RE: [geo] Nordhaus: Devastating global warming is inevitable

2017-01-13 Thread Knutti Reto 
Since Andy is linking to Trump, here’s a another commentary on the potential 
effects of the next US administration regarding the Paris targets which we 
published in Nature Climate Change after Christmas:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3193.html
or here for those without subscription: 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhz71ivxv3nv0br/sanderson16natcc.pdf?dl=0

Here’s the Washington Post article on it: 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/27/scientists-just-ran-the-numbers-on-how-much-trump-could-damage-the-planet/?utm_term=.94fd45b9b032

Reto

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Revkin
Sent: Freitag, 13. Januar 2017 13:49
To: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Nordhaus: Devastating global warming is inevitable

The most important thing about Nordhaus's paper and conclusions, which I 
focused on in a recent Trump 
piece<https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-and-the-climate-his-hot-air-on-warming-far-from-the-greatest-threat>,
 is that he once held fast to the same assumptions Mann's hanging on to. He's 
demonstrated a capacity to follow the data.

Greg's point at the end is key. Still no evidence that climate change will have 
the kinds of motivational dimensions that drove the response to Nazi Germany 
and Pearl Harbor.

Some of my exploration of the full scope of the climate challenge in my Issues 
in Science & Technology essay<http://j.mp/revkin30yearsclimate> early last year 
are relevant.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Greg Rau 
<gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/deadly-global-warming-is-inevitable-due-to-inaction-feasible-rhetoric-climate-change-fight-paris-a752.html


Nordhaus - “The international target for climate change with a limit of 2C 
appears to be infeasible with reasonably accessible technologies.

“And this is the case even with very stringent and unrealistically ambitious 
abatement strategies.

“This is so because of the inertia of the climate system, of rapid projected 
economic growth in the near term, and of revisions in several elements of the 
model.

“A target of 2.5C is technically feasible but would require extreme virtually 
universal global policy measures.”

On the other hand,

Michael Man - “I think it is an overstatement to say (as Nordhaus does in the 
abstract) that ‘it will be extremely difficult to achieve the 2C target of 
international agreements even if ambitious policies are introduced in the near 
term’.

“The Paris Agreement has put us on a pathway that can get us there given a 
ratcheting up of the commitments already made by the nations of the word.

“Physics isn't an obstacle, only willpower is, at this point. I'm wary of 
economists’ assumptions about our willpower to take dramatic actions when 
necessary.

“A similar argument to Nordhaus might have been used to argue we couldn't 
possibly mount the mobilisation necessary to win World War II. But we did.

“We've risen to the challenge before, and we can do so here.”

GR -  We could, but climate change seems a way more abstract threat to most 
humans relative to the immediate military threats that were then posed by 
Germany and Japan. Can humans trust scientific predictions and then act to 
protect future generations rather than just focussing on more immediate 
concerns?


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
ANDREW C. REVKIN
ProPublica Senior 
Reporter<https://www.propublica.org/site/author/andrew_revkin> (climate and 
related issues)
Mobile: 914-441-5556, @revkin<http://twitter.com/revkin>, 
Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5>, 
Music<http://j.mp/revkinmusic>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the G

Re: [geo] Nordhaus: Devastating global warming is inevitable

2017-01-13 Thread Andrew Revkin 
The most important thing about Nordhaus's paper and conclusions, which
I focused
on in a recent Trump piece
,
is that he once held fast to the same assumptions Mann's hanging on to.
He's demonstrated a capacity to follow the data.

Greg's point at the end is key. Still no evidence that climate change will
have the kinds of motivational dimensions that drove the response to Nazi
Germany and Pearl Harbor.

Some of my exploration of the full scope of the climate challenge in my Issues
in Science & Technology essay  early last
year are relevant.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:

>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/deadly-global-
> warming-is-inevitable-due-to-inaction-feasible-rhetoric-
> climate-change-fight-paris-a752.html
>
>
> Nordhaus - “The international target for climate change with a limit of 2C
> appears to be infeasible with reasonably accessible technologies.
>
> “And this is the case even with very stringent and unrealistically
> ambitious abatement strategies.
>
> “This is so because of the inertia of the climate system, of rapid
> projected economic growth in the near term, and of revisions in several
> elements of the model.
>
> “A target of 2.5C is technically feasible but would require extreme
> virtually universal global policy measures.”
>
> On the other hand,
>
> Michael Man - “I think it is an overstatement to say (as Nordhaus does in
> the abstract) that ‘it will be extremely difficult to achieve the 2C target
> of international agreements even if ambitious policies are introduced in
> the near term’.
>
> “The Paris Agreement has put us on a pathway that can get us there given a
> ratcheting up of the commitments already made by the nations of the word.
>
> “Physics isn't an obstacle, only willpower is, at this point. I'm wary of
> economists’ assumptions about our willpower to take dramatic actions when
> necessary.
>
> “A similar argument to Nordhaus might have been used to argue we couldn't
> possibly mount the mobilisation necessary to win World War II. But we did.
>
> “We've risen to the challenge before, and we can do so here.”
>
> GR -  We could, but climate change seems a way more abstract threat to
> most humans relative to the immediate military threats that were then posed
> by Germany and Japan. Can humans trust scientific predictions and then act
> to protect future generations rather than just focussing on more immediate
> concerns?
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
*ANDREW C. REVKIN*
*ProPublica Senior Reporter
 (*climate and
related issues)
*Mobile: 914-441-5556, @revkin , Facebook
, Music *

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.