas of the world uninhabited, 50% at the very least so ecosystems that provide humans with health can thrive.

 

I think that's probably the right path. Causing guaranteed harm now in a futile effort to stop harm later doesn't seem like a great idea. Since climate change cannot be stopped, the best way to cope with it is to not make things worse right now while working to discover innovations that will help solve the problems caused by climate change.

When I hear most proposed climate change legislation it reminds me of the California stance against the logging industry 30 years ago that led to their state being on fire today.

 

Just a few blunt observations.
It is not valid, without substantial evidence, to say how many climate scientists have or have not familiarized themselves with the philosophy and sociology of science. But yes, a few who help support the contrarian viewpoint that you enjoy have familiarized themselves, and I say good on them (for considering those factors). You've got me interested in Hulme's book. Here's an intriguing review of it by an economist and OxFam dude:
https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/book-review-why-we-disagree-about-climate-change-mike-hulme/

Here's a fairly well-informed recent article on (causes aside) how humanity will be coming up against an effectively shrinking planet. McKibben is well informed, but he has been an activist in this area for many decades. The preponderance of the facts in this article stand up to scrutiny. (Where I think he oversimplifies for rhetorical aims is in particular the oil company history.)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/26/how-extreme-weather-is-shrinking-the-planet

Not a pretty picture, and I hope more humans than not can come to agree collective action and decision making would be to the benefit of our species. If it's not cutting emissions, then it has to be how to effectively deal with the changes arising, avoiding ad-hoc mass migrations, and so on.

Cheers!

 

So reducing climate change is actually good for the economy? I was told that it would be bad for the economy by many Republicans. I'm glad this study has cleared up the confusion.

 

B-bob, this is a fair point, but nonetheless I feel pretty confident making that assertion about climate scientists, and more broadly about scientists in most fields probably. but your point is well taken

 

Please see my rewrite/edit, seriously. Cheers! I'm outta here for a while.

 

here is Pielke Jr's overall perspective re the report

 

Most climate science reports I have come across have said that hurricanes would increase in intensity but decrease in frequency

 

This topic is one of Pielke's areas of expertise, see for example his book on disasters