A "Mini-Ice Age" could hit earth by 2030, Scientists warn

[Endus]

This is handwaving, by the way.

There are no good numbers on this at all. Everything ends at something like "global costs to fix the damage from environment are X and that's a big number already and it will likely get higher" with no specifics (how much higher? 10x? 100x? substantiate the number), no attempt to analyze which events will still be there no matter what, no nods to obvious facts like costs of these events rising simply because people become more productive and produce more and more expensive stuff for the environment to damage, absolutely no exploration of what would the savings be and why due to the proposed actions, no exploration of the real costs of actions past the most direct ones (it is funny how damage from the environment always snowballs in "analysis" pieces with one factor pulling others, but the effects of mitigation never do, despite economic links containing a lot fewer unknowns), and frequently not even a coherent list of actions with even so much as outlines of possible outcomes. It's always rolling of eyes "we have to fix it now" with pretty much nothing in the way of details, and a quick deterioration into "what, you disagree? you are a denier then, anti-science, bla bla bla".

So, you are saying above that adaptation and mitigation are way cheaper, but that's just noise with no backing. There has been near-zero serious discussion on that. Which is understandable, because the main argument is, of course, what specific levels of temperature we are even heading to and whether these levels are big enough to even worry about them, but still you cannot pretend that the argument about costs has been made (and concluded with the result of "adaptation and mitigation are way cheaper", no less, completely laughable) - it didn't even start yet.

Adaptation and mitigation strategies and policies have been an active part of the discussion for over thirty years. Nothing you've claimed here has any basis in reality.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/

There's no specifics on "how much higher", because this is an ongoing process with no perceivable end point. So we make estimates on a timeline, but there's no attempt to place an end-point to that timeline.

There definitely is evaluation of extreme weather events as compared to a "normal" baseline. I have no clue where you got the impression otherwise.

The position that flooding and storm activity (for starters) is getting worse and causing more damage is not predicated on the valuation of storm damage, it's based on the evaluation of the empirical increase in flooding and storm activity. When they get stronger/more common, they'll cause more damage than they did before. Not a difficult concept.

If we're talking about any specific implementation of an adaptation strategy, there's absolutely estimates of the cost-benefit ratio. I have done those myself.

All in all, I can tell that you've never looked into adaptation planning/policy, because nothing you're saying would make the least bit of sense if you had.

Hell, just as a one-off point, one of the possibilities that would be considered under any adaptation planning endeavour is "do nothing". Either in a "nothing we could do will be effective/affordable" or in a "it's not worth doing anything yet" kind of sense. And those decisions are heavily impacted by the costs-benefit analysis of whatever's being discussed/proposed. Nobody's going to approve a $40 million seawall project to protect a town whose total value is $8 million; you'd be better served setting up an $8 million fund to pay out to residents when their homes are destroyed, getting them full value and letting them move to another town and rebuild.

Adaptation and mitigation policy is not implemented by scientists. It's implemented by governments, planners, developers, etc. Those people need to be convinced that the cost of such is worthwhile, as Step 1. You have no basis whatsoever for your claims otherwise.

[rda]

Adaptation and mitigation strategies and policies have been an active part of the discussion for over thirty years.

Right, but as you yourself say, "There's no specifics on 'how much higher'" (nor for anything else) - and no, that's absolutely not because this is an ongoing process and things change. When there is an ongoing process and things change you have specifics that change. In this case we have no specifics. Yeah, the topic is mentioned for thirty years but nothing comes out of those mentions outside of "This is important! Let's fix now! Whatever the costs are, it is cheaper to fix now!".

The specific implementations of adaptation strategies that you are talking about that you did are local. And sporadic. We are talking about a global thing. Is your implementation of adaptation strategies global? Have you been planning an adaptation strategy that is global? Have you seen anyone planning it? Have you seen anyone even discussing it with any kind of numbers? No? Thought so.

And you aren't alone who has been doing those adaptation strategies by far, here is a little different opinion on what they are worth from someone in the same position as yourself (although he is from the US, and you might be from, say, Canada):

-------
What has been happening is that federal agencies, at all levels, have had to waste countless hours producing climate change planning documents. That is to say, not only planning for what the agency is supposed to be doing, but also planning for the 1) additional GHG emissions that might result from the action and 2) the effects of climate change on the action.

For example, say I am in the dept. of transportation, and the government wishes to build a road. I have to plan – how much is the road going to increase the release of GHGs? There are the GHGs emitted from the machinery used to build it. The GHGs from the concrete, and from the factory, and from the trucks that hauled it to the sight. The road may cause people to drive more, increasing GHG emissions. Or it might shorten the commute time for the drivers, meaning they emit less. The road might cross a wetlands, but with climate change, might those wetlands have disappeared anyway? or perhaps expanded? What about the carbon absorption capacity of the prairie grass being covered? Perhaps the road will increase economic activity in some way, resulting in more GHGs?

A big fat report filled with arm waving is produced, and we all get to take turns imagining new and ever more fantastic climate repercussions of our decision to build a road. then argue over who’s fantasy is most likely, and which arm waving estimate to use.

And, at the end of the day, absolutely nothing ever changes, because, heck, we need a bloody road. So we toss the report in a bin and proceed.

Think I’m joking?

For climate change true believers, this is an absolute farce. It accomplishes nothing. It wastes money. I’ve often thought just get rid of this silly goat rope, and vow to spend $5 billion on solar panels, donated to charities, and we would be still several billion $ ahead of the game.
-------

There are NO numbers worth talking about here and your reply, although lengthy, contains nothing showing that there are.

And I am NOT saying that it is scientists who have to perform the analysis. I am merely responding to your statement that apparently "proactive adaptation and mitigation is way cheaper than paying for destructive/harmful impacts. Both in the direct costs, and especially in the ongoing chaos that big negative impacts like flooding have." No, you don't know that. This has not been assessed at any serious level at all. Stop pretending that this has been assessed and we have the conclusion - the assessment never even started.

[Endus]

Right, but as you yourself say, "There's no specifics on 'how much higher'" (nor for anything else) - and no, that's absolutely not because this is an ongoing process and things change. When there is an ongoing process and things change you have specifics that change. In this case we have no specifics.

That's a straight-up falsehood. You have no basis whatsoever for that claim, and I've already linked sources that disprove it.

The specific implementations of adaptation strategies that you are talking about that you did are local. And sporadic. We are talking about a global thing. Is your implementation of adaptation strategies global? Have you been planning an adaptation strategy that is global? Have you seen anyone planning it? Have you seen anyone even discussing it with any kind of numbers? No? Thought so.

Do we have a global government? No? Then your questions here are deliberately misleading, and you should know better than this.

And you aren't alone who has been doing those adaptation strategies by far, here is a little different opinion on what they are worth from someone in the same position as yourself (although he is from the US, and you might be from, say, Canada):

Dear everloving bacon, you're quoting an anonymous comment posted in response to an article on the biggest climate-change-denial website.

And you expect that to be taken seriously?

You're not citing bullshit artists and conspiracy nuts. You're citing people who post comments on articles written by bullshit artists and conspiracy nuts. I thought you were trying to actually honestly participate in this discussion, but it's pretty clear you're just pushing a disinformation platform at this point.

[Garnier Fructis]

c'mon CFCs were an easy issue. There were alternatives and it wasn't a case where creating CFC alternatives required releasing more CFCs. Energy is far too difficult a topic for this analogy.

Yes, that's true. But you're sort of missing why CFC's were brought up in the first place. Which is that someone thought Ozone Hole was caused by Climate Change.

- - - Updated - - -

The entire world looks at this pointless hysteria of the West and shrugs thinking "WTF is this? nothing about it makes sense". When someone comes to them with the "let's all spend money on nothing" spiel, they ask "why should we?" and when there is no reasonable answer (and there is no reasonable answer, the answers only make sense to the AGW activists which are, thankfully, a complete minority speaking at large), they politely decline or do a token gesture.

This is quite clearly false, which you can see by just googling.

- - - Updated - - -

its called climate change now, its the 21st century.

What do the last two letters of 'IPCC' stand for? And when was it created?

[Mafic]

It is much easier. There is no sound plan of action (what there is has completely negligible effect on the levels of CO2, completely ignores positive feedbacks that are supposed to be the basis of the issue - they are supposedly scarily non-linear when we talk about dangers but everyone just forgets about that when talking about mitigation, and it also costs an arm and a leg). There is pretty much nothing except this "global warming happens, we have to act now, and shut up the deniers" crusade. That's why nobody does anything except funding further research.

The entire world looks at this pointless hysteria of the West and shrugs thinking "WTF is this? nothing about it makes sense". When someone comes to them with the "let's all spend money on nothing" spiel, they ask "why should we?" and when there is no reasonable answer (and there is no reasonable answer, the answers only make sense to the AGW activists which are, thankfully, a complete minority speaking at large), they politely decline or do a token gesture.

From my view point the issue of human accelerated climate change is always an an economic question. Do you want to curb Co2 emissions or do you want to rebuild coastal cities away from coast lines or build pumps? Disregarding human influence on climate change if the earth's average temperature is warming on a natural trajectory it is still an economic question that has to be answered by people voting at the ballot box and with their money.

I think this is where scientists are dragged down by the discussion, because they do not factor in human factors like economy and the desire to build homes on beaches. However, the government is partly responsible by allowing these beach homeowners to build on beaches knowing the risk factors and subsidizing their properties by bringing in sand to ensure their property do not disappear.

Again it is an economic question regarding the building of rigs off Florida coast for example. Trump, who is well versed in economics of building even declared that a no go for the obvious reasons that Californian's living on Huntington Beach learned the hard way.

[Endus]

I think this is where scientists are dragged down by the discussion, because they do not factor in human factors like economy and the desire to build homes on beaches. However, the government is partly responsible by allowing these beach homeowners to build on beaches knowing the risk factors and subsidizing their properties by bringing in sand to ensure their property do not disappear.

I feel this is unfair. It's two entirely distinct questions.

A scientist's job is to answer questions like "What's happening" and "how does this work". Potentially moving into "So what can we do about it". And that's as far as it goes.

Once we get into "what are we going to do about it", we're beyond what scientists can answer, and into dealing with governmental and private sector leadership. Which may be informed by the answers to the above questions, but scientists aren't directly contributing to this particular stage, largely, other than by providing that background information to inform the decision-makers.

Scientists don't factor in things like the economy and personal enjoyment because those are beyond the scope of what scientists are looking at.

The scientists can tell you how quickly they expect sea levels to rise along a particular shore, and where the flooding is likely to be the worst. It's up to regional governments to communicate this to stakeholders so that those stakeholders can make the best-informed decisions regarding what to do about that changing risk factor, whether that means armoring the coastline, adjusting development to abide by a larger setback, or simply accepting that the damage is coming and that rebuilding in those same locations would be folly, but it's not worth protecting them at this time. Which isn't an easy decision, and definitely not one you'll ever really find universal acceptance for whatever decision you do make. But pretending there's no study on the issue, when it's been actively discussed and explored for decades at this point, is abject nonsense.

[Mafic]

He was right in how he presented it. Just because you do not agree with it, proves nothing. But I have read scientists commenting it is too late to stop the global warming anyway, because the odds of getting all the major green gas contributors to agree to enough reductions is not going to happen. So i suggest your best crusade other than coming here, is to prepare yourself for another Ice age.

The idea to have a global consensus doesn't work in reality when it looks good on paper. China for example is pushing for green energy and better air quality and cities because it was an economic question. That economic question is how to do we retain our middle class to stay, invest and spend in China as well as attract foreign investors?

Also, what is the cost of pushing for heavy industry beyond 2018 versus the cost of remediation of contaminated land? The Chinese government came to their senses and realized the cost of pushing heavy industry no longer had greater benefits than the cost of fixing contaminated land, rivers and lakes.

This is why the Department of Energy of the US spends so much money fixing these contaminated sites. There is an economic incentive to do so as the future value of land increases as there is an increasing scarcity of land to be purchased.

[TZucchini]

When scientists say "there could be a mini ice age", I believe them.

When scientists say "human emissions warm the atmosphere", I don't believe them.

[Mafic]

I feel this is unfair. It's two entirely distinct questions.

Actually having to examine the economics of the environmental impacts is more than fair. In fact, it is important for scientists to recognize this is part of public policy. It is true science isn't about black and white yes or no answers that the public policy makers are looking for. However, if public policy makers agree with the scientists on an issue the public policy makers do need guidance on what happens next. And then scientists must team up with public policy makers, engineers, economists, etc to make it all happen with a plan of action.

Scientists don't do their work in a vacuum where they do not examine economic factors and politics. A lot of scientists that receive public funds or grants also run their own private businesses. Scientists that work only in the public sector are always discussing these matters with other scientists that work in the private sector. Again, scientists don't exist in their neat little bubble doing their work without influence. And scientists don't say their work is done once their research is done even if the public policy makers agree with the research of scientists.

A scientist's job is to answer questions like "What's happening" and "how does this work". Potentially moving into "So what can we do about it". And that's as far as it goes.

I agree,but you are ignoring the fact that scientists must team up with engineers, public policy makers and economists. You can't say that scientists are not cognizant of the economic impacts when they put forth these plans of actions or why they conduct research in the first place. This is why all scientists graduating form universities around the world are required to take classes on environmental public policy, scientific communication, and environmental impact studies whether they study biology, oceanography, geology, microbiology, etc.

are[/i] we going to do about it", we're beyond what scientists can answer, and into dealing with governmental and private sector leadership. Which may be informed by the answers to the above questions, but scientists aren't directly contributing to this particular stage, largely, other than by providing that background information to inform the decision-makers.

Nope. Scientists, economists and engineers have to spearhead efforts once public policy makers give the green light. Scientists don't take a back seat and say their "work is done". That is when the real work begins. Even the academic scientists must be more involved once there is a green light. Again, scientists do not exist in their little bubble world where they focus only on their research as not even academic scientists do that. Even academic scientists will interact with their surrounding community and government to solve local and regional issues.

looking at[/i].

That isn't true as science has moved beyond that paradigm. Scientists must examine economic factors as that is the best way to gain research grants and that is the academic side. In the private industry, engineering firms with scientists are always, always doing economic studies. This is because they are competing with other engineering firms for money with clients on solving particular issues. Scientists that work for the government must provide economic impacts along with scientific research. A lot of these government panels have oversight by elected officials to these boards, so scientists must answer to these elected officials.

do[/i] make. But pretending there's no study on the issue, when it's been actively discussed and explored for decades at this point, is abject nonsense.

Regional government is not equipped to intelligently communicate the scientific issues raised or poised which is why scientists are stepping in to do this. Scientists have moved beyond the paradigm of being bystanders and moved to being more proactive to communicate these issues with the public.

Scientists have prided themselves in the past of being impartial. But economics and politics isn't about being impartial, so many scientists have accepted this and have adjusted accordingly.

[Ettan]

In terms of geology techincally we are still in one. Permanent ice at sea level anywhere on the planet and you live in an ice age.
Glacial minimum is what our current situation is described as (with the ice reeceded to the poles).
But that doesnt mean we have left the recent/current ice age; see the Quaternary period; Pleistocene glaciation.
It would be more correct to say we might head into a new glacial maximum.
As long as humans have existed the planet has been in an ice age.

[Mafic]

In terms of geology techincally we are still in one. Permanent ice at sea level anywhere on the planet and you live in an ice age.
Glacial minimum is what our current situation is described as (with the ice reeceded to the poles).
But that doesnt mean we have left the recent/current ice age; see the Quaternary period; Pleistocene glaciation.
It would be more correct to say we might head into a new glacial maximum.
As long as humans have existed the planet has been in an ice age.

But when people say mini ice age they are talking about global temperatures. Most people don't know the difference between glacial minimum and glacial maximum. If you explain to people the concept of interglacial period that probably helps ordinary people understand the concepts better.

[Ettan]

But when people say mini ice age they are talking about global temperatures. Most people don't know the difference between glacial minimum and glacial maximum. If you explain to people the concept of interglacial period that probably helps ordinary people understand the concepts better.

This guy does a very good summary of it.