Climate: Who's most at risk?
The extraordinary volatility in financial markets over the last few months and years has led many of the world’s leading funds managers to make a fundamental reassessment of risk and opportunity – driven by the rising stress in resource availability, high commodity prices and, of course, soaring debt levels.
A new report by HSBC says these stresses are likely to be multiplied in coming years by the climate factor and need to be taken into account by investment managers and business strategists, particularly as the world seems less capable of limiting global warming to the targeted 2°C. “This is not a distant threat but a present reality,” the bank says, noting the slump in food yields, changes in water availability and the cost of extreme weather events. “Uncertainty surrounding the scale and speed of future impacts mean that climate, food, energy and water risks need to be factored in.”
To help make those assessments, and decide where investment decisions should be directed, the bank has assessed the climate vulnerability of the G-20 countries in terms of their exposure and sensitivity to climate change and its impacts on people, the environment, and key resources such as water, food and energy; as well as their ability and capacity to adapt.
The most vulnerable countries were considered to be India, Indonesia, China, Saudi Arabia and Brazil. The significance of these countries is that they are expected to account for more than one third of global output by 2050. For those making long-term business and investment decisions, HSBC says, “the time for integrating the climate factor has arrived.”
Developed countries, because of their greater financial capacity and stronger governance were considered best placed. Canada, the US, Japan, UK and South Korea topped the list, followed by Australia, which ranked first in the G-20 in its ability to adapt – thanks to its relatively low debt levels – but was also one of the most exposed.
Australia ranked in the mid-table, in terms of climate change exposure and its vulnerability to changing temperatures, water availability and extreme events. Saudi Arabia, India, South Africa and Turkey were considered most vulnerable; Russia, Canada and the US the least vulnerable. Access to water was given a higher rating than temperature and events.
However, Australia was considered to be one of the most impact sensitive, meaning the potential impact on deaths and the cost to GDP of weather events, and the number of people otherwise affected by homelessness and physical injury. Australia’s score was impacted most by its exposure to the cost of damage, which was the second highest after China, slightly ahead of India and Russia, and well above that of other nations.
On the plus side, Australia’s wealth and strong governance meant that it was deemed to rank highest among the G20 in terms of adaptive potential and adaptive capacity – essentially, the ability to climate proof itself. The combined assessment of GDP per capita and the debt-to-GDP ratio put Australia marginally ahead of the UK, with the US, Germany, Japan, South Korea and France trailing further behind. India (by some distance), Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina and Italy were considered to have the least financial potential to adapt.
The adaptive capacity made a judgment on the socio-economic dimensions, measured by the rule of law, corruption and education, according to data from the World Bank. Australia’s combined score put it at the top of the pile again (although Canada is judged to be marginally less corrupt), with Indonesia again faring worst, followed by China, India, South Africa and Saudi Arabia.
Having made this assessment, the HSBC report says the great missing link from macro-economic models is the value of natural capital – and the growing depletion of energy water and agricultural resources which it says remains unrecognised. “We think the value of natural capital will become ever more apparent as resource squeezes impact growth,” the bank says. “Over the medium term, we expect this to be integrated into macro-economic modelling.”
It points to the work done by the UN Environment Program, which found that depreciation in natural capital can be irreversible, unlike capital stocks. And it is difficult, if not impossible, to replace a depleted natural asset with another. The UNEP study found this would be a major drag on economic growth, unless economic growth could be decoupled from resource use by more prudent management. An investment of 2 per cent of global GDP per annum in natural capital would result in GDP growing to $199 trillion by 2050, as opposed to $151 trillion in the business-as-usual case, and use just 1.2 times the global resources, instead of 1.5 to 2.2 times.
However, even without climate change, soaring demand will have dramatic impacts on water, energy and food markets. HSBC says the electrification of transport will be the most attractive long-term option to the anticipated oil crunch, and will likely “turbo-charge” the transition to clean energy.
However, the water shortage is also expected to impact the energy sector as well as the food sector. HSBC notes that nearly 80 per cent of planned thermal power capacity in India is in areas already suffering water shortages. And in the US, energy generation consumes 20 per cent of water not used by agriculture, and irrigated biofuels can consume one thousand times more water than traditional oil drilling.
Water efficiency in energy generation is becoming a critical factor, and run-of-river hydro, wind, and solar PV are emerging as the most water efficient technologies. HSBC says nuclear consumes three times as much water as conventional natural gas, while CCS can consume 30-100 per cent more water.
“Beyond the decarbonisation driver, the climate factor will also impinge on the choice of energy supply options, with key low-carbon options (such as biofuels, CCS and nuclear) considerably more water-intensive than baseload gas, or wind and solar. As water stress deepens with rising population and rising temperatures, resource efficiency, solar and wind are set to become more attractive as energy options.”
HSBC says companies should be thinking about these factors now. Even though the Cancun agreement agreed that global average temperatures should be kept below 2°C above pre-industrial levels – adding that a target of 1.5°C would be considered at a review in 2013 – current policies imply a temperature increase of between 2.5°C to 5°C before the end of the century. As Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency noted earlier this year: “We are only inches away from saying goodbye to 2°C”.
“From a risk perspective, this means that higher rises in temperature, earlier than expected, have to be factored into investment horizons. For example, 2°C warming is now possible from the 2030s and 4°C from the 2060s. Although beyond the time horizons of most investors in global equity markets, for example, these are well within the planning horizons of listed corporations, particularly in core infrastructure sectors such as building, energy, transport and water.”
Comments on this article
In response to Glenn Tamblyn
Thank you for that reference. I have done a quick scan, and I'll read it in detail tonight - it seems very interesting.
I think we have gone beyond the scope of this comment. I would like to have your email address, but given some of the crazies that read these comments, I can understand if you wish not to make your email address public.
I, on the other hand, am just a mere electronic engineer. I have a Bsc/BE, that included 3 years of Advanced Physics, Mathematics, 2 of Comp Sci, and a year of basic chemistry.
The crazies wouldn't be interested in harassing me. Here is my email address:
davidlecomte1954@gmail.com
Please send me an email.
CO2 Data
David
The HiTran spectroscopic database is a broad source of transmissivity and other information for a range gases in the atmosphere. However it is fairly large and technical. Transmissivity and absorbtivity are the complement to each other whereas reflection from gases is minimal - most reflection in the atmosphere is from clouds and aerosols.
There is a good general article on Radiative Heat Transfer in Physics Today by Prof Ray Pierrehumbert here: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
The problem with looking at the atmosphere just in terms of absorbtance/transmittance is that this doesn't take account of other factors - reradiation, collision between molecules transferring energy and causing line broadening and the fact that the very properties being considered vary with temperature and pressure. And gas concentrations vary with altitude as well - H2O is vvery poorly mixed, CO2, NH4, NO2 and sundry gases being well mixed, O3 being particularly concentrated in the stratosphere.
If just Absorptance/Transmittance were enough you might use the Beer-Lambert Law although even that can only be applied to true monochromatic light. One example of how the atmosphere can mislead here - how much of the transmittance is true transmittance as distinct from absorptance and reradiation?
Some clarifications
In response to Glenn Tamblyn:
Thank you for these clarifications.
You have touched on some interesting points which I will pursue in further detail.
An area that I am also interested in finding further quantitave information, is to the relative ratios of transmission, reflection and absorbance of the various GH in the infrared and far-infrared.
Any suggestions?
Thermodynamics - some clarifications
Part 4
So increasing CO2 has 2 effects. In those frequencies where absorption at ground level isn't saturated yet, more CO2 causes more absorption. Then increased CO2 increases the TOA altitude for ALL CO2 frequencies. And since air temperature drops with altitude this means that the air temp at TOA for each frequency drops as TOA rises. Since the INTENSITY of the IR radiated depends on temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, the net result is that across all the CO2 absorption frequencies radiation levels to space are lower - less heat is escaping.
Thermodynamics - some clarifications
Part 3
So IR can only reach space that has been radiated at an altitude where the air is thin enough that its path to space is clear. This altitude is called the Top Of Atmosphere (TOA) altitude and it will be different for differing frequencies, depending on which GH molecules are active at that frequency and what their concentration is. Most of the radiation that we see in the IR spectrum recorded by satellites originates in the upper atmosphere. The original radiation from the surface never made it out directly except for those bands where there is no absorption by anything, the so called atmospheric window. This is only about 10% of the spectrum. All the rest has been interferred with by GH gases.
The TOA is where CO2 and the other GH gases except H2O come into their own compared to H2O. Although H2O is 10 times the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ON AVERAGE at around 4000 ppm (not 40,000, although Sea level concentrations can reach 10,000 to 40,000) compared to 392 ppm for CO2, its concentration drops markedly with altitude. By the time you reach the lower Stratosphere H2O is 5-10 ppm while CO2 is still 392. So up high H2O has MUCH less effect. Also the effects of line broadening drop off markedly at this altitude, the lines are much sharper and they don't interfere with each other at all. So CO2's impact is much higher than you might think because its effect dominates far more at TOA.
Thermodynamics - some clarifications
Part 2
But it doesn't stop there. As soon as any molecule has absorbed some IR it can immediately start to loose that energy again. And the principle process in this is collisions. A more energised molecule collides with many other molecules around it and it's increased energy gets 'spread around' all those other molecules. Any molecule near sea level will experience several billion collisions per second. In contrast the time delay before a molecule that has absorbed a photon is likely to re-radiate it is of the order of several milli-seconds. So a ,molecule will have millions of collisions before it can get around to re-radiating.
The net effect is a general warming of all the atmosphere where the absorption occurred. And ALL the molecules in the atmosphere, not just the GH ones will then tend to radiate more IR, at frequencies determined by the air temperature. And this in turn may be re absorbed by other GH molecules.
The net effect is that in frequencies where any of the GH gases are saturated, the atmosphere is essentially opaque. A bit like a cloud; inside it you can see the ground if you are low enough, and you can see the sky if you are high enough. But in between it is all just like cloud.
Thermodynamics - some clarifications.
cowan
9.2720
Normal
0
Part 1
CO2 is estimated to contribute around 1/5 of the GH effect, clouds 1/4, H2O 1/2 and other gases the remnant.
Both Trevor and David's descriptions aren't quite accurate,
There is some overlap between the avbsorption bands of CO2 & Water. However, within these bands their are 100's of separate discrete single absorption lines - the broad graphs often shown of their absorption spectra don't show this fine detail. So many of their lines may be in the same region but their individual lines don't clash - like sliding the teeth of 2 combs together.
However an additional factor is what is called 'line briadening' At higher atmospheric pressures and temperatures these individual lines get broadened, smeared out a bit rather than sharp. This is due to the increased collision rates between molecules in the atmosphere at higher pressures and increased doppler shift of the line frequencies due to the higher speed of molecules at higher temps.
So at low altitude there is more overlap between some parts of the CO2 & H2O absorption. But their are still frequencies where more absorption is possible even if the central frequencies have absorbed all that is available.
Water vapor concentrations are not uniform
The solubility of CO2 in air is not dependent on pressure or temperature or climate. CO2 released from a power station, or as Pilmer indicates, from magma, diffuses quite rapidly into the global atmosphere.
Ozone is created by bombardment of O2 by cosmic particles, and it decays back to O2, so it is concentrated in the upper atmosphere. The primary benefit we have from ozone is that it blocks UV-B, as well as reflecting some infra-red spectrum.
The solubility of water in air is highly dependent on temperature. The maximum amount of water that air can dissolve at 33C is 100 times more than at -27C.
Approximately there is 10C drop for every kilometre of altitude, but there is also a 2C drop in the dew point for each kilometre. So, despite the effective increase in the solubility of water vapour with altitude, due to the drop in pressure, it is reduced 5-fold by the drop in temperature.
Thus, there is virtually no water vapour in the air above about 6km. There is still a lot of atmosphere above that.
CO2 absorbs little infra-red radiation; it is like glass, it reflects it. Water vapour though, especially for far-infrared, absorbs the radiation. Now an absorber of radiation has to also emit radiation. So the water dissolved in the lower atmosphere re-radiates energy both down, and up.
The infra-red energy radiated up, is then reflected back by the CO2, and is re-absorbed by water vapor, or in arid regions, the eath's surface.
.......thermodynamics PART 2....
Also , the CO2 ( carbon dioxide) absorption spectrum is shared with the H2O ( water vapour) absorption spectrum which OVERLAPS it by a considerable margin.
Since there is disproportionally so much water-vapour ( 100 times as much ) and so little CO2 it seems improbable that the ALL the water-vapour will be saturated with radiative energy and that the CO2 will therefore be able to avail itself of much energy at all.
The quoted 20 % warming attributed to CO2 , therefore ,seems to me to be a gross exaggeration & I can't follow the argument that increasing the CO2 level can have any effect when there is so much more water vapour (not saturated with radiation) available to absorb it instead.
Since infra-red radiation is part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum it moves at the speed of light , so this warming & re-radiation will be almost instantaneous , with most being re-radiated back into space extremely quickly , especially once the Sun "sets" (as well as continuously during the day) .So how it can be assumed to accumulate heat on a continually increasing basis is beyond me !. This is where "the science" is called into question.
Natural global-warming I completely go along with , otherwise we would still have wooly mammoths & most of the Earth beneath glaciers & ice-sheets. However , to me , AGW , is looking like a complete scam !
David , I would welcome your evaluation & opinion.
ps. Like you , I haven't been able to convince anyone to 'fund' me to the extent of a salubrious water-front property either !
.....thermodynamics (evaluate please David leComte )
I understand that about a half the available Sun's heat-energy makes it to the Earth's surface { which roughly tallies with your 30 % reflected & 23 % absorbed by the atmosphere ( including ozone & water vapour & carbon dioxide)}.
The fact that the atmosphere & the Earth then re-radiate the Sun's energy back into space allows the air & Earth to cool at night. The narrow absorption spectrum for CO2 & Ozone & the broad spectrum for water vapour (for both absorption & re-radiation) indicates that the principle warming , & subsequent cooling , is due to water vapour.
There is about 4% ( or 40,000 ppm ) of water vapour ( on average ) & about 100 times less CO2 at 0.04% ( 400 ppm ..approximately ) with a much narrower absorption spectrum & yet about 20% of the warming is attributed to CO2............. I find this hard to accept.
Also, as a 'body' is heated it radiates heat away at a faster rate than a colder 'body' , so it seems dificult to accept that global warming can ever reach the "alarmist forecast" temperatures predicted by the IPCC & Gore & Co .
Increased heat also produces increased water evaporation ( & cooling) & lifting the hot(lighter) vapour higher into the atmosphere where it can more effectively radiate the heat back into space & also condense (give off it's latent heat of vapourisation) to form more cloud-cover to reflect more sunlight back into space also producing more cooling.
So , to my mind , the temperature has to be constrained within pretty narrow upper & lower limits by water-vapour alone.
Excellent Contributions
Great to see that people that actually know what they are talking about also contribute to these pages. This certainly beats the (probably) well meaning, Alan Jones inspired, self taught "experts" that have a habit of demonstrating how little they actually know. Amazing how quiet they get once a substantiated and scientific reply to their "wisdom" is provided.
Attention Peter Lang: sea level rise by 2100 will not be modest
Peter Lang, note that David leComte's balanced comment is based on IPCC 2007 projections (~3.1 mm/yr). Mind you, even that represents an acceleration on the (Antediluvian?) value of 2 mm/yr over the last 150 years that you report.
When the IPCC did that report, there wasn't much information around about icesheet melting, so there wasn't much they could do beyond make estimates based on ocean thermal expansion.
Since then, initial estimates of the acceleration of ice sheet melting have been published. From Rignot et al, "Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise", Geophys Res Letters (v38) L05503, doi:10.1029/2011GL046583, 2011, an estimate of 1.6m sea level rise by 2100 can be made, and extrapolated to 7m sea level rise by 2200. That's Tim Flannery territory.
Note that Rignot et al looked at Greenland and West Antarctica only. The much larger East Antarctica icesheet is another matter again.
Following on from David
The value in looking at what the total possible impact on sealevel rise and not only on projected sea level rise with current scenarios is that it demonstrates that there is always and "even worse" scenario. Unless negative feedbacks exceed positive feedbacks then any delay in addressing the business as usual case, and every tonne of carbon emitted that could have been prevented, has a potential future impact and sea level rise is one of those consequences.
So while it is disingeneous now to say that sea levels will definitely rise 70 meters, it is fair to say that if we continue to increase greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, then it is possible that average temperatures at the poles could eventually result in the melting of all the land ice, and that water in the oceans would expand, and then its just a matter of calculating that. So IF the Greenland ice sheet goes, IIRC that's meant to be 20 feet sea level increase. Any reductions we achieve now are worth it if they reduce the probability of that happening, and are probably cheaper than the cost of a world with 20 feet of extra sea level. That's why it is invalid to argue that Australian efforts to reduce emissions are pointless. Every bit will count.
Maybe Tim and Al are optimistic about the world coming to its senses and that's reflected in their housing choices?
Without +ve feedback, sea level rises by 2100 may be modest
In response to Peter Lang:
The IPCC states only that the current underlying rate is 3.1mm/year.
It is noted that the rate of increase in the melting rate of Greenland ice is around 25 Gt/year. If this rate of increase is maintained, sea level rises might be of the order of 0.8m by 2100. If Greenland ice sheet melting stopped, as well as Antarctic ice sheet melting, then it would only be an increase of 0.3m. (primarily due to thermal expansion of the oceans)
Either scenario spells doom for some small Pacific islands, and some of the islands in the Maldives.
But there are models that indicate that as Siberian Tundra ice melts, and the Arctic ice sheet finally melts, then the earth's overall reflectivity decreases. Thus the rate of warming will increase. Ie positive feedback.
It is useful to discuss such eventualities. It is not prudent though to make claims that these things will happen, only that they are (very) possible.
In the mean time, at least in what can be expected of my lifetime (at 57, maybe another 25 years?), I would very much like to own a waterside property. Since I wont be around, in 2050, I wouldn't really care if it is swamped by a storm in a King tide around that time.
Without the means to purchase such a waterfront property, I am left to only fantasise about the fortunes of people such as Mr Gore and Professor Flannery.
Using electrical energy to do work doesn't affect entropy
In response to Joseph Ellul
Converting kinetic energy (wind) into electrical energy, and thence into heat is converting kinetic energy to electric potential, and back into making atoms vibrate (heat) which is just kinetic energy in a different form. There is no inherent energy loss (or entropy gain).
Converting trapped chemical energy into heat, releases energy into the troposhere that would otherwise not be released.
At present the burning of coal is only about 40% efficient due to Carnot cycle limitations. The other 60% is released as heat directly, and the rest as heat when we consume the electricity. This amount of heat, though, is, at this stage, irrelevant. The amount of heat absorbed by the atmosphere and the earth's surface from the sun, is many orders of magnitude larger.
The principle effect of burning fossil fuels is simply the increase in CO2. This traps more infra-red energy, whilst allowing as much visible light through as before. To remain in statis, the average temperature of the troposhere must increase, so as to balance the average energy arriving from the sun, to the energy radiated.
Warming cannot be measured over a short period
In response to Richard Kleeman:
The current warming rate is only 0.016K/year +/- 0.002K
The year to year variance is dwarfed by the diurnal variance, the solar cyle (approx 11 years), and the Southern Oscillation Index.
The randomness of local weather patterns make the measurement of average temperatures in one location meaningless.
The usual averaging periods are 5 years, and 10 years, and the collection areas are the whole of the earth.
No climate scientist would state that a single weather event indicates anything. It can just as easily be explained by natural weather variances.
Ill-informed comments are made by many people. They are made by those who accept AGW as well as those who do not.
It is valid though, to point to an increase in extreme weather events, when such an increase is observed over the whole world, and over a period of at least 10 years.
Its all about thermodynamics
In response to Richard Kleeman.
Hot bodies radiate energy at higher wavelengths than cooler bodies.
The sun has surface temperatures around 5800K. The peak energy is transmitted in the middle of the visible light band. The earth's atmosphere allows the visible light band through. About 30% of the energy is reflected. Of what is not reflected, about 23% is absorbed by the atmosphere and converted to heat. The other 73% makes it to the surface.
The atmosphere and the surface re-radiate infra-red energy, whose peak wavelengths are in the far-infrared and infra red bands.
Part of what keeps the earth warm is the fact that the atmosphere reflects and "traps" some bands in the infra-red region. If this opacity in some infra-red bands decreases or increases, then the amount of infra-red energy trapped decreases or increases.
To satisfy statis, the energy emitted from the earth must equal the energy received. If we block infra-red energy, then the troposhere will increase its average temperature. This increases the amount of infra-red energy radiated, to re-establish statis. If we trap less infra-red energy, then the average temperature of the troposhere will fall.
CO2 is not a heat source - it simply acts like a sheet of glass, allowing light energy to pass through, but reflecting some infra-red energy - hence the term "greenhouse effect". Increasing CO2 levels is analogous to making the glass in the greenhouse thicker. Light still passes through, but more infra-red energy is trapped.
What is most at risk
You do not get it!!! You are using energy that is generated from high cost utilities. Also high cost replacement value.
Thus the negative efficiency.
Also, remember that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So, by transforming wind and sun energy into electricity you would be changing the flow of natural energy. Mix that in your formulae.
Keith, Lots of
Keith,
Lots of measurements by the Weather Bureau are not accurate and their forecasts sometimes are quite bad - I'm not talking days ahead which is difficult, but in real time when they get it wrong by not looking outside but rely on models. They were wrong with Yasi which was only a Cat 3 cyclone and not Cat 5. The centre pressure was not low enough, the highest gust at Lucinda was only Cat three strength and Innisfail only 18 n.ms from the eye wall suffered minimal damage. A March 3rd severe storm warning for the Brisbane Valley was totally wrong and at odds with their own aviation forecast. My main point is that there is no average weather or temperature and with their forecasting abilities they cannot predict what temperature would be in the future. You can get higher average temperatures with lower maximums and slightly higher minimums - what does it prove?There have been temperature changes of up to 27C in ten minutes in parts of the world. The frontal systems and highs and lows are the cause.
Richard Kleeman
taking action on +4C
Hi David,
Sad thing about this is that while we've created this mess, we have the capacity to fix it.
We don't have to consign ourselves to the scrap heap.
measuring temperature
Hi Richard,
While I defer to your personal experience, the fact is that temperature is regularly measured by Met bureaus, NASA etc around the world. Graphs are regularly produced that indicate deviations from the norm, using colours to indicate warmer or cooler. Fact is that late last year a new colour was added to the palette to indicate temperatures ABOVE +10C in the Arctic. Unfortunately it is happening now, so this isn't a vague projection about the future.
2degrees or 4 degrees
To Keith Williams, why not just pray for a temperature drop, that's what religious cranks always tried in times gone by.
Warming - Winners & Losers
Life as a whole may win under a 2 to 4 degs warming. The obvious winners will be algae, bacteria, viruses, fungi, insects and probably cold blooded animals (we may even get some large reptiles again - cool).
Mammals generally prosper through cold periods, as bacteria, virus, fungi and cold blodded animals seem to like mammals.
The planet will survive and will eventually decarbonise through a replication of the massive aglae blooms which created much of the middle east oil we concume today..
So yes there will be life - But not as we no it....
What's missing in all the
What's missing in all the discussion on temperature is a knowledge of the weather. There is no such thing as average temperature, other than as a mathematical statistic. The temperature is changing all the time at every location at every level in the atmosphere due to wind direction, surface heat, altitude, pressure and weather systems. You can often see the temperature below the so called average for more than 15 hours of the day and of course the other way round. From the experience of 46 years in aviation and operating in the weather from sea level up to 40,000' I can say that it is cooler now than forty years ago. We are not getting the severe storms of the 1970's when thunderstorms had tops to 65,000' and 70,000' - they are never that high now because the heat is not there to cause the vertical development. We have never come close to reaching the highest temperature recorded at Cloncurry of 53C in 1889. The temperature we experience every day is caused by the pressure systems and the type of surface that the airflow travels over. The high summer temperatures often experienced in Victoria and South Australia are caused by highs sitting off the east coast and the air travelling across Queensland and down through the centre of Australia passing over hot land surfaces. No gas in the atmosphere CAUSES heat - they don't have an energy source.
Richard Kleeman
problems about +4C
Peter,
The issue about +4C is not what happens on most days or indeed holidays. Like a fever at 41C, it is the acute issues that are lethal. The experts say (recent, July 2011, international conference on +4C in Melbourne) slightly more warming in summer than winter in Australia, with increases in extreme high temperatures, extreme rainfall (floods), extreme fire, increased cyclones & sea level rise (melted poles mean 70metre sea level rise). Most of Australia will experience extreme temperatures of over 50C. Oceans will be warmer, more acidic & less oxygenated. +4C global average means +16C in the Arctic. If these sound dramatic it is because they are.
All very well to say warm weather is nice and cold is unpleasant. It is the critical times that make the world less habitable.
David Arthur - innundation claims
David Arthur,
The government's climate propoganda person, Tim Flannery, made claims about 8 story high wall of water as sea level rises. He recently bought a house near sea level on the coast.
Al Gore scares people about sea level rise. He recently bought a multi-million dolar house on the coast.
These alarmists aren't concerned about sea levle rise!
Sea level has been riseing at 2 mm per year for the past 150 years. It's imperceptable. Even if the rate increases to 4 mm per year (40 mm per decade) (the central IPCC projection), so what? We adapt.
What is the point of implementing economy damaging policies. The tax won't change the rate of sea level rise. But it will make us less able to adapt.
Perth to Sydney commuting
"Consider going from Penrith to Sydney and back to your work place using a pushbike compared to using a train. "
No need to go by pushbike; with a trans-Nullarbor HV DC transmission link, connecting Nullarbor solar thermal and Bight coast wind turbine generators to Eastern States and WA grids, PLUS powering a trans-continental High Speed rail service, we'll already have emission-free commuting.
At that time, we can all do the Perth-Sydney bike ride for recreation.
The world will avoid 2 deg C warming.
The world will avoid a 2 deg C warming, because there is a hell of a lot of ice ready to melt right now.
Sea level rise will inundate much of humanity's climate-affecting infrastructure, and alert us to the fact that we need to stop emitting CO2 sooner rather than later.
Joel - no contradiction.
Joel, If you would read the papers you'd see there is no contradiction. I am arguing to improve the economy not damage it. I am arguing to reduce emissions in a 'no regrets' way. It can be done. But not while we maintain the ant-nuke policies. That's what we need to get over. 50 years of anti nuke activism and scaremongering has resulted in emissions being 10% to 20% higher now than they would otherwise have been, nuclear being far more costly and less safe than if development had been allowed to proceed. If not for 50 years of anti-nuke we'd now be have lower emisisons and be on a trajectory to cut emissions far more quickly than we are.
My comments about the How bad is warming is to question the extremistss exaggerated claims, alarmism and scaremongering,
Climate: Who's most at risk
This carbon trading and taxing is about transfering the wealth of the middle class into the hands of the new socialistic governments so as to cover up their long term mistakes in managing the wealth of their nations. Oil, coal and gas are and will remain a good supplier of energy for many years to come. When the time comes to move into other energy, technology will be far more advanced and the transition can be made easier. At the moment humanity can ill afford all the waste in energy to move into less efficient energy suppliers.
Consider going from Penrith to Sydney and back to your work place using a pushbike compared to using a train. Where is the efficiency? By the time you arrive to work it would almost be time to go back apart from being buggered.
Anyway, it is due to this renewable energy that Spain is broke. The government there is subsidising renewables big time and most industries are leaving due to heavy taxes and work rules.
It seems that J Gillard and W Swan are in the arena throwing darts at the bull. I hope they miss with the blade.