Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"

[jbg]

If your are going into battle (especially naked--others have addressed that well, but note that temperatures Romans from southern Europe would have found cold, native northerners may not have found to be so chilly as to require much if any added clothing), you pretty much knew that you were going to get various woulds of various levels of severity, so why not pre-treat them?

Remember, back in the day climate control was not particularly good.  People may well have functioned better within a wider temperature range. Though I am a skeptic I don't think the dress, or lack thereof, of warriors evidences anything.

Perhaps we could find a vat that we could dip certain posters in that would make them come out talking sense??

In general, on the troll issue, I'm with JimD.

If you're referring to me,I am hardly a troll.

[Sigmetnow]

“The era of climate change denial is over”

This article in the Guardian suggests that politicians who flatly reject climate science are being replaced by climate policy skeptics.

“Many have begun to adopt a so-called "lukewarmer" position, which means they now accept the basics of climate science but don't think it's worth investing heavily today to prevent or limit a problem that will increasingly hit home in the decades ahead.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/aug/28/era-climate-change-denial-over

The article links to an amusing video, “The Climate Name Change,” which calls for future hurricanes to be named after prominent climate change skeptics.

And there’s even a petition:
http://climatenamechange.org/#

It’s more about calling out the skeptics than changing names of storms.  But it’s another sign the tide may be shifting a bit.

[FLwolverine]

Hello, everyone - I have been reading different threads in the Forum for several months but have just registered, mainly so I could thank Ned W for his post in reply #105:

"It might be helpful for you to think a bit more logically about the statement "I don't believe in AGW".  Among scientists, what you call "AGW" is simply the net result of the following chain of concepts:
............."

I posted your entire list, with attribution, at Dr Ricky Rood's climate change blog on WeatherUnderground, and people have used it several times to confront deniers, both on Dr Rood's blog and on Jeff Masters' main blog.  Of course none of them has a good response (one said that he didn't have time to research things that were false),  but I think it helps others (especially on Dr Masters' blog) who haven't thought much about the issue to see that the deniers have nothing substantive to say.

I hope that repeating your post was ok.  It was too good not to share.

Thank you again, and thank you to everyone else for the information and the thoughtful discussion.

Back to lurking.

[wili]

FLW, please don't just lurk, but keep participating!

And would you mind reposting Ned's useful list here again to save us lazy folks the trouble of combing through old posts to find it?

Thanks ahead of time.

[Sigmetnow]

willi, I had the same thought; here’s the quote.  (Helpful side note: You can click on a member’s name and bring up all their posts....)

It might be helpful for you to think a bit more logically about the statement "I don't believe in AGW".  Among scientists, what you call "AGW" is simply the net result of the following chain of concepts:

• Humans burn fossil fuels.
• Burning fossil fuels produces CO2 [currently ~9.5 Pg C per year].
• About half of that CO2 remains in the atmosphere [the "airborne fraction"].
• Adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises its concentration in the atmosphere [currently ~400 ppmv].
• CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs longwave infrared radiation.
• The earth's energy budget is determined by the balance between absorbed shortwave solar radiation minus emitted longwave infrared radiation.
• In the absence of positive or negative feedbacks, increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reduces outgoing longwave radiation and raises the temperature by 1C per doubling.
• This pre-feedback climate sensitivity will be reduced by negative feedbacks and increased by positive feedbacks.  It can only be reduced to ~0 if the net effect of all feedbacks is sufficiently negative to stabilize climate in the face of forcings.
• The record of past climate changes (e.g., glacial/interglacial cycles) shows that net feedbacks within the earth system are not sufficiently negative to prevent large swings in climate.

Every one of these is well established, from chemistry or physics in the case of steps 2 through 8, or from the geosciences in steps 1 and 9.  Add them all up and you have "AGW".

So ... which specific part of the process do you "disbelieve"?

• Do you not believe that humans are burning fossil fuels?
• Do you not believe that burning fossil fuels produces CO2?
• Do you not believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its concentration in the atmosphere?
• ...
• Do you not believe in the existence of glacial/interglacial climate variability?

Saying "I don't believe in AGW" may be comforting, but it marks you as scientifically illiterate.

Thank you, Ned W!

[wili]

Thanks S (and of course Ned!). Good to see that there is at least one poster that is not as utterly lazy as I am.

These are quite useful, and close to how I sometimes boil down the issue.

I tend to boil it down even further to:

1. Humans are putting about 10 billion tons of C (+~ 35 billion tons  of CO2) into the atmosphere, mostly by burning fossil "death" fuels, and have been building up to this level of emissions since the industrial revolution (the total coming to about 1 trillion tons of CO2 emitted, though about half of that has dissolved in the ocean, which has thus been acidifying, but that's a whole other discussion). 

2. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from around 280 ppm before we started burning ff to about 400 today (with even higher rates of increase for methane, from about 700ppb to nearly 2000ppb today, though from much smaller initial levels).

3. CO2 is a GHG (established over 100 years ago) that traps heat close to the earth--the more there is in the atmosphere, the hotter the atmosphere is going to be

4. The atmosphere (and oceans) are in fact warming, by about 1.5 degree  F (~.8 degree C) so far.

I point out that none of these facts are the least bit controversial in science (or almost anywhere else except the most rabidly unscientific denialist blogs), and then I ask, "Which of these dots do you find hard to connect."

I find that this usually leaves people (unless they are completely bone-headed, which is all to frequent) just arguing sensitivity issues; which of course are so technical that you really have to turn to experts in the field for evaluating it; which, when you do, you find that essentially everyone agrees that it's about 3 degrees C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels +/- a degree or so.

[Vergent]

Well, yanno, consumption of double-edged razor blades is not totally independent of what we're talking about. You just don't get it, do you?

This is beginning to read more like religion than science.

Well, you don't seem to want to talk about science.  Earlier in this thread I posted this handy summary of the science of AGW.  Your only response was a snide comment about various places having been warmer or stormier at particular times in the past.

Until you can answer the following, you have no business lecturing anyone about science:

It might be helpful for you to think a bit more logically about the statement "I don't believe in AGW".  Among scientists, what you call "AGW" is simply the net result of the following chain of concepts:

• Humans burn fossil fuels.
• Burning fossil fuels produces CO2 [currently ~9.5 Pg C per year].
• About half of that CO2 remains in the atmosphere [the "airborne fraction"].
• Adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises its concentration in the atmosphere [currently ~400 ppmv].
• CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs longwave infrared radiation.
• The earth's energy budget is determined by the balance between absorbed shortwave solar radiation minus emitted longwave infrared radiation.
• In the absence of positive or negative feedbacks, increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reduces outgoing longwave radiation and raises the temperature by 1C per doubling.
• This pre-feedback climate sensitivity will be reduced by negative feedbacks and increased by positive feedbacks.  It can only be reduced to ~0 if the net effect of all feedbacks is sufficiently negative to stabilize climate in the face of forcings.
• The record of past climate changes (e.g., glacial/interglacial cycles) shows that net feedbacks within the earth system are not sufficiently negative to prevent large swings in climate.

Every one of these is well established, from chemistry or physics in the case of steps 2 through 8, or from the geosciences in steps 1 and 9.  Add them all up and you have "AGW".

So ... which specific part of the process do you "disbelieve"?

• Do you not believe that humans are burning fossil fuels?
• Do you not believe that burning fossil fuels produces CO2?
• Do you not believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its concentration in the atmosphere?
• Do you not believe in the existence of glacial/interglacial climate variability?

For once try thinking about things systematically, please.  That is what science is all about.

Wili,

Well worth re-quoting in full. The religion part is important.

In the end, I think the root cause of the denial is the belief that "God" is the cause of all things. All deaths are part of "Gods plan". To believe that man could be the root cause of the new climate is to be impious, to be evil. This is a core, unchangeable, unchallenged belief system. It is enforced with the threat of social and familial rejection.

I experienced this rejection myself over at American Weather. I had wanted to post that Hurricane Sandy's victims, were victims of climate change. When the cause of death list came out, I found that I could not do so. Far too many of them died for causes due to their own behavior, or failure to act in their own behalf. I believe it is important to learn the lessons of the past to guide behavior in the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/17/nyregion/hurricane-sandy-map.html?_r=0

The article came out on Nov. 17, out of respect for the grieving, I waited till Dec. 22, to post a topic. I was instantly given two warning points and banned. I had not broken forum rules. I was banned for the impiety of suggesting that these deaths were something other than "God's plan". In times gone by, I would have been burned at the stake.

My banning caused a stir over there, it was clearly outside of the rules. I was half expecting to be unbanned. But the rules lost.

We provided this space to keep the weather side free of what is a divisive issue.   It is now up to you and your behavior to determine if you want this forum to remain or be closed...  From today going forward, this forum will be heavily moderated and the moderator given sole authority to edit, delete a post and remove/ban a poster.   Regular forum rules will NOT apply here and there will be no warnings. 

Ex-post-facto, they changed the rules to make my banning legal. AGW challenges their core belief system in the same way my topic did. They quarantine the discussion so they can ignore it.

Vergent

[jbg]

I experienced this rejection myself over at American Weather. I had wanted to post that Hurricane Sandy's victims, were victims of climate change. When the cause of death list came out, I found that I could not do so. Far too many of them died for causes due to their own behavior, or failure to act in their own behalf. I believe it is important to learn the lessons of the past to guide behavior in the future.

Vergent

While you and I may not agree on the merits of this issue I certainly don't agree with your being  banned. Is this at www.americanwx.com ? If so what is your user name? Should I make inquiry about unbanning on your behalf?

I note that I have not been banned here despite my highly critical views.  I think you should be accorded the same courtesies based on what you are saying.

[Vergent]

jbg,

I was posting over there as Vergent in the climate change forum. You can find through "this is not good" a topic I started that is the fourth most viewed topic in the forum, so sorting the topics by most viewed will bring it right to the top. If you go to my profile and select the topics I started, you will find some interesting things.

Yes, that's the place, and no bringing it will probably get you banned. It was thoroughly hashed out and the deniers won. I have no desire to post over there since ASIF opened up. They have closed the forum from the search engines, you have to be a member to browse. The CC forum over there is just an excuse to separate AGW from the weather discussions. There is not a single meteorologist over there that has shown serious concern about CAGW. They are not open to any proof. The Met that banned me and I had a disagreement regarding GAC-12 before the fact. I was right. He was embarrassed about that, a non-Met being right about the storm. He had mocked  me for not bowing to the wisdom of the meteorologist and thanking them for correcting me in my "errant" post. Then to hes horror, the storm behaved exactly as I has predicted. After banning me he went back and deleted the whole discussion. So I figure that was what it was about. Impiety and lack of respect for his meteorological awesomeness, and being right when he was wrong in his subject of study.

I was posting over there because I had figured out that with an ice free arctic the Earth's weather would be a strongly dominated by a persistent arctic cyclone, and that this in fact was the ice age weather pattern. This causes the trade winds to reverse and get stronger. We get a strongly banded weather like Saturn, only not so many bands.

There is good supporting evidence for this in the form of erosion patterns on volcanoes, the Greenland ice cores, and the pattern of glaciation during the ice age.  So, I am posting over there expecting persistent strong summer cyclones. I was hoping to get the Mets to seriously consider the weather consequences of an ice free arctic. Not one of them has been convinced that this will happen in their life time.

I have given up all hope that there will be any preparation for the coming storm. Mankind will get dumped on. Above 60N, as I see it the north and western sides of mountains and ranges is the danger zone. Below 60N, the southern and eastern sides are in danger. If I live near an ice age glacier, I would relocate. Below 40N, it reverses again. but the danger is greatly reduced.

This storm is Earth's backup air conditioner. It may also scrub out CO2 at an accelerating rate. I expect it to blow for a few years(judging by the ice cores). It will restore the albedo in the Northern hemisphere, cooling things off for a while.

What I now envision is not as bad as abrupt sea level rise or an arctic methane emergency. Seriously respected scientists are raising these alarms without getting a serious response from governments. So, I no longer feel compelled to communicate my concerns, It would be pointless. I do not know "when or how bad". All I can say is soon, and not good.

Vergent

[wili]

Well, you got my attention.

"Seriously respected scientists are raising these alarms"

Can you provide links to a few, so when I bring it up with others, I can have something to back the claims up with?

[Vergent]

http://www.ameg.me/

On the SLR I bow to AbruptSLR, he has been posting lots of links to peer reviewed. Or, try this google scholar search;

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=west+antarctic+ice+shelf+stability

Vergent

[Sigmetnow]

Denial in Russia

The Moscow Times writes about President Vladimir Putin’s visit to the flood-ravaged Khabarovsk region.  Rains there in July and August surpassed the annual average and created the worst flood in more than a century. 

Although the article is titled “Ecologists Link Far East Floods to Global Warming,” a popular opinion appears to be: “needs more study”.  The government is said to “favor business over environment.” 

So, do they believe the floods are tied to global warming?  Perhaps the most alarmist statement of the article came from Svetlana Ageyeva, head of the meteorological center in the Khabarovsk region, who said,  "I would not laugh at those who say such things."

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/ecologists-link-far-east-floods-to-global-warming/485273.html

[wili]

Sorry, V. I picked the wrong phrase to copy. What I was interested in was links about the idea that there would be a persistent/permanent cyclone over the Arctic and strongly banded, Saturn-like weather patterns.

[JimD]

(Originally posted in the Super-Chimney tread and moved to get more on topic)

ccg

Another reason that geoengineering concepts resonate with a big percentage of people (I actually think this crosses political lines pretty thoroughly) is that there is a matching religion aspect to it.

Note that amongst conservatives (as you mentioned) there is a ready acceptance of geoengineering just as there is a strong orientation to BAU approaches.  The left tends to complement this conservative BAU approach by supporting what I frequently call Progressive-BAU approaches.  The intersection of these two viewpoints is their reliance on technical progress.

When examined in detail since the advent on the industrial revolution modern civilization has come to view Progress in a religious sense.  If your proposed approach to dealing with a problem fits nicely into the publics religious views then you are 80% there in terms of getting them to accept your ideas.  So, not only do the conservatives use this tactic to manipulate the public, so do the Progressives, as it fits their views as well and should appeal to the general populace which listens to them.

This reliance on the religion of Progress by many of those who propose solutions from the left of the political spectrum is one reason why I am so negative on their approaches.  It is not just that a studied review of the facts of our troubles and the trends observable would indicate that their solutions have no chance of working, but also that they do not realize that their structure of the approach to a solution is based upon the  very same foundation that their supposed opposition uses.  Not a plan that will have much chance of success.  How are you going to out religion your opposition when you are using the same religion they are.  Best case will just be a schism and a stalemate. 

One of the great arguments used by our opposition is that environmentalism (and by implicit inclusion green approaches, climate change belief, etc) are just a new form of religion.  They use this viewpoint to attack science (just another religion that is a competitor to your religion) as well.  These are very effective arguments to use to influence the general public.  If what is going on can be  sold as a religious fight you have just made it fiendishly difficult for your opponents to reach out and  make an impact on the thought processes of your supporters.

When you have a public which is so uneducated as we have here in the US it becomes very easy for this situation to arise and very difficult to overcome it.  Rational scientific thought based upon looking at the facts and applying the laws of physics doesn't resonate with people who believe that you are arguing from a religious perspective.  Since they do not understand the methods of science nor have any command of the facts how are you going to impact and change their thought processes?  Bringing rational thought to a religious discussion is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

This is a big subject and very complex.  I have gained this understanding over the last few years by being a  regular reader of the blog The Archdruid Report written by John Michael Geer.  If you are not familiar with this blog I highly recommend it as Geer is one of the preeminent writers of our day and an accomplished intellect (in my opinion he has a world class mind).  He does not go into Druidry in any sense (he does that pretty much elsewhere) and the blog is more his running commentary on the state of the world and what causes us to be so f'ed up.  I have read everything he has written on the blog (several weeks of straight reading at this point) and have come to accept his descriptions of that Progress and technology have become the dominant religion of our times.

He has a firm belief in our eventual collapse and goes into some pretty involved reasoning to make his point.  He sees no way out  in terms of trying to maintain our current level of complex civilizational structure though he is fairly optimistic about our long-term survival.  I have some disagreements with him about timing and the depth of collapse at different stages but overall we are in agreement on what will likely transpire in the future.

 

[wili]

More on the "Religion of Progress" here:

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-sense-of-homecoming.html

[wili]

There was some...vibrant  discussion here a little ways back about what the relative likelihood of temps approaching or exceeding 6 degrees C by about the end of the century. Here's a new (to me) study on the matter, linked from an article in the Guardian, which latter source I will quote first:

One early study which attempted to model the potential impact of amplifying feedbacks by scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley, found that the IPCC's worst case scenario for fossil fuel emissions projecting a rise of 6C by 2100 could be too low.

(My emphases.)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/sep/18/climate-change-double-impact-study

And from the study itself:

A rigorous investigation of the uncertainties in climate change prediction reveals that there is a higher risk that we will experience more severe, not less severe, climate change than is currently forecast.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248.htm

[JimD]

Hi Wili

I remember that discussion.  Let's see what we can find out.

The papers abstract says (bold mine).  The whole paper is paywalled still and from 2006 and we are talking about IPCC AR3 from 2001..

Historical evidence shows that atmospheric greenhouse gas (GhG) concentrations increase during periods of warming, implying a positive feedback to future climate change. We quantified this feedback for CO2 and CH4 by combining the mathematics of feedback with empirical ice-core information and general circulation model (GCM) climate sensitivity, finding that the warming of 1.5–4.5°C associated with anthropogenic doubling of CO2 is amplified to 1.6–6.0°C warming, with the uncertainty range deriving from GCM simulations and paleo temperature records. Thus, anthropogenic emissions result in higher final GhG concentrations, and therefore more warming, than would be predicted in the absence of this feedback. Moreover, a symmetrical uncertainty in any component of feedback, whether positive or negative, produces an asymmetrical distribution of expected temperatures skewed toward higher temperature. For both reasons, the omission of key positive feedbacks and asymmetrical uncertainty from feedbacks, it is likely that the future will be hotter than we think.

So in 2006 they found that the current projections of 1.5-4.5 C should be 1.6-6 C (this is for the A2 scenario from AR3 in 2001) by their new calculations.  But lets not 'just' focus on the 6 C number as we need to keep in mind that this was the high number from a range and the low number was 1.6 C and the mean was 3.7 C.

I note here that the Guardian article seems to have misquoted the paper a bit.  The Guardian says the paper indicated that the IPCC said the upper limit was 6 C (which is the from the worst case scenario),  while the abstract of the paper says the IPCC upper limit was 4.5 C (which is from the A2 scenario), and a Science article on this paper had a third number of 5.8 C (which is a from a different calculation of the average of 35 different scenarios from a variety of climate models).  This is another example of weak reporting I think.

Here is a RealClimate discussion of the paper.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/

The paper was not commented on much at the time so I assume that it was not real significant or controversial, though it has been cited about 85 times by other papers (a good number).

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/031.htm

[wili]

Thanks for tracking down the abstract, Jim. Yep, it's within a range. But it also is just including one set of additional feedbacks. There are others (though few as potentially large as the carbon ones, presumably what they mean by "atmospheric greenhouse gas (GhG) concentrations increase during periods of warming").

It is frustrating not to have access to the whole article. I'll see if I can get it through my school. In the mean time I have to assume that sciencedaily isn't totally misrepresenting the content when they say:

In their GRL paper, Torn and Harte make the case that the current climate change models, which are predicting a global temperature increase of as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, may be off by nearly 2.0 degrees Celsius because they only take into consideration the increased greenhouse gas concentrations that result from anthropogenic (human) activities.

(Again, my emphases.)

So that suggests a temp range with a high end near 8 degrees by the end of the century.

This is all just to say that multiple legitimate sources are talking about ranges that include about 6 degrees C and above in additional heating by around the end of the century as real possibilities.

For anyone who has read Mark Lynas's well researched (for the time) book Six Degrees, this should be a frightening prospect indeed.

For anyone who has not read the book...well, just read it.

[JimD]

Wili

It is frustrating not to have access to the whole article. I'll see if I can get it through my school. In the mean time I have to assume that sciencedaily isn't totally misrepresenting the content when they say:



Quote

In their GRL paper, Torn and Harte make the case that the current climate change models, which are predicting a global temperature increase of as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, may be off by nearly 2.0 degrees Celsius because they only take into consideration the increased greenhouse gas concentrations that result from anthropogenic (human) activities.


(Again, my emphases.)

So that suggests a temp range with a high end near 8 degrees by the end of the century.

No, I think that would be a bad assumption.  The Science Daily number was from

Science article on this paper had a third number of 5.8 C (which is a from a different calculation of the average of 35 different scenarios from a variety of climate models

an averaging of 35 different possible climate scenarios.  It is not a predictor in that sense as it seemed to be a figure worked up to give information on the wide range of numbers out there circa 2000. See my last link to AR3 and it will take you there where you can read about it.

One thing we need to keep in mind is that AR3 was 12 years ago and the paper was from 2006.  More recent research would have taken all this into account and would normally be considered to have the latest word on projections.  Sort of has been overtaken by events.  AR5 will be out soon and we can look up the new numbers and compare to AR3 to see how things have evolved.  I expect when we get our next strong El Nino we will get a good taste of the warming being hidden in the ocean right now and that will narrow the range of projections significantly.  At that point we should have a solid idea on how fast the temps can rise. 

[wili]

"Science article on this paper had a third number of 5.8 C (which is a from a different calculation of the average of 35 different scenarios from a variety of climate models"

It's not clear to me where this quote is from, but if it is accurate, wow--if nearly 6C is the average of 35 scenarios, then a whole lot of those scenarios show temperature increases higher than 6 C.

But again, I couldn't find that in the article, so it's hard to get what the context was there.

And yes, it's an old article, but a source I hadn't seen before.

Not sure we're getting anywhere fruitful at this, point, but I would just add that the ranges in the abstract you quoted were for doubling, not for estimations for the end of the century. IIRC, BAU has us more than doubling CO2 levels before the end of the century.

I would be curious to know whether you agree with the many critiques that point out that IPCC figures have generally been 'conservative,' understating the rate and extent of the likely change (quite wildly in some cases--Arctic sea ice volume, anyone?).

[JimD]

Wili,

Not sure we're getting anywhere fruitful at this, point, but I would just add that the ranges in the abstract you quoted were for doubling, not for estimations for the end of the century. IIRC, BAU has us more than doubling CO2 levels before the end of the century.

You have a point there.  I missed that.  The Guardian article stated that the temp projections were for 2100 but the abstract does not say that at all. Perhaps it is in the article.

The Science article was pointed out because it talked about the paper but used different numbers than the Guardian did.  I was just pointing out how unreliable the reporters are.  They used different scenario numbers from AR3 and it is not clear what the actual article was using.  Just not reliable reporting.

It's not clear to me where this quote is from, but if it is accurate, wow--if nearly 6C is the average of 35 scenarios, then a whole lot of those scenarios show temperature increases higher than 6 C.

This is the number used in the Science article.  I think it is completely bogus personally.  This average includes ALL of the climate models of which we know that the BEST ones have flaws.  What does that say about the others?  Without knowing more I would put this average in the same bucket as one that would contain climate projections from WUWT. 

I am not as critical as many about the IPCC reports as many are because I read what folks like Gavin Schmidt and others at his level say about the reports.  There are logical reasons for what the reports say and the current state of the research is being published and discussed every day to balance out the political conservatism of the IPCC reports.  State of the art research is not part of the IPCC as what it reports is what is certain.  Certain is always conservative so what they say is no surprise and I see no reason to beat them up.  After all, the same scientists who write the IPCC reports are the one who are performing the state of the art research.   I place little faith in non-experts who push very hard for high numbers when the experts say otherwise (that is not directed at you  btw but at people like McPherson).

 

[JimD]

Wili,

I was reading the below BBC link this morning and it made me think of our last few posts above.

When the next report from the IPCC report starts getting published its language is going to be even more troubling than the last one was for many folks like you who focus on the issues of climate change.

The article states that the new IPCC report AR5 is going to be even more conservative than the last couple.

...There is a feeling among many scientists involved with the process that this report will be more complicated and cautious than in 2007...
..."Overall, the message is, in that sense more conservative I expect, for this IPCC report compared to previous ones," said Prof Petersen.

The report is also going to say this (which may trouble you some).

....the text of the draft which states that some models have "too strong a response to increasing greenhouse gas forcing".....

The big reasons for this is the global temperature hiatus since 98.

But since 2007, there has been a growing focus on the fact that global average temperatures haven't gone above the level recorded in 1998.

This slowdown, or hiatus as the IPCC refers to it, has been leapt upon by climate sceptics to argue that the scientific belief that emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet, is wrong.

Scientists have attempted to explain the pause in a number of ways, with many arguing that the Earth has continued to warm but that the heat has gone into oceans.

The most recent report suggested that a periodic cooling of the Pacific ocean was counteracting the impact of the extra carbon in the atmosphere.

But there is no certainty and little agreement among scientists on the mechanisms involved.

Note the last sentence in the above quote.  "No certainty and little agreement" means that the most recent scientific work indicating that the heat went into the oceans is not going to get acceptance nor prominence in the new report.   It is too new and not repeatedly verified yet.  This will give more ammunition to the deniers, the fossil fuel industry and the varieties of BAU folks.  It is going to be a little 'more' frustrating fighting for this issue for the next couple of years I think.  When the hiatus ends and the temps shoot up quickly again then that argument will die away (and something else will probably rise up as things are wont to do).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504

[wili]

"then that argument will die away"

And most of the rest of us with it.

[JimD]

Wili

I am reading a bunch of info on the IPCC scenarios we were talking about above and found some information that highlights the "averaged 35 scenarios" we were talking about above.

Quote

It's not clear to me where this quote is from, but if it is accurate, wow--if nearly 6C is the average of 35 scenarios, then a whole lot of those scenarios show temperature increases higher than 6 C.

This is the number used in the Science article.  I think it is completely bogus personally.  This average includes ALL of the climate models of which we know that the BEST ones have flaws.  What does that say about the others?  Without knowing more I would put this average in the same bucket as one that would contain climate projections from WUWT. 

Some of those scenarios used population levels for 2100 as high as 17 billion (others were up to 15 billion).  As you can imagine the carbon emissions from population levels that stratospheric would be equally high, thus resulting in very high temperatures in 2100.  But, I think we can agree, based upon our other conversations regarding likely population levels in the future, that population levels that high are highly unlikely or impossible.

I must admit that I have not read many of the IPCC scenarios in detail before (just the typical ones (like B2, A1, AA1F1) and was not aware of the very wide range of them.  It makes me want to reread many articles from the past as I am certain that many authors will not have understood them in detail and will have extrapolated to conclusions which are clearly not justified.

I will see if I find any other interesting tidbits.

[JimD]

After spending a few hours reading IPCC documents and lots of spreadsheets on the SRES scenarios I have come to the conclusion that, while they may have served a purpose in 2000, they are obsolete and functionally useless today.  I would not, therefore, have any confidence in the conclusions of any article which used them to make a point whether in the past or present.

This obsolescence is recognized by the IPCC as the new report do out soon is based upon a new set of scenarios (maybe I will write about them later) that will replace the old SRES scenarios.  As I read about this I realized that I had read something about this before but had missed the real implication that the old scenarios were no longer useful.

I identified a number of issues with the old scenarios which would call them into question in today's world.  We do have an additional 10+ years of data and hindsight to help us, but there were some assumptions made when they drew up the guidelines which should have made them suspect from the beginning.  To refresh the memory keep in mind that there were 4 families of scenarios (A1, A2, B1, B2) and within those families there were approximately 40 different scenarios.  So when you read over the last decade a comment in an article about the A2 scenario the author was actually not talking about a specific scenario but a general family.  If you read A1B or A1F1 then they were talking about a specific scenario.  There is great chance of misunderstandings because of this and, just from memory, I am certain that for many articles I have read over the last 10 years the authors had no idea there was a difference.  Think how many curves you saw for A1 and B2 scenarios.  Within families there are many scenarios which are incompatible and cannot be aggregated.  For example here are some issues I noted.

No scenario combines low fertility with high mortality.

No scenario takes into account our possible inability to grow enough food for the global population as population levels start hitting numbers like 9 billion.

No scenario takes into account the deleterious effects of climate change on economic growth or population levels (I find this astonishing as AGW is the whole point).

No scenario takes into account rising mortality due to famine, war, disease.

All scenarios assume rapid economic growth (some spectacular growth) with global GDP in 2100 being much higher to many times what it is now.   Obviously the carrying capacity issue was ignored entirely.

All scenarios assume continuing rapid technological progress of varying distributions.

No scenario takes into account the possibility of any kind of global scale disasters; not AGW, famine, war, disease, shrinking water supplies, energy supply issues, economic decline, disruptions to global trade.  Nothing.

In other words, if you fail to take into account the wide variety of possible adverse consequences of living on a finite world and assume infinite growth and endless resources you will be able to come up with some interesting numbers.  But what are they worth?

So when you see some chart in an article which points out how closely we are following one of the worst case scenarios it is best to keep in mind that the fact that the two lines are similar does not mean much since it is just a coincidence as the real world is never going to follow any of those scenarios.

[Steven]

It is frustrating not to have access to the whole article.

The full text of the 2006 paper by Torn and Harte is available here.

That suggests a temp range with a high end near 8 degrees by the end of the century.

Actually the paper says: "The GhG feedback quantified above suggests that the upper value of warming that is projected for the end of the 21st Century, 5.8°C [IPCC, 2001], could be increased to 7.7°C, or nearly 2°C additional warming."

But there seems to be a problem with that statement: the only way to get 2°C additional warming from the results in the paper is by ignoring the very long time scale on which some of the feedbacks act.  This problem was mentioned in a RealClimate post about this paper:

The biggest question, however, before pushing the Stop the Press button at IPCC, is timing. The CO2 transition through the deglaciation took 10,000 years.... The timescale that seems intrinsic to IPCC is a century or so, during which we should be able to reap only a small fraction of any harvest that takes 10,000 years to grow.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/positive-feedbacks-from-the-carbon-cycle

[wili]

JimD, thanks for the many good points.

I would just point out that it actually doesn't take billions of people or a growing global GDP to burn up all the ffs that can be burned. Among other likely calamities to befall the world in the coming years and decades are more, bigger and 'hotter' wars, international and civil. These don't generally help GDP and they do tend to reduce population in a rather bloody fashion, but they also can be the means of burning up massive amounts of ff, both through transport vehicles, rocket fuel, and ordinance itself. And of course, when it happens in oil producing areas, vast amounts of oil can end up burning on the ground, or as it gushes out of the ground or out of pipelines...

And the population crash is going to hit hardest and fastest the bottom billions who already contribute only a tiny fraction to the problem. So world pop could drop by to or three billion without any perceptible drop in ff use, or even with a rise.

I agree with the general assessment that the old IPCC was out of date and basically worthless (except as a stalling tactic to making any effective efforts to stop the un-sequestering of safely sequestered death-fuel carbon) before it even came out. Mostly though they understate nearly everything, both because of the inherent conservatism of scientists, of literature reviews, of collective decisions, and of decisions heavily influence by governments like US...but also because they leave out anything that is hard to measure with certainty, particularly carbon feedbacks.

Steven, thanks for the link. The debate about how fast various carbon stores might be liberated into the atmosphere is of course a hot one with many well informed people taking a range of positions. I would just say that any one measure, such as what happened during deglaciation, cannot be taken as the last word on what is going to happen going forward.

So far most of the feedbacks that have kicked (those leading to the loss of Arctic sea ice, most famously) have been happening at rates wildly faster than anyone imagined in their wildest dreams (or rather nightmares). This should not give us enormous amounts of confidence that we can say we know for absolutely certain how quickly other feedbacks that have not yet started (or are just getting going) will accelerate.

Thanks again to all for thoughtful reflections and insights.

[wili]

This chart seems to show possible temperature rises of up to about 6 degrees C by about 2100, with much higher possible increases beyond that--up to nearly 10 degrees rise by 2200, for example.

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2013/09/climate-change-how-hot-will-it-get-in.html

[JimD]

Wili, I saw that and since we were discussing the very issue of projections of that kind over on the IPCC thread I left it alone.  A quote from the article (bold mine):

Temperature projections are based on the idealised climate model of Boucher and Reddy (2009), as used for calculation of warming potentials in IPCC (2013), driven by the IPCC "RCP8.5" high emissions scenario.

Once again it is a projection based upon BAU for the duration of the century and assumes that no catastrophic events, whether AGW or other, happen to effect the projection.  This is not realism IMHO.  I have to say that any projection which ignores the likelihood of negative feedbacks is not to be relied upon any more than projections which ignore positive feedbacks. 

You have mentioned previously your frustration with the IPCC projections because they are so conservative and seem to ignore positive feedbacks and downplay risks.

But the other side of the coin is that you are accepting IPCC scenarios which are very conservative, in that they assume a continuous BAU (assuming otherwise is not politically correct), while ignoring the very science they are reporting on which clearly indicates that long-term BAU is going to be overtaken by reality.

I am not trying to provoke you here, but I think there is a contradiction in play.   

[wili]

I guess I have been on forums for too long now (over ten years) where people have claimed that imminent (in the next couple of years) PO or other reasons for collapse would make GW a non-issue.

Hasn't happened so far.

As I have pointed out now a few places, it MAY be the a collapse that MAY happen MAY reduce human ff use and GHG production.

But those are all "may"s.

Whereas:

--the long life time of CO2 in the atmosphere is a physical certainty
--albedo feedbacks in sea ice and land snow are well underway in the north: another certainty
--these feedbacks on top of basic warming will cause/are causing other major carbon feedbacks to kick in, feedbacks that have more than enough carbon to offset any partial reduction in C emissions that come about from collapse
--many, many other positive feedbacks are waiting in the wings

I don't discount negative (and positive) feedbacks from human collapse and other human intentional and un-intentional responses (see my lists of them in my 'feedback' thread). But human responses to any situation can never have the certainty of the physics driving many of the other feedbacks that have already started to kick in or are on the verge of doing so.

Right now, we are massively increasing the amount of ghgs we send into the atmosphere every year. We are nowhere close to even

--slowing the rate of increase,
--much less stabilizing that rate,
--much much less getting close to not increasing at all,
--much much much less starting to reduce our output of ghg
--and don't even think about zeroing out our net carbon un-sequestration or actually drawing down net atmospheric carbon...the things we actually need to do to ever have a hope of ever having anything like the planet our species (and most species on the planet) evolved in.

And yet, even if we did do the unthinkable last option--completely and utterly stopped all emissions of ghg immediately and permanently--we would still likely see increases in ghg and certainly in gw over the next hundred years. (See McDougal et al. 2012)

Again, humans (and especially collections of humans--corporations, countries, armies...) love, are addicted to, can't seem to resist power; ff are power. As long as there are organizations of humans around anywhere, most will be doing anything they can to secure and exploit these still vast pools of ff power, wherever they exist.

Thinking otherwise is what is vastly unrealistic. 

[JimD]

Well we both certainly think a catastrophe is approaching and pretty much unavoidable.  We just think (and we are both speculating) that it will come in different ways.  Of course, it could well come both ways also.  A time machine would be useful.

[JimD]

Here is a bit of good news (from me no less).

Broad consensus on climate change across American states

A recent US “survey of surveys” by Stanford University Professor Jon Krosnick has analysed public opinion on climate change in 46 of USA’s 50 states. Krosnick found to his surprise that, regardless of geography, most Americans accept that global warming is happening and that humans are causing it.

In all 46 states, they found that at least 75% of participants thought global warming was happening. Even in traditionally conservative red states such as Texas, 84% thought global warming was happening and 72% agreed humans were the cause. Acceptance of global warming increased to at least 84% for states hit by drought or vulnerable to sea level rise.

I looked up AZ where I live and found the 88% believe the climate is changing and 79% think humans are causing it.  Big surprise to me as I would have put the numbers at about 50%.

For the Aussies.

...This is comparable to a CSIRO analysis that found 75% of Australians believe climate change is happening. While these results indicate high public acceptance of climate science, there is still a significant gap between public opinion and the views of climate scientists...

And for the US here is the rub I think.

...However, there is a schism even within the Republican Party. A recent Pew survey found that among Tea Party members, only 25% accept global warming. In contrast, 61% of other Republicans accept that global warming is happening. A minority group out of kilter with the rest of the populace and the scientific community are exerting a disproportionate influence on the public discourse about climate change....

My wife refuses to let me put a No Tea Party bumper sticker on our car here in AZ.  She even said no after I said I would start carrying my gun all the time if she would let me.   Seems like a  reasonable compromise to me 


Seriously though, these numbers indicate we are approaching a social consensus (much to my surprise) and we may be within a few years of a sea change in our approach.  And, of course, in a few years lots of the Tea Party folks will be passing from the scene.
 
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Broad-consensus-climate-change-across-American-states.html

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=page/stanford-university-state-level-climate-polling-data

[deep octopus]

From that same Stanford study, 88% of Alabamans replied "YES" to the question "Should government limit greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. businesses?" That 88% was higher than for any other state on that question. Kind of amazing, when one considers that Alabama is one of the most conservative states in the country. Global warming may not be such a dividing issue along political lines after all, compared to other political issues, even though conservatives (and the tea party faction in particular) are typically less likely to accept global warming. And that's a very good thing. Hell, there are a lot of "liberals" and "progressives" out there who seem to just dismiss the issue entirely as any stock-and-trade denier would.

If climate change transcends from being strictly a political issue and into one of educating citizens on the physics and engaging people to give a damn, we have something very good. The strongest division seems to reside with the energy and natural resources industries versus others.

I wish there was more information on the sample sizes, because there's quite a bit of variation among each of the states. But this said, there's a rather consistent picture that emerges from the poll, which is that the national opinion says around 75-80% of Americans polled understand that anthropogenic contributions tip the climate trend to serious warming and also that there's an unmistakable environmental pressure to deal with greenhouse gases. So I'm being redundant when I say that climate change policy is maybe not much of a polarizing issue.

[ggelsrinc]

Pertaining to Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT", I'd say the message isn't very good. Perhaps something a little wiser than: "I saw the enemy a coming and we are all going to die" is a smarter approach? I suggest: "We have a problem and here is how to fix it" works.

[JimD]

A little off topic but I did not find a good fit anywhere else.

Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions

The climate crisis of the 21st century has been caused largely by just 90 companies, which between them produced nearly two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions generated since the dawning of the industrial age, new research suggests....

It is interesting to see such figures, but I have a problem with the implied conclusion of the title.  Is it meaningfully correct to blame the 90 companies for the emissions, or do we the people, who have rushed to embrace the lifestyle facilitated by vast quantities of cheap energy, carry the ultimate blame for our behavior.  "WE" did it together.  They offered the drugs and we chose to become addicts.  That is my take on it in any case.

...Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in the past 25 years – well past the date when governments and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing dangerous climate change....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

[Shared Humanity]

The most vocal AGW deniers, funded by the fossil fuel industry, argue that global warming is not human caused, not because they believe this but because there is simply too much money to be made in the burning of fossil fuels. Global warming and most of the serious environmental problems facing humanity are the result of fatal flaws in the system of capitalism.

[Shared Humanity]

A little off topic but I did not find a good fit anywhere else.

Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions

The climate crisis of the 21st century has been caused largely by just 90 companies, which between them produced nearly two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions generated since the dawning of the industrial age, new research suggests....

It is interesting to see such figures, but I have a problem with the implied conclusion of the title.  Is it meaningfully correct to blame the 90 companies for the emissions, or do we the people, who have rushed to embrace the lifestyle facilitated by vast quantities of cheap energy, carry the ultimate blame for our behavior.  "WE" did it together.  They offered the drugs and we chose to become addicts.  That is my take on it in any case.

...Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in the past 25 years – well past the date when governments and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing dangerous climate change....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

A simple and absolutely accurate view of our problem.  The current economic landscape is the direct result of the aggregate demand of all consumers throughout the world. We protest  polluters even as we encourage them to pollute in order to provide us with the products we want.

[wili]

Yes, we're addicts. But silly me, I tend to blame the pushers a tad more than the addicts, especially when the pushers also shape legislation to keep the addicts hooked and their coffers full.

But yes, we should all do all we can to get of the stuff.

[ccgwebmaster]

A little off topic but I did not find a good fit anywhere else.

Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions

The climate crisis of the 21st century has been caused largely by just 90 companies, which between them produced nearly two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions generated since the dawning of the industrial age, new research suggests....

It is interesting to see such figures, but I have a problem with the implied conclusion of the title.  Is it meaningfully correct to blame the 90 companies for the emissions, or do we the people, who have rushed to embrace the lifestyle facilitated by vast quantities of cheap energy, carry the ultimate blame for our behavior.  "WE" did it together.  They offered the drugs and we chose to become addicts.  That is my take on it in any case.

...Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in the past 25 years – well past the date when governments and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing dangerous climate change....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

We all bear some responsibility for this - but it's worth noting the companies in question resorted to immoral techniques to encourage the masses of the population to participate, which must surely shift responsibility somewhat. They spread lies and misinformation - much as the tobacco companies used to with respect to smoking.

Personally I think as a matter of logistical convenience (and the psychological need for someone to blame) one might as well expect to go after the companies. It would meet the need for a sacrificial target and be logistically a little simpler than trying to hold everyone to account for their share.

Personally though, I'd also be happy to make the socioeconomic elites who are supposed to be regulating those companies and governing the masses responsible too. I can't see any issues with sacrificing them as well - it's no more than they are doing and intending to do to the rest of us.

In the end though it's a little futile at this point - there's enough reasons to expect collapse to be inevitable that assignment and prosecution of blame offers no hope for the masses and I am under no illusions that the masses will self sacrifice in the interests of the few who would be left in the end - they will not.

[JimD]

I am over at Real Climate right now reading comments and came across one which fits this thread so well that I decided to copy it over here.

42

DIOGENES says:   

24 Dec 2013 at 7:01 AM

The posts on this thread, the Failure in Communicating thread, and the Unforced Variations thread have a strong focus on how to communicate the seriousness of the situation to a broad spectrum of laypeople. Unfortunately, they overlook one key deficiency: THERE IS NO MESSAGE!

The deniers have a consistent message that is clear and simple, and understandable by large numbers of people. It is distorted, anti-scientific, and basically incorrect, but it is clear and simple. By contrast, we the advocates do not have a unified message, but rather have many messages that tend to be complex and laden with caveats, and are many times at odds with each other. We don’t agree on the levels of temperatures to expect in mid-end century, and agree even less on what life would be like under those temperatures, or if there would even be any (human) life under those temperatures. We don’t agree on what temperature ceilings should not be exceeded in the interim transition period: should it be the 2 C on which the mainstream focuses, the 4 C that some experts say is all but inevitable now and to which we will have to adapt, the 1 C that Hansen and Anderson advocate, or the less than 1 C that McPherson believes we have already exceeded. Finally, we don’t agree on the required solutions to prevent disaster, partly because the effectiveness of these solutions depends on the temperature ceilings and timeframes required. The posters include: a Renewables contingent that believes prosperity is possible along with saving the climate if only the introduction of renewables can be accelerated; a Nuclear contingent that believes our problems can be solved with accelerated introduction of nuclear; a Demand contingent that believes only a strong reduction of demand in the near-term can save us from disaster; and other contingents as well.
 If we can’t agree among ourselves what the appropriate message should be, how in the world are we going to convince the large numbers of laypeople who need to be convinced? So, while style, format, advocacy, and all the other peripherals that are addressed in the posts on this site have some importance, they pale before the reality that we have no clear and simple message that will rally the troops that need to be rallied.

We will NEVER have a clear and simple message as it is not possible to have such a message when trying to address what is probably the most complex and difficult set of circumstances that the human race will ever face.  This problem of competing messages gives great advantage to the BAU and BAU-Green mind set and I personally do not think it possible to ever out message them.  They have the advantage of  being able to access the sub-conscious lizard mind set of their audience and the other side does not.  By the time we can access the short-term mind set and trigger its natural reactions it will be far too late.

[Sigmetnow]

JimD,
We need a catchy, all-encompassing slogan for climate change action.  Something everyone can repeat, even if they don't really know what it means.  Something as simple as: "Carbon Kills!"

[Shared Humanity]

Some years ago there was a fairly bad movie that dealt with an E.L.E. (Extinction Level Event). We need to start talking up the coming "human caused" extinction level event. We need not specifically state that it will result in human extinction (although it might). We simply need to convey the catastrophic level of death of all living things that is rapidly approaching.

A "Carbon Atmospheric Near Certain Extinction Level" Event!

Otherwise known as a "CANCEL Event" as in cancel whatever plans you may have for yourselves or your children.

[TerryM]

CANCEL has a nice ring to it. An Acronym that's not only factual but one that is easy to remember.
Terry

[Shared Humanity]

CANCEL has a nice ring to it. An Acronym that's not only factual but one that is easy to remember.
Terry

I gladly release this idea to the world community, no attribution required. I also think we could create a better acronym if we put our minds to it.

[JimD]

Here is an interesting article on the US federal flood insurance program.  Big problems in the future as we all know as sea level rise and the increased intensity of large storms is guaranteed to dramatically increase flooding.  The program is currently 24 Billion in the red.  So do we fix it by raising premiums (this is being attempted and causing a fire storm of blowback from property owners and politicians), eliminate it and let the commercial companies set the rates or refuse to insure at all (the best solution), or what.

...And this is a serious issue on a global scale. ....

First, coastal population densities across the globe are nearly three times those of inland areas, and they are increasing exponentially. Thus, as population grows, we are packing more people into our coastlines than ever before.

Second, many estuarine, coastal, and marine ecosystems naturally protect coastlines from storm surges, wind, flooding, erosion, and other storm impacts, but as coastal development and populations expand, these systems are disappearing rapidly. Their resulting loss and degradation due to human activities is intense and increasing, such that 50% of salt marshes, 35% of mangroves, 30% of coral reefs, and 29% of seagrasses are either lost or degraded worldwide. Such rapid deterioration of these systems is making coastlines more vulnerable.

Third, across all the cities worldwide, about 40 million people are exposed to a one-in-100-year extreme coastal flooding event, and by 2070, it will be 150 million people. Consequently, because of the growth of urban populations generally, and cities in coastal areas specifically, more and more cities are facing the growing risks of major storm events.
....

Premiums from the new Federal regulations.

....But as the new, higher flood insurance bills went out (for instance, homes sold after July 2012 no longer receive flood insurance subsidies), the howling started. A sampling of news stories:

Flood Insurance Jumping Sevenfold Depresses U.S. Home Values Bloomberg
....
Included were a house in Belle Chasse where the annual premium will rise from $600 to more than $17,000; a house in St. Petersburg, Fla., that will experience an increase from $1,000 to almost $11,000; and a car dealership in Slidell whose insurance premium will shoot from around $5,700 to more than $53,000.
...

What this tells us is that a large part of the infrastructure along the coast in the US is already uninsurable (not even counting where we are going to be in 50 years).  But politics is such that the taxpayer will likely have to pick up part of the bill for people building where they no longer should.  Thus building in a problem which will never go away.  Politics will likely never allow this program to be killed, nor will it allow regulations which forbid any further construction in areas which are no longer viable.  Another example of a problem with a solution (a painful solution) which will be almost impossible to execute.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/taxpayers-subsidize-insuring-homeowners-climate-change-induced-flood-damage.html

[Shared Humanity]

The federal program should stay in place but the property owner is only compensated for damage if they agree to relocate. The land then remains in the possession of  the Federal government and never built on again.  If the property owner refuses to move, no compensation is provided. These owners would then need to secure insurance from private industry or choose to be self insured. Only the wealthy would be able to make such a choice.

[JimD]

SH

I like that idea!  It's chances are.....??

[TerryM]

Every mortgage holder requires insurance on the structure they're lending on. When insurance rates jump up there will be a lot of properties in foreclosure. This might be the time to jump in, demolish the structures and partially compensate the loan company.
Many of these properties are very high end so the owners will have far more political power than their less affluent inland neighbors. If a populist campaign were run focusing on the value of the land as public parkways as opposed to elitist enclaves it's not a given that the elites would win.
Terry

[wili]

Good points, all. I think it might help get the message across if all owners of coastal properties were required to get tattoos on each of their limbs for identity when their bodies get washed away and dismembered so that they can be reassembled later for proper burial (which they should also be made to pay for in advance).

[Shared Humanity]

Good points, all. I think it might help get the message across if all owners of coastal properties were required to get tattoos on each of their limbs for identity when their bodies get washed away and dismembered so that they can be reassembled later for proper burial (which they should also be made to pay for in advance).

 ... ... ... ...