Climate change does not matter

[Brian Ellis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6247371.stm

Chrysler's chief economist Van Jolissaint has launched a fierce attack on "quasi-hysterical Europeans" and their "Chicken Little" attitudes to global warming...he said that the global warming was a far-off risk whose magnitude was uncertain.

Another economist who thinks he knows better than scientists.

He should get back to bean-counting.

[Mehen]

He is betting that the climate change is natural, not caused by humans. Until the scientists start giving us more proof that we are the ones doing it, not just nature being nature, many of us are likely to have the same opinion as Jolissaint. If the scientists ARE proving it, they need to do a better job of informing us. And "the man keeping them down" is not a good enough excuse.
Although I agree he should get back to bean-counting, it's not because of his opinion, its because anyone who works for CHRYSLER and is saying such things is hurting my "forget about the planet" way of life. So there. Or something.

If scientists who get paid to research global warming (caused by humans) continuously come up with inconclusive or negative results, or results that in fact prove it to be false - what would their job security be like?

I am not saying I believe that we aren't causing the planet harm - I am just saying that it is a &#$@ed up situation. I just hope people continue to develop alternate methods just to be on the safe side.

...maybe he should be getting back to his bean counting because of his stupidity.

Why does the devil incarnate want the humans to stop destroying the planet? Could the devil be jealous we beat him to it?

[TransformX]

Some time ago there was an article saying that forestation actually causes more global warming..
Here's one: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/...ns_Forests.pdf
Their bottom line is:

Bottom Line: The slowing of global warming achieved by growing and preserving forests that
sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere far outweighs the warming from the methane
that may be emitted by these forests. Reforestation and slowing deforestation still appear to be
among the most promising actions that can be taken to slow the build-up of greenhouse gas
pollutants in the near-term.

Then again, since the research was called for in the first place, some other scientists may come up with other conclusions..

[Fat Tone]

I think everyone agrees that climate changes on its own, and so it is going to change anyway (we didn't have much to do with the last ice age!), and that we have been in an unusually long and stable climate period. Who knows how much man is changing things on top of that?

Perhaps we would be better planning for change and dealing with it rather than fruitlessly trying to maintain the status quo?

[Umfriend]

No TX, your representation of that study is incorrect. It says: "The slowing of global warming achieved by growing and preserving forests that sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere far outweighs the warming from the methane that may be emitted by these forests." which means that the positive effects of forestation are larger than the negative ones.

[Brian Ellis]

Methane release from forests depends on the type of forest and its substrate. Deciduous forests with a damp substrate (e.g., birch forests in the northern pre-tundra do generate much methane, as do flooded tropical rain forests; pine forests and tropical rain forests in drained areas, such as on hillsides, do not.) However, all forests are only a very short-term way of sequestering carbon, as most of the carbon is released again as soon as the tree falls, rots or burns. See http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv/files/sequest.htm

I agree it's a &#$@ed up situation, mostly &#$@ed up by stupid politicians. Having worked closely with climate scientists for nearly 2 decades, and at a high political and international level, I know just how much political issues &#$@ up sound science and sense - and not only with climate change but with nearly every other environmental issue, as well. I could recount things that would make your hair curl, even if you're bald.

[Umfriend]

He is betting that the climate change is natural, not caused by humans. Until the scientists start giving us more proof that we are the ones doing it, not just nature being nature, many of us are likely to have the same opinion as Jolissaint. If the scientists ARE proving it, they need to do a better job of informing us.

Pray tell me, how many studies on climate change available to you have you read? How much "more" proof do you need?

He does have a point on not using discount rates. Comparing costs over time without them makes no sense economically and a scientist doing so should refrain from drawing economic conclusions.

[Brian Ellis]

He does have a point on not using discount rates. Comparing costs over time without them makes no sense economically and a scientist doing so should refrain from drawing economic conclusions.

Of course, he could just possibly, with a great stretch of the imagination, be trying to promote big Mercedes cars or Chrysler SUVs, rather than economy vehicles, don't you think? He may have been slightly more plausible if he didn't have a vested interest in promoting gas guzzlers.

[GNEP]

He does have a point on not using discount rates. Comparing costs over time without them makes no sense economically and a scientist doing so should refrain from drawing economic conclusions.

It's not quite as clear cut as that. Your standard discounted cashflow analysis is a very useful tool for businesses to use over the medium term (say out to about 30 years). Over longer time periods however (cross-generational really), its use can be incredibly misleading; economists, theorists and practitioners have not developed the equivalent tools yet. And may never do so as there is very little business incentive to develop them. Stern touches on this in the beginning of his report on climate change, but he too ends up conculding that we don't really have a widely accepted method for dealing with a time-value of money over the longer term. I think you would appreciate that chapter Umf - it's the annex to chapter 2 "Ethical frameworks and intertemporal equity." (IMHO the whole report is broadly balanced, sensible and useful, albeit perhaps not questioning some of the numbers used that come from other studies (or studies of studies) - I spotted a few for example on Carbon Capture and Storage that he pulled from an OECD report which are pulled from an industry report where they are pulled from another industry report where they were essentially made up in a fairly naive manner - I have seen the non-public methodology used... but that's beside the point. Overall the Stern Review is good.)

[Fluff]

Bit of a weird question. How much organic matter does it take to create crude oil or coal etc?

On average how much oil is created per year, in the oceans. How much do we consume?

Once we run out of the energy created by living things from the past. How much population is sustainable? Will things like gloabl warming reset themselves?

[Dr Mordrid]

IMO the amount of greenhouse effect from humans is trivial compared to volcanic emissions, ground based methane and the so far unknown amount of methane released from hydrates along the continental shelves.

[Mehen]

Pray tell me, how many studies on climate change available to you have you read? How much "more" proof do you need?

My point is that if it is really as serious as some say it is, they should do a better job to shove it down our throats. If they made it seem more serious (ie more proof) maybe it would actually catch my attention and I WOULD read them. People are too busy nowadays to pay attention to something unless it really scares the sh*t out of them. If the scientists believe this is something they should be scaring the sh*t out of us with, then they should do a better job of doing so.

[Umfriend]

Oh, they're trying IMO. But it is so much easier to be convinced that there is no issue being worried about. That is what is working to the advantage of the nay-sayers and causes many, or so I believe, to demand "more proof".

[Umfriend]

It's not quite as clear cut as that. Your standard discounted cashflow analysis is a very useful tool for businesses to use over the medium term (say out to about 30 years). [...] Overall the Stern Review is good.)

I'll admit I don't have the time (and very possibly not the knowledge/intelligence) to really read and digest the report. A few things are noteworthy though:
1) He speaks about uncertainty and risk and explaines that with respect to uncertainty the chosen principle is often the 'precautionary' one, i.e., the measures taken do not depend on expectations but on aversity to possible outcomes. (pp. 33-34). I agree but when that is the leading principle for decisions on a certain matter, then it is impossible to estimate wealth effects IMO. Sometimes, as a policymaker, you just have to propose policies because they are the right thing to do. This applies whether your time-frame is one day or 1,000 years.
2) With respect to discounting, the discussion on pages 31- 33 hints (to me) at real problems with respect to the economic underpinnings of their analysis. This starts with the second paragraph of chapter two, sections four an five. That the underlying causes for discount rates may be time-preference or diminishing marginal utility of future consumption (which is a weird way of looking at it anyway IMO as there current consumptions' marginal utility is diminishing as well) is irrelvant. A discount rate is still valid as it allows you to include the cost of allocation of means over time: If you can reach situation X in 10 years by either giving up consumption of 2 now or 2.1 in 3 years, which is better? I'll try to be more clear: in Box 2.2 Stern postulates that there are many discount rates (aside from risk-adjustements between policies/investments/projects). What he is referring to, actually, however is that there are many marginal rates of substitution, which is something completely different. The actual interest rate curve (and risk-adjustement thereto) is the observable effective rate at which individuals, firms and countries can trade or finance projects and that is therefore the appropriate rate to use. Yes, a lot can be said about this still, e.g., what is the risk-adjustment needed for a certain project? What is the base rate for cash flows further down that 30 or 50 years? But by the time these topics are the only ones that remain debated in this matter we'll have come a long long way already
3) Stern states repeatedly that cash flow discounting can only be used to compare situations that are similar. This is utter rubbish. I think he means to say that it can't be used when comparing different situations to which the precautionary principle applies.
4) The bigger issue is that Stern, or so I suspect, uses changes in GDP as an indicator. Yes, if you use that and you're forecasting over a long term then indeed a discount factor may work against you(r wishes). A basic micro-economic course including imtemporal choice however should cause you to look at changes in Wealth however, not Income. As an example: burn my house, steal my car -> I'll work more hours to get a new house and new car (assuming no insurance of course) -> He, my income rises so clearly, burning my house and car makes me better of?

If a lower growth rate of GDP is the only consequence such that there is no negative effect to the value of the (stock of) Wealth we have, then there is a very real possibility that we should, economically speaking, simply do nothing. (this assumes though that we can actually make a good assesment of probabilities: that we are dealing with risk, not uncertainty).

But he, what do I know?

[Brian Ellis]

IMO the amount of greenhouse effect from humans is trivial compared to volcanic emissions, ground based methane and the so far unknown amount of methane released from hydrates along the continental shelves.

Sorry, Doc, you haven't got a clue about what you are talking. Here are some FACTS, scientifically proven, widely published and absolutely indisputable.

1. CO2
a) Anthropogenic carbon dioxide from fossil fuels totals ~15 billion tonnes added to the atmosphere/year
b) some of this extra CO2 is temporarily sequestered by chlorophyll photosynthesis and about 8 billion tonnes in the oceans.
c) the atmospheric CO2 content is increasing at the rate of 8 billion tonnes/year
d) the concentration of CO2 was almost constant from 1000 AD to 1850 AD at 275 ppm ±5 ppm. By 1900, it had risen to 300 ppm; by 1950, to 320 ppm; by 2000 to 380 ppm... This curve (the figures vary ±5 ppm according to different sources, but all the measurements follow the same shape) correlates exactly with the known consumption of fossil fuels and modelled according to emissions and sequestration. [Ref: Keeling, Callendar, Machta, Broeker, Kellog, Schwaere + the Siple Station ice core]

2. CH4
a) Natural emissions of CH4 from wetlands and forests (incl. natural fires), termites, enteric fermentation in wild herbivores amount to about 195 Tg/y (teragrammes/year)
b) Anthropogenic emissions from rice paddies, cattle, NG fugitive emissions, slash & burning of forests, landfills etc. amount to about 275 Tg/y [these two figures are after Tetlow-Smith, 1995, and are annual means but both can vary greatly in individual years, as they are weather-driven]
c) The pre-industrial level of methane measured in the atmosphere was 750-800 ppb. Today it has more than doubled to about 1,800 ppb and follows a similar curve: all the measurements from air samples over the last 10,000 years have shown a fairly constant mean, starting to rise about 150 years ago. [From ice core samples taken in Greenland and Antarctica, Ref: Rasmussen & Khali, Craig & Chou, Robbins, Bolin et al.]

3. Volcanic eruptions
a) There have always been volcanic eruptions and certainly there has been no significant change in the average frequency or magnitude in the 20th c to explain any climate change. The 16th c had a similar profile with just one major eruption (Nicaragua 1550s) and medium ones in 1500 (Java), 1586 (Kalud) and Ringgit (1583). The 20th c had no major eruptions but a number of medium ones in 1902 (Pelée, Soufrière and Santa Maria). 1963 (Agung), 1980 (St Helens), 1982 (El Chichon), 1991 (Pinatubo). No other eruptions in this time produced dust veils. There were no major eruptions on the scale of Krakatoa, Avachinskaya, Tambora, Santorini or Komogatake. [See LaMarche & Hirschboek, 1984; Crowley & North, 1991; Rampino & Self 1984, Nature 307 Fig 3, p. 123] This means that the period of climate change has been vulcanologically fairly average with little apparent cause for undue positive or negative forcing.
b) Volcanoes have both positive and negative forcing effects, both over short time scales. A really major eruption, such as Tambora, may throw sufficient dust and sulfate particles into the stratosphere as to cause an exponentially decaying veil with a folded-e atmospheric lifetime of the order of a year, meaning that the effects are still measurable after 3-5 years. This causes negative forcing with a typical global temperature drop of -0.1 - -0.2°C over the first year [Barry & Chorley]. OTOH, the gaseous SO2 has a positive forcing but a shorter lifetime, as it tends to oxidise to SO3 very rapidly. As SO3 is very hygroscopic, it rapidly falls out as sulfuric acid rain in less than a year.
b) In the troposphere, where most of the aerosols and particulate matter remain for very short times (~99% falls or rains out or disperses hemispherically in <1 month), the forcing is about neutral.
c) The nature of the eruption can have an effect on the radiative forcing. A very explosive one, such as Krakatoa and, to a much lesser extent, St Helens will have a more negative forcing than a quiet one with major lava flows, which will have a positive forcing due to gas emissions. Also, the latitude has an effect, as well as the magnitude. The dust cloud from El Chichon encircled the N Hemisphere in less than 3 weeks, whereas Krakatoa encircled both hemispheres in about 2 weeks at low latitudes.
d) Volcanoes do have a negative effect on the ozone layer, again of relatively short duration.

4. Clathrates
Again, clathrates have been there "for ever". There is no reason to suppose that emissions of CH4 or CO2 from this source have changed since the year dot as man has, so far, not been foolish enough to try and exploit them commercially. Methane clathrate is mainly in fairly deep water (except in polar regions). It is rare to find them at less than 300-500 m as their stability is dependent on the combination of temperature and pressure conditions. More worrying, there is evidence that land-based methane clathrates in permafrost regions may emit their methane if the permafrost melts as a result of climate change. This could produce a very undesirable positive feedback effect.

The above is proven science, not hypothesis.