That the ice in the Arctic is melting faster than the rather conservative IPCC projection in the AR4 is obvious - in area, extent and volume. A nice recap of the 3 metrics here.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/sea-ice-update/
The effect of the ice melt in terms of albedo change, rise in sea levels etc are pretty well known. The most interesting effects, however, may not be any of these things. This is discussed in a recent paper by Shakun et al who were looking at the causes of the last deglaciation, probably the last time before now that the global climate changed in a hurry. A post at Real Climate summarise the issues.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/unlocking-the-secr...
It has long been known that characteristics of the Earth’s orbit (its eccentricity, the degree to which it is tilted, and its “wobble”) are slightly altered on timescales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Such variations, collectively known as Milankovitch cycles, conspire to pace the timing of glacial-to-interglacial variations.
Despite the immense explanatory power that this hypothesis has provided, some big questions still remain. For one, the relative roles of eccentricity, obliquity, and precession in controlling glacial onsets/terminations are still debated. While the local, seasonal climate forcing by the Milankovitch cycles is large (of the order 30 W/m2), the net forcing provided by Milankovitch is close to zero in the global mean, requiring other radiative terms (like albedo or greenhouse gas anomalies) to force global-mean temperature change.
The last deglaciation occurred as a long process between peak glacial conditions (from ~26-20,000 years ago) to the Holocene (~10,000 years ago). Explaining this evolution is not trivial. Variations in the orbit cause opposite changes in the intensity of solar radiation during the summer between the Northern and Southern hemisphere, yet ice age terminations seem synchronous between hemispheres. This could be explained by the role of the greenhouse gas CO2, which varies in abundance in the atmosphere in sync with the glacial cycles and thus acts as a “globaliser” of glacial cycles, as it is well-mixed throughout the atmosphere. However, if CO2 plays this role it is surprising that climatic proxies indicate that Antarctica seems to have warmed prior to the Northern Hemisphere, yet glacial cycles follow in phase with Northern insolation (“INcoming SOLar radiATION”) patterns, raising questions as to what communication mechanism links the hemispheres.
Also, there is the well known observation that CO2 levels measured in the Antarctic ice cores show CO2 rises well before the temperature signal rises - the temperature-lags-CO2 question. So what gives?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html
Antarctic ice core records...are not necessarily an accurate representation of global temperatures. In recent years there have been many studies collecting data from ice cores in Greenland, sediments drilled from the ocean floor and from continental lakes, and so forth. Most of these proxies don't extend as far back in time as the Antarctic ice cores, but many do extend back to the last glacial-interglacial transition which began approximately 18,000 years ago, as Figure 1 shows.
Shakun et al. examined 80 such proxy records from around the globe (Figure 2), recording sea surface temperatures for the marine records and surface air temperatures.
By comparing the atmospheric CO2 increase (note that since CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere, a single ice core record can be used as an accurate representation for CO2 - Shakun et al. used the Antarctic EPICA Dome C ice core for CO2 data) to these many different temperature records, Shakun et al. are able to discern whether the CO2 increase led or lagged temperature changes in various different geographic locations, and for the planet as a whole.
---
This is where it really gets interesting, because the answer is yes - CO2 lags and leads. In the Southern Hemisphere, Shakun et al. found that the temperature rise happened first, whereas in the Northern Hemisphere, the CO2 increase was first (Figures 3 and 4).
So then!
- As we already knew, the Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected at the highest latitudes (i.e. Greenland and the Arctic - see "Onset of seesaw" in Figure 4).
- This Arctic warming melted large quantities of ice, causing fresh water to flood into the oceans.
- This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.
- The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.
- In short, the initial warming was indeed triggered by the Milankovitch cycles, and that small amount of orbital cycle-caused warming eventually triggered the CO2 release, which caused most of the glacial-interglacial warming. So while CO2 did lag behind a small initial temperature change (which mostly occurred in the Southern Hemisphere), it led and was the primary driver behind most of the glacial-interglacial warming.
According to the Shakun et al. data, approximately 7% of the overall glacial-interglacial global temperature increase occurred before the CO2 rise, whereas 93% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.
Now we seem to be on a similar deglaciaton path, with the fossil-fuel burn-led Arctic melt playing the role of Milankovitch cycle onset. It will be highly interesting to see whether the AMOC behaves as it did in the last deglaciation. In fact, these changes, once set in motion, could theoretically be irreversible, so that decreasing CO2 emissions that are planned for later in this century may not make too much of a difference.
Geoengineering
(#283587)Thanks to this and other data, it's becoming clear to me that geo-engineering needs to be on the table, soon. Environmentalists don't like to talk about this; it looks like a free pass to the fossil fuel industry.
But free it sure won't be. It will have a cost. The thing is the approach needs to fit the following criteria:
The only method I know of that fits these is albedo modification. I read somewhere, and it sounded plausible at the time, that we can increase the planet's albedo by around 1% by the simple act of using white roofing materials. This would also reduce heat-island effects in urban areas, which would lead to lower air conditioning use.
There is a limit to this approach, and probably to others as well, so CO2 emissions need to come down regardless. But clearly, we are committed too far, counting foreseeable emissions for the next 50 years, to continue to rule out geoengineering approaches.
The alternative is really bad. Colorado is a good sign of things to come.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Heh. Drs Singer, Michaels, Lindzen
(#283590)the Marshall Institute, AEI, Monckton, the WSJ etc have played the better game, and won the day. There's no point in beating about the bush, and one should know when to accept defeat. If Mr Gore, Dr Chu, etc could not pull it off, its not really possible for others to.
There is nothing to do but wait and see what happens. Its August 1914 all over again. And one must admit that we did come out of the other side of the murderous slaughter perpetrated primarily by Europeans and their accessories.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
It isn't the quack scientists who have won,
(#283593)but their incredibly wealthy paymasters who are right this minute sitting on vanishing, fungible, incredibly valuable resources whose value will only go up (once the economy gets back around to growing again).
Monckton et al. would be laughed off the stage of science (and they have been), but when the financial interests behind your position are powerful enough to found universities, journals, to buy off a certain % of scholars in the field, then even bad science can be kept alive long past its sell-by date.
M Aurelius was probably right.
when lifestyle trumps life
(#283608)I'd say that geo-engineering is one sure bet. It does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions or transform society in the ways groups like Oxfam talk of, two features already that our plutocrats must find attractive. And to cap it off, it is costly, as you say. I picture a president such as Obama presented with the possibility of some action on climate which the ploots are behind, and he won't be able to help himself from shovelling billions in their direction.
A cynical comment on my part, but when lifestyle trumps life, it's warranted.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Lifestyle?
(#283610)I don't really see it as a lifestyle issue, for the 99% anyway.
I see it as a powers-that-be issue. The elite, on balance, cares more about their internal power balance than about the environment. Fossil fuel interests are powerful, so not much interest in fighting them as hard as needed, which would be costly.
CO2 emissions will need to come down, geoengineering or no geoengineering. Geoengineering simply reduces the need for drastic action.
But geoengineering does fit better the dynamics of human power. It's easier to make a new enterprise than kill off entrenched interests. This is true regardless of the economic model.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Plus, It's Useful Technology In General
(#283621)We'd probably end up discovering other useful things while developing it, particularly if we end up using other methods than "white roofs for everyone."
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Don't diss the white roofs...
(#283673)Low tech isn't bad tech. High tech can be stupid.
That said, space-based approaches would mean civilian space technology and that's good.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
If It Can Be Implemented, Fine
(#283681)Though I can see possible bad side effects from it, too--there will be a heck of a lot of increased glare coming from rooftops, which might negatively impact air traffic and ground traffic above valleys, for two possible examples off the top of my head.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
white rooves & tellurium
(#283714)The white rooves seem about as benign an example of geo-engineering as I can imagine, and maybe I'd promote the idea. Before that we have to consider where all that white paint is to come from, and the impact of its manufacture on the problem it's designed to address, and other new problems that pop up along the way. When all is said and done, we might end up adding to our problems. Like with photovoltaic, the largest US manufacturer uses an element called tellurium as the 'active ingredient' in its panels, an element I'd never even heard of. Turns out that tellurium is every bit as rare as gold, has to be mined and milled, and the final product, the one that ends up in the panels, is toxic as hell. That's saying nothing of the intermediate steps, or finally, of its disposal. I realize this insistence to examine the entire cycle could end up as a recipe for doing nothing, but that indeed may be our best solution.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
It seems like virtue is trumping life for you
(#283615)You speak (justifiably) with a life-or-death urgency about global warming, but when the solution doesn't hew to your agenda you discard it with little consideration. Reminds me a little of how pro-lifers dismiss contraceptive use. Sure, it would save lives by their own terms, but it's really the anti-sex agenda they care about, not the lives. For you it's the anti-industrial agenda... the millions that will die of droughts and floods... a little less important.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Yep
(#283622)Micky's views seem to be rather congruent with the "greens who are fanatical Luddites and want to destroy modern civilization no matter how many people it kills" views that conservatives love pointing at. Either he's proof they really do exist, or he's trolling everybody and screwing those whose side he's nominally on. Either way, I'm not complaining--if he's posting about that it means he's not making the creepy posts about the lovely stench of the primitive unwashed.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
I think his point was that conservatism is creepy.
(#283651)True conservatism, that is - the values of past ages.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
one with a dead end
(#283674)Scientists (like those who submitted the recent letter to Nature) are saying that the effects of modern civilization will cause some 30% of species to face extinction by 2050. They say that we may avoid this massive die off if we go back to pre industrial levels of carbon emissions. They may be wrong; it's only models projecting into the future after all, but I'm not ready to ignore them or deny the importance of the message or refrain from exploring its implications. You seem to have got things exactly backwards from these scientists. They say that rolling back from industrialism may be the way to save humanity, and indeed this undoubtedly will call for some sacrifice on the part of the world's most privileged peoples, sacrificing aspects of your lifestyle that you may feel too high a price. I don't think you are alone here and it's not just conservatives who are unwilling to make such sacrifices.
I don't really consider myself as a 'green' but I do cop to Luddism. Maybe even fanatical Luddism, though you'd have to tell us the difference between a Luddite and and a fanatical Luddite. Because you likely have an unsophisticated, propagandistic idea what a Luddite is, I'd advise you to look to the writing of Richard Stallman - someone who says that technology should be under the control of those who use it. Even the original Luddites of 200 years ago never hated or feared machinery and technology per se. They were skilled artisans and craftsmen who were among the most technically adept people of their time. My problem though is that I'm not convinced that a technical fix will solve the problems we face regarding climate change, so Luddite or not, we may well be forced to take a few steps back from the course humanity has been on since the industrial revolution. I must be weird because the prospect doesn't fill me with horror - I like a challenge and I think humanity can find fulfillment and realize its potential in more ways than one. Modern Industrial Civilization is just one such path, one with a dead end.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
It's not just carbon
(#283676)I'd say habitat loss is a bigger problem, and not one that's going to be resolved. And that's because we are seven billion, going on over nine by 2050. There is nothing about pre-industrial civilization that would deal adequately with the challenge of feeding, housing, and clothing nine billion human beings.
Easter Island was pre-industrial. Heck, it was prehistoric; they cut every last tree they had, and died. Pre-industrial doesn't guarantee a darned thing.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
I read a little about the theories of complexity and chaos
(#283680)I read a little about the theories of complexity and chaos a while back. When the nodes and connections in a system become too dense, a kind of 'gridlock' sets in and everything crashes to a halt. When this happens the easiest thing to do is to cut down on connections between nodes. This is what I'm talking about when I refer to stepping back from industrialism. I don't know how many steps back it will take, and I see no virtue in getting any more primitive than necessary. Population is a daunting problem, I agree.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Probably sincere.
(#283675)I've known people who hold these views. They just hate the modern world. I can see why they would, there is much not to like. But at the same time there was plenty not to like about earlier historical periods. And, what is the modern world if not the product of those periods to begin with?
At any rate, we are stuck living in the era we were born in. I'd rather deal with reality as it presents itself, than as it should be in my imagination. This is a dangerous era because of our global footprint. But it is not an especially bad era in other ways. Wealth distribution, a nice progressive metric, is worse now than in the 1950's, 60's, and 70's, but it sure is way better than during, say, the 18th century, or the 19th for that matter.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
I can think of little as fanatical
(#283749)as attempting to cover millions of square kilometers of wilderness with white sheeting.
Would That We Lived In A World. . .
(#283755). . .where that really did constitute the height of fanaticism.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
start taking responsibility
(#283678)It's more an anti-capitalist agenda that drives me, I never had any trouble with industrialism until I started looking into this environmental stuff.
For the millions at risk from droughts and floods I have this message: get together with your neighbours, friends and family, and start taking responsibility for your own well being and future.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
There's geoengineering and there's geoengineering
(#283614)I don't consider painting roofs white to be geoengineering in the sense I've seen it used. We already put up buildings and pave roads, finding a way to have them make less of an impact on the environment is just common sense. Same with planting trees, it makes sense and it can help mitigate climate issues.
However, ideas like dumping millions of tons of iron into the ocean, pumping sulfur compounds into the atmosphere or launching giant space mirrors are reckless. They're essentially giant experiments on the biosphere with no controls, and that's only if they go exactly as planned.
I blame it all on the Internet
You have to measure risk against risk
(#283617)Rather than pretending they are stand-alone risks, in their own silos. What is the risk that we will not find a politically viable global solution to rising CO2 levels? By my lights, it's close to a certainty that we will not. Is geo-engineering a bigger risk than that?
Even if we somehow figure out a scientific solution that is economically more cost-effective than fossil fuels, and even if we find it in time (some scientists say it is already too late) will it be riskless? We like to pretend that we know it's safe, but when we started out the industrial revolution, we had no idea that global warming would be an effect of it. Likewise, now, we have no idea what a new energy revolution will bring... what are the effects of giant windmills, or the mining of rare earth components that go into electric batteries or solar cells? These are experiments... I wouldn't call them reckless, but let's not pretend that we can understand their risks perfectly, while the risks of geo-engineering are totally beyond us.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
There Are Millions Of Square Kilometers. . .
(#283623). . .of open land that people aren't living on that we could increase the albedo of without massively disrupting the environment--particularly if we stick to the polar regions, and where we could reverse the procedures if it looks like we were overdoing it. Since the main point of the exercise is to avoid massive polar ice melt, that would be the logical place to concentrate efforts.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Again...
(#283637)I think we're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions. Covering large areas of the wild with reflective material would be a huge impact on the environment. On the other hand, interrupting the sun closer to the source in the stratosphere might not necessarily be irreversible. Let's not pre-judge any variety of solution.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Risk adds, uncertainty multiplies
(#283630)assuming things "will go as planned" is a big assumption in giant projects like some of the ones I've listed.
Let's hold off on the large, irreversible changes until after the smaller, reversible ones turn out to not be enough.
I blame it all on the Internet
Have you been listening to scientists?
(#283636)It may already be too late.
We are, as we speak, tolerating a large, irreversible change.
At the very least, I think it's irrational not to have a well-funded research effort... a modern-day equivalent of the Manhattan Project.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
I'm all for research
(#283644)I'm not for dumping millions of tons of iron into the oceans before the research has been done.
I blame it all on the Internet
AFAIK, decision theory suggests we do nothing
(#283648)the costs of doing something far outweigh the costs of doing nothing.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Please explain
(#283650)Since you yourself have been documenting the incredible costs of doing nothing.
Where do you get your data on the costs of geo-engineering?
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Some time ago, I looked up the proposed geoengineering solutions
(#283658)in Superfreakconomics. Solutions such as aerosol injections, reflective cover increase etc do anything about the root of the problem - increased CO2. The practical geoengineering solution offered is carbon capture at the point of production - i.e. CO2 sequestration.
Look at the costs of CO2 sequestration.
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/uic/pdfs/support_uic_co2_technologyandcostanaly...
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/program/Prog065.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
I make the consensus is about 3 million USD per megawatt. Not practical.
On a side note, on decision theory. I'm trying to get a book on this, so recs welcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
I agree on sequestration
(#283690)But from what I recall you're a doctor, and when doctors see a symptom bad enough which they are not able to treat through the cause, they treat the symptom. Right?
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
I'm pretty sure that's not true
(#283652)or most of the Netherlands would be under water.
I'm not saying that there are no geoengineering projects that are worthwhile. I just want to see a bit more work on the side effects before we start making changes that we'll have to live with for decades or centuries.
I blame it all on the Internet
I doubt that.
(#283663)The loss of real estate value alone from a 20' sea level rise runs in the trillions. How much is Holland worth? Manhattan? South Florida? LA? Mumbai? London? Tokyo? Sydney? Shanghai? There are hundreds of cities at sea level.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Two things. First, real estate value is not real value.
(#283666)I'd argue that relocation costs are the clincher.
But spread the costs out over a few decades. Giving people and businesses time to move would make a big difference.
Secondly, you could validly argue relocation and rebuilding add to energy costs, but, again, spread out over time, it should be within acceptable limits (although I'm completely guessing here).
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Of course it is
(#283682)there's value to a deep, easily accessible but protected harbor like New York, LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Tampa, etc. Cities weren't sited randomly. There's also value in access to navigable rivers.
The funny thing is that relocation would boost GDP incredibly, since GDP only measures production and not the value of assets.
I blame it all on the Internet
What, pray, is real value then?
(#283735)Nothing more real than a city when it comes to value. It's about as tangible a collection of assets as can be imagined.
To help illustrate, and right on cue, Bloomberg produces a handy list for our reference. The subtle influence of the Forvm spreads far and wide.
Relocation on such a massive scale is a massive problem and represents a massive loss of wealth, and massive transfer of wealth. But net-net, their loss would be a huge loss of capital for the species. City infrastructure, buildings, roads, bridges, airports. This is centuries, not decades, of work. Nor can it be expected that the social order would be maintained under such disruption. Cities define the identity of their inhabitants.
Geoengineering will almost certainly be cheaper, not to mention less disruptive. Many of those cities are centers of power, and will be willing to pay for protection.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Real value is real work done by real people
(#283736)who create a culture and a tradition by their work. Astronomical prices, real estate value and so forth is rent-seeking. OK, I accept that that definition depends on a highly subjective view of what is value - culture and tradition, or monetary value. Buildings, roads, bridges, airports? These are temporary constructs, and can be built, or rebuilt anywhere.
IMO, modern cities are largely conglomerates of people seeking to make money, and people move to and between cities depending on employment opportunities. Cities define people? I disagree completely. Modern industrial cities are made largely the same to decrease culture shock. Not until you move to a city with a different primary language (and somethimes not even then) have I noted major differences.
I can understand value given to land by traditional cultures for whom a land is a patria, although logically this is no different to ancestor worship. After long schooling in Western though, I am ready to accept the American notion that a tradition of millennia does not give logical (or legal) weight over a tradition of a century or less. But still, the idea that the monetary value given by a mobile, immigrant population to property is real value seems to me shallow.
And so it is that I think that the effects of global warming will largely be met by population loss and movement. Because that is what happens. Expectation of rational behaviour to minimise risk for the population in general is chasing a chimera.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
I don't agree at all.
(#283745)New York is not the same as LA, not to mention Amsterdam or Tokyo. None of the world class cities are interchangeable, nor is culture independent of place, much less work culture. Why did Linus Torvalds and Mark Zuckerberg go to Silicon Valley?
I don't expect rational behavior. I expect last-minute, hugely expensive (yet profitable and politically expedient) geoengineering solutions.
Rational behavior would be a sustained and drastic reduction in CO2. We both agree that's not going to happen.
I think you are overweighing superficial similarities, such as look-alike malls with the same shops across the globe. This is misleading.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Location. Proximity to a natural resource. Tax regimes.
(#283748)Plenty of reasons, unrelated to culture. Also, I'm not just talking about world class cities - how much of the population live there as opposed to suburbs, conurbations, Tier 2 cities [as we call them here]?
That aside, most infrastructure is not built to last. We are probably talking a maximum of 100-200 years, and probably less in many cases. It makes more economic sense to build rather than rebuild infrastructure, here especially.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
You've got a serious blind spot here.
(#283817)I can assure you Zuckerberg or Torvalds did not go to Silicon Valley for natural resources; they deal in software. Nor did they go for tax reasons. California is a high tax state. They would have gone to Kansas for that.
They went for the culture. I don't mean the museums in San Francisco. I mean the Valley work and entrepreneurial culture that has developed over several decades.
I think you have a major blind spot here. Not sure why.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Blind spot? Perhaps.
(#283818)We have the same issue with Bangalore, here. And people waffling about a special entrepreneurial culture there - as in Silicon Valley.
OTOH, it so happened that the former State-run telecommunications industry through the 50s and 60s and 70s was based in Bangalore - when telecom was a pretty minor industry compared to heavy engineering. And the Indian Institute of Science was based there too. Climate did play a role, e.g. storing equipment here is a function of how severe the monsoon is in the plains, and hot plains temperatures.
And so it was that when telecom, and therefore IT became significant Bangalore was in a naturally advantageous position, and gravitation happened. I don't know too much about Silicon Valley, but, human nature being what it is, its possible that there were some similar issues.
Anyway, the point of this discussion is what can move easily and what cannot in the event of a sea level rise, and an entrepreneurial culture seems to me to be the easiest thing to move, followed closely by server farms!
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Still not seeing it...
(#283823)It's not a question of entrepreneurial culture in a generic sense. It's a particular culture for particular industries and endeavors. A number of stars have to align for that to happen. I can assure you that if somebody said: "We must move the Valley to Kansas", and put billions in buildings and infrastructure and so on, nobody would go.
There is a pretty vast history of forced relocations, and they rarely end well.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
some anecdata
(#283960)Some of the investment banks are trying to move their IT operations to Salt Lake City. From the job postings I keep seeing it looks like they are having trouble filling those positions.
--- I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
Dup.
(#284020).
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
People don't move when comfortable.
(#284021)And in actual fact, there hasn't been too much in the way of natural disasters now.
A few wildfires here and there, warmer in CONUS (other parts of the globe have cooled, and have had excessive rainfall) and so forth. The big change in the past decade has been the precipitous fall in Arctic ice. Whether that will lead to major increases in climatic disasters is still unknown.
Not until there is sea level rise of an appreciable amount will we know what is to be done with regard to relocation. At that point decreasing emissions will probably not help, as sea level rise has long inertia.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
You're ignoring the value of real assets
(#283747)buildings, ports, bridges, roads, transit systems, electrical grid, natural gas, etc. etc. Trillions in investments.
I blame it all on the Internet
As a real estate professional,
(#283765)I can't disagree with that more. The value of land is a function of what you're able to do with it. At least, that's how it works here. The value of improvements to the land is easier to quantify. Real people do real work and take real risks to develop land.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
You've made the argument for arbitrary value.
(#283780)And current land value, is exactly that, arbitrary. So don't call it real value.
An example. Here we have a number of ethnic groups who regard their land as literally sacred. How do give value to this belief? How can you give value to it? Underneath their land is bauxite. You can put a value on this resource - cost of extraction, transportation, refining, marketing and profit - x million dollars. That's real value. The land itself has no value, all the value needed to get hold of the land is the cost of one of our Federal military or paramilitary outfits to create an excuse to drive off the ethnic groups who are sitting inconveniently on a resource we all need. This is the standard model for land acquisition perfected over centuries by our Western role models. Unfortunately for us, our elites who decide these things also share the inconvenient belief system about the sacredness of land with these same ethnic groups; that sits uneasily with their recently acquired attitudes to development and progress. It would have been more efficient to have immigrants from alien lands to school them in these things; fortunately the next generation of elites has lived and acquired concepts of development abroad, so we can look to progress on this matter.
To return to my point, modern value systems are created for specific commerial purposes - mining stuff and so forth. The process lasts for, say, 50 years. The company then moves on or out, and their value moves with them. A seaport based industry/city is no different. As sea levels rise (provided they rise slowly, and that is what seems to be happening), the industry and the people who live off it move to another location. The 50-100 year old infrastructure that needed to be upgraded/replaced in any case moves with them. Value moves.
Sea level rise would be a disaster for, say, Venice with its accumulated history. But we have seen how the Western world of scholars and gentlemen treated their own heritage - in the past, and today. And we sit at their feet on these matters. So - some tears will be shed perhaps, but not many, if history is to be judge.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
If land value is arbitrary,
(#283790)then why is the value of any other widget not arbitrary? People assign value to things based on demand and available supply. Land is no different. There is no reason why a "Federal military or paramilitary outfit" would not be able to confiscate any other asset, land included.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Because land is not mobile
(#283793)in the way that other resources are.
This is valid, naturally, because we're discussing the situation with regard to problems with sea level rise (or an area that is prone to drought, or fire - where global warming will have its greatest effect).
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Huh
(#283927)If not mobile, then that would be an argument against it having arbitrary value. If its relative location changes, i.e., waterfront to submerged land, then its value to an owner or investor also. Land has unique characteristics and a unique set of rights, but it has inherent value based on what an owner can do with it, within the constraints of what's legally permissible, physical characteristics and economic viability.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
My point is more philosophical than economic.
(#284023)I'm not arguing that land doesn't have value now. My contention is that this value is not real in the sense of coming into consideration at the time of a relocation.
When the time comes to relocate, (and this is seemingly inevitable, because we are committed to continue on the current emission path) and we count the costs, the value of the seafront land itself will (I reckon) not be considered a major component.
A thought experiment might be useful here. As sea level rises, there is going to be a situation when, with coastal erosion and so forth, it becomes obvious that certain neighbourhoods will become unlivable. At that time, it can be expected that property prices in those areas will fall, the places might become uninsurable leading to a further fall in prices. The residents of the area pack up and leave. Gradually the area becomes unsuitable for habitation and businesses. The infrastructure breaks down from lack of maintenance. Now, provided all these things happen slowly, over a matter of decades, the nominal loss of land value is likely to be less significant.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Scientists?
(#283656)Scientists are talking about CO2. It would take a lot of effort to conceive and run the numbers on various geoengineering approaches, and most scientists have devoted not effort to that. It's considered, rightly, a last resort. But we are probably going to need it.
Also, there is irreversible, and there is irreversible.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
IMO, we have some time
(#283669)because oceanic thermal inertia seems to be stronger than expected, and the paradoxical fact that Chinese coal burn is creating more cooling aerosols than Western clean coal burn. Also, the sun is in a prolonged cooling phase of the insolation cycle, so the temperature trends are in the lower half of the IPCC predictions.
So, some time to allow change.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Two Out of Three
(#283654)I don't think there is anything wrong with space shades (not mirrors, those are for solar power). Well, except that they would be expensive. I mean, if they cool too much, they can quickly be removed, no harm done.
Pumping chemicals into the atmosphere is definitely not an acceptable option. I am less sure about the iron into the ocean approach, but its probably somewhere between not good and awful if done in scale.
Google Earth shows me that there are still plenty of very large dark roofs around the world, not to mention parking lots. It's low hanging fruit to be sure, but that does not mean it should be ignored.
A massive forestation program could work too, centered on urban areas and suburban areas, which in many countries lack vegetation.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
A good explanation about the importance of ice albedos
(#284024)from the Texas State Climatologist
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
"Ocean of Tomorrow" project
(#284032)I first learned about this EU Programme from the Nordic Bulk Carriers site - as soon as the Arctic becomes summer ice free, all the areas' stakeholders are poised to grab a slice of the action. Very very impressive feat.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Amazing new images of Arctic ice melt
(#284462)from the Sea Ice blog
http://s881.photobucket.com/albums/ac16/SteveMDFP/Arctic/?action=view&current=Greenland10daysEndJuly152012.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RauzduvIYog&feature=player_embedded
Michael Tobis reflects on blog science
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Various oscillations conspire
(#285116)to increase the volume of Arctic melt.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Manish- haven't heard from you in several days
(#285373)Makes me wonder whether you're a victim of the power outages.
Ummm, catchy?
(#285380)If Manish has been a victim of the Indian power outages, isn't trying to contact him via blogpost a bit counter-productive?
That said: Manish, if you do have power and Internet, we definitely would appreciate a post!
It's a cry out in the wilderness sort of thing
(#285382).
No we're OK.
(#285450)And there's a diary up.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
2012 will probably rival 2007
(#285747)how interesting is that!
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it