My question is more basic. You talk about "risks" of climate change. If we are under no catastrophic threat, what are the risks? Can they be quantified/verified? Can they even be identified? Is warmer temperature the only threat? Can those risks be managed? How do those risks compare with the benefits of continued fossil fuel use (that is, return the decarbonization pathway to a more gradual and more economically palatable trajectory)?
In your post, "It's all about the baseline," you said that "In plain English this means that the effects of climate mitigation policies on the weather you experience in your lifetime would not be detectable, even if you are born in 2024. This explains why for most variables associated with extreme events the IPCC’s projection of the “time of emergence” of a climate change or climate mitigation signal is so far into the future."
You've also said the "world has never been a safer place for humans from weather and climate, in the entire history of mankind." I take that as direct evidence of the benefit of climate change, as measured since the end of the Little Ice Age in terms of temperature and CO2. If CO2 continues to go up, and temperatures continue to go up, there must be a point of inflection when we are no longer safer than any time in history, and conditions continue to deteriorate.
In as much as temperatures have been 10s of degrees warmer, and CO2 concentrations have been well over 1,000 ppm, at various times in history, how will that make us less safe?
Maybe a better question is, will civilization flourish throughout the Holocene Interglacial, and flag only when the next Ice Age begins?
Thanks ... For more depth have a look at TCF Chapter 1. In a nutshell, the science of climate change gets us to the starting line. We are altering the energy balance of the earth system, and all else equal, we'd prefer not to, obviously, as that carries unknowable risks. Since the global economy has been decarbonizing for a century, we might ask if there are any other reasons why we might want to accelerate that trend. Turns out, there are . . .
Great interview, thank you for sharing.
My question is more basic. You talk about "risks" of climate change. If we are under no catastrophic threat, what are the risks? Can they be quantified/verified? Can they even be identified? Is warmer temperature the only threat? Can those risks be managed? How do those risks compare with the benefits of continued fossil fuel use (that is, return the decarbonization pathway to a more gradual and more economically palatable trajectory)?
In your post, "It's all about the baseline," you said that "In plain English this means that the effects of climate mitigation policies on the weather you experience in your lifetime would not be detectable, even if you are born in 2024. This explains why for most variables associated with extreme events the IPCC’s projection of the “time of emergence” of a climate change or climate mitigation signal is so far into the future."
You've also said the "world has never been a safer place for humans from weather and climate, in the entire history of mankind." I take that as direct evidence of the benefit of climate change, as measured since the end of the Little Ice Age in terms of temperature and CO2. If CO2 continues to go up, and temperatures continue to go up, there must be a point of inflection when we are no longer safer than any time in history, and conditions continue to deteriorate.
In as much as temperatures have been 10s of degrees warmer, and CO2 concentrations have been well over 1,000 ppm, at various times in history, how will that make us less safe?
Maybe a better question is, will civilization flourish throughout the Holocene Interglacial, and flag only when the next Ice Age begins?
Thanks ... For more depth have a look at TCF Chapter 1. In a nutshell, the science of climate change gets us to the starting line. We are altering the energy balance of the earth system, and all else equal, we'd prefer not to, obviously, as that carries unknowable risks. Since the global economy has been decarbonizing for a century, we might ask if there are any other reasons why we might want to accelerate that trend. Turns out, there are . . .
But all else is not equal.
I propose that this be dubbed "The Pielke Jr. Dilemma".