weather adjustment as a society

[burntcopper]

Achieved hat that actually covers my ears and looks halfway decent. Which makes me ponder if this weather (cold winters with snow) continues, how long the UK will take to adjust and take it in stride so everyone just goes 'oh. snow.' without it disrupting transport or work. Problem being that mass (electric) transport/motorways in the UK didn't exist the last time we had regular heavy snow in winter across the country, they only came in *after* the weather started getting warmer, so weren't built to cope with it. Hence why we don't have many snowploughs, wheel chains, or bloody great snowshovels in every garage. My parents are the only people in our street to own a proper snowshovel, and that's because they lived in Oklahoma.

It's relatively easy for individuals to adjust to cosmetic stuff. Since last winter, people are stocking up on more practical clothing and learning what kind of footwear is good for walking on ice and snow. Similar for buying blankets and getting insulation, as well as getting road salt and snowshovels. What I'm pondering is infrastructure. It's all very well to moan about the local councils not having sufficient snowploughs like in Russia, but snow ploughs are seriously expensive, and simply not worth buying if deep snow isn't a regular event. And as for rail, the rail network isn't even built to cope with wet autumns that frost over, or hot summers. Which we've been able to rely on for the last few decades.

So has anyone done any forecasts on how long it would take for society to adjust?

In related news, taking Meg up on her offer of the sofa bed tonight as have theatre expedition tomorrow to Legally Blonde and I don't really want to risk the rail network. last time they had warning, it was screwed. Course, this means I will have to buy clothing and makeup and will probably find that the rail network coped fine... I wouldn't have given a flying fuck and just stayed home if it wasn't for the theatre factor.

Comments

[gmh.livejournal.com]

If you like, I will, though it's really not hard to find any number of fairly in-depth rebuttals of Lomborg's position.

Let's take an easy example from the WSJ article; the model Lomborg cites as costing 12.9% of GDP is by Richard Tol (The Analysis of Mitigation as a Response to Climate Change)

(Which was funded and commissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Center, but that's by-the-by.)

Tol's model is selective to a worrying degree; it takes only the most conservative benefit analyses (e.g. Nordhaus), assumes that nothing ultimately changes until 2100, and then plumps for a CO2 target that is generally associated with a probable global mean surface temperature rise of ~3 deg C; and says effectively 'well, yes, there may be additional effects to deal with (as opposed to the 450 ppm ~2 deg C raise) plans, but I don't think they'll be terribly significant' (See section 2.3: Missing Impacts).

Does the WSJ article mention the revised 550ppm atmospheric CO2 level?

No.

Nor does the Reuters article covering the same press release.

So what it is actually saying is that limiting atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm is likely to cost more than limiting it to 550 ppm. Which is hardly news; but neither is it a fair comparison to the likes of the Stern Report.

But this is where Tol's pick-and-choose approach to the analyses comes in; by choosing the models with the lowest benefits (i.e. the most optimistic models in terms of possible climate change impacts on humanity) he is playing down the potential negative costs of a given temperature scenario - whilst at the same time talking up the hypothetical fiscal efficiency of spending a given sum of money his way.

And yes, if nothing really bad will happen anyway, it makes sense to spend the money as efficiently as possible; but if there is a genuine risk of seriously Bad Stuff happening, then you pay out double if you don't budget for it.

For all of the scenarios outlined, there is a non-zero chance that climate change will cause one or more catastrophic results; I'm talking about (for example) rainfall patterns and the presence of nuclear-armed nations in water-poor areas (such as the Pakistan/India border or the Golan Heights); I'm talking about population pressure on land that is not capable of supporting the level of use humans make of it (like Rwanda).

These are potential costs that Tol does nothing to describe - bar dismissing them as 'relatively small'.

(The Red Cross World Disasters Report 1999 discusses climate-related human costs; alas, it's no longer available online.)

So, to recap: Lomborg is quoting the result from a somewhat selective study that he commissioned and using them to make an apples-to-oranges comparison to policy recommendations coming from Stern and the UN Environment Programme.

Again, Lomborg and Tol are both recommending limiting atmospheric CO2 to 550 ppm. The IPCC recommends a maximum of 450 ppm; and there are a number of scientists such as Hansen arguing for a reduction to 350 ppm to minimise risk to the biosphere.

Now, as you have agreed, Lomborg (and Tol) are not physical scientists. On what basis are they advocating a level of atmospheric CO2 that is a) greater than the IPCC recommendation and b) significantly greater than the stated opinion of James Hansen, who is a physical scientist in the relevant field?

It's getting a bit long; I'll post the Simon reply below.

[mrslant]

You only have to read the opening paragraph of your alleged "in-depth rebuttal" (which gives no indication as to its peer-review status, incidentally) to smell the prejudice: "In 1999 – compelled by the errors and misrepresentations voiced by Bjørn Lomborg, Associate Professor – the Danish Ecological Council published a book intended as a countermove."

Well, that's clearly an entirely unbiased and objective assessment...

Now, as I understand it your argument here is that Lomborg is a liar and a knave because something he wrote in a newspaper article refers to a paper by someone else entirely whose analysis you don't agree with, apparently on the basis that there's a "non-zero chance" of catastrophic results from climate change.

Well, as you know there's a non-zero chance that the sun will explode in the next three seconds, but I can confidently predict that it's not going to happen. There's a non-zero chance of winning the lottery, but it won't be you. In the real world, where people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, we don't make policy based on remote possibilities but on the likely outcomes. Which is exactly what Lomborg does in his book - which, as you seem to be fixated on some article in the WSJ, I presume you haven't read.