Climate Change Worse Than Expected, Argues Lord Stern

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Climate change looks far more threatening than it did six years ago as the world marches toward a warming of 4 degrees Celsius higher by the end of the century compared to the preindustrial era, said Lord Nicholas Stern, a professor of economics and chairman of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics.

Stern called for new and better climate models and better economic assessments of climate impacts but maintained that the main obstacle to action is political will.

The former World Bank chief economist was critical of his own 2006 review on the economics of climate change, a document considered seminal to climate change discussions, which estimated that the overall cost of climate change would shave off at least 5 percent of gross domestic product growth annually. Stern said that the review underestimated the "immense risk" fromglobal warming. He made a similar admission and warning earlier this year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Speaking at the International Monetary Fund headquarters in Washington, D.C., Stern painted a gloomy picture of emissions being at the top end of the Stern Review projections, sea ice decline and ocean acidification occurring faster than anticipated, and growing impacts from feedbacks and tipping points not factored into climate models.

The current rate of greenhouse gas emissions will warm the world much more than the targeted 2 degree Celsius above preindustrial levels by the end of the century, according Stern. Even if nations stick to the emissions reduction commitments they made at the 2010 U.N. climate conference in Cancun, Mexico, temperatures will rise between 4 and 5 degrees, causing boundaries for deserts, coastlines and rivers to be redrawn. These issues of human welfare need to be factored into climate models, Stern said.

Life-affecting changes

He drew on the example of climate models that predict a 20 percent loss in agriculture in India with a 4-degree-Celsius rise in temperature. The models do not factor in further deterioration due to loss of snow in the Himalayas that would lead to destruction of rivers or for radical changes in the south Asian monsoon. "Some of the questions we have to ask are what really affects human life -- extreme weatherevents, inundation, desertification. That's what affects human life," Stern said.

Also missing from current climate models are the lasting and dynamic impacts of extreme weather events. "Some close friends in Pakistan tried to describe to me with what happened in the floods in 2010. They said development was put back by 20 years. If you put back development by 20 years every 10 years, you are going backwards," he said.

Similarly, according to Stern, economic assessments underestimate impacts of climate change, place a modest price tag on carbon, and don't make room for loss of capital, labor and land in the future. The economic scenarios fail to recognize that future generations may be poorer and growth could be reversed, he said. He called the discussion of discounting in climate change "purely awful."

Another major failure of economic policies, he said, has been the pricing of hydrocarbons. "You cannot believe two things together -- that the price of hydrocarbons is right and the world has a 50-50 chance of holding to 2 degrees [Celsius]," Stern said.

The economist said that world has to make the transition to a low-carbon economy with innovation, investment and dynamism. "We have to see this alternative path as a new energy industrial revolution. We must divide emissions output by a factor of seven or eight," said Stern pointing to the fast-falling costs of solar energy technology as evidence that it can be done.

more...

http://www.scientifi..._id=SA_Facebook

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Who?

[lostinblue 1,989]

Who?

a professor of economics

[Karee 4,191]

Howard Stern got a royal title?

[himher 634]

Lord Gore: Raise taxes / pass regulations because we have too much ozone in the cities then raise taxes pass regulations because we have too little ozone over the whole planet

I love liberal logic

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Lord Gore: Raise taxes / pass regulations because we have too much ozone in the cities then raise taxes pass regulations because we have too little ozone over the whole planet

I love liberal logic

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

This has been the standard report

"The problem is worse than we expected and we need more money"

The problem, obviously, can only be solved by taxes and regulations on Americans to drive all the manufacturing to China where they have no taxes, no regulation and no controls. The Chinese will buy oil from Canada to burn to produce all the stuff we need

[Neonred 3,936]

I still believe the root of the problem is worldwide population growth. Too many people demanding too many products and using too much petroleum.

I have a hard time understanding how man thinks he can alter mother nature on such a grand scale, especially on the backs of Americans and Europeans.

[himher 634]

I still believe the root of the problem is worldwide population growth. Too many people demanding too many products and using too much petroleum.

I have a hard time understanding how man thinks he can alter mother nature on such a grand scale, especially on the backs of Americans and Europeans.

It is less population growth than it is a rising middle class, especially in Asia.

They can solve that problem the way it is being solved here with a few liberal elitists like LORD GORE who can park their SUV, leave it running, do a speech and declare to everyone else that vehicles and airline prices and fuel should be priced out of their reach to save the planet, then return to their SUV and fly their empty jet to the next place to declare the same thing to the next group.

[lostinblue 1,989]

It is less population growth than it is a rising middle class, especially in Asia.

They can solve that problem the way it is being solved here with a few liberal elitists like LORD GORE who can park their SUV, leave it running, do a speech and declare to everyone else that vehicles and airline prices and fuel should be priced out of their reach to save the planet, then return to their SUV and fly their empty jet to the next place to declare the same thing to the next group.

"What they do want, more than anything else, is social power. They want control over every living human being without question. All other concerns are secondary."

The liberal elite ... know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way."

- A Nation Of Cowards, by Jeffrey R. Snyder

[james&olya 1,121]

Who?

Pathetic. If it was Snooki, the Kardashian twits, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh you would know immediately! But someone who actually is knowledgeable and has been a leader in an important area of thinking and you say 'Who?'! This is what is wrong with our society and helps explain the ignorance voiced in the posts following yours.

[james&olya 1,121]

Lord Gore: Raise taxes / pass regulations because we have too much ozone in the cities then raise taxes pass regulations because we have too little ozone over the whole planet

I love liberal logic

I am guessing you probably think your statement is clever. You may even believe it to be true and informed. It is not. Just as water is a good and necessary thing, in the wrong place, like your lungs, it is lethal. Similarly, Ozone very high in our atmosphere is not only a natural occurrence but is necessary to shield us from radiation. Pollutants can reduce this protective shield and the resulting radiation can kill you by inducing cancer. At the same time that high atmospheric ozone protects us, ozone in the air we breathe is toxic. This is fact. You can have any opinion about it you want but it will remain fact.

I know this sounds a little like nuance and you RWN's don't like that but such is the case with this issue. I guess your inability or unwillingness to grasp this makes it far too much to hope that you would ever understand the complexities of how modern economies operate. So you become fodder for manipulation by the likes of the Koch brothers. All hail big oil!

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Climate change looks far more threatening than it did six years ago as the world marches toward a warming of 4 degrees Celsius higher by the end of the century compared to the preindustrial era, said Lord Nicholas Stern, a professor of economics and chairman of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics.

Stern called for new and better climate models and better economic assessments of climate impacts but maintained that the main obstacle to action is political will.

The former World Bank chief economist was critical of his own 2006 review on the economics of climate change, a document considered seminal to climate change discussions, which estimated that the overall cost of climate change would shave off at least 5 percent of gross domestic product growth annually. Stern said that the review underestimated the "immense risk" fromglobal warming. He made a similar admission and warning earlier this year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Speaking at the International Monetary Fund headquarters in Washington, D.C., Stern painted a gloomy picture of emissions being at the top end of the Stern Review projections, sea ice decline and ocean acidification occurring faster than anticipated, and growing impacts from feedbacks and tipping points not factored into climate models.

The current rate of greenhouse gas emissions will warm the world much more than the targeted 2 degree Celsius above preindustrial levels by the end of the century, according Stern. Even if nations stick to the emissions reduction commitments they made at the 2010 U.N. climate conference in Cancun, Mexico, temperatures will rise between 4 and 5 degrees, causing boundaries for deserts, coastlines and rivers to be redrawn. These issues of human welfare need to be factored into climate models, Stern said.

Life-affecting changes

He drew on the example of climate models that predict a 20 percent loss in agriculture in India with a 4-degree-Celsius rise in temperature. The models do not factor in further deterioration due to loss of snow in the Himalayas that would lead to destruction of rivers or for radical changes in the south Asian monsoon. "Some of the questions we have to ask are what really affects human life -- extreme weatherevents, inundation, desertification. That's what affects human life," Stern said.

Also missing from current climate models are the lasting and dynamic impacts of extreme weather events. "Some close friends in Pakistan tried to describe to me with what happened in the floods in 2010. They said development was put back by 20 years. If you put back development by 20 years every 10 years, you are going backwards," he said.

Similarly, according to Stern, economic assessments underestimate impacts of climate change, place a modest price tag on carbon, and don't make room for loss of capital, labor and land in the future. The economic scenarios fail to recognize that future generations may be poorer and growth could be reversed, he said. He called the discussion of discounting in climate change "purely awful."

Another major failure of economic policies, he said, has been the pricing of hydrocarbons. "You cannot believe two things together -- that the price of hydrocarbons is right and the world has a 50-50 chance of holding to 2 degrees [Celsius]," Stern said.

The economist said that world has to make the transition to a low-carbon economy with innovation, investment and dynamism. "We have to see this alternative path as a new energy industrial revolution. We must divide emissions output by a factor of seven or eight," said Stern pointing to the fast-falling costs of solar energy technology as evidence that it can be done.

more...

http://www.scientifi..._id=SA_Facebook

What happened to global warming. Too many people catch on the that farce. Too embarrassing to say now

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Pathetic. If it was Snooki, the Kardashian twits, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh you would know immediately! But someone who actually is knowledgeable and has been a leader in an important area of thinking and you say 'Who?'! This is what is wrong with our society and helps explain the ignorance voiced in the posts following yours.

Yes. People should willingly head to the reeducation camps, so that they can unlearn generations of incorrect thinking.

[james&olya 1,121]

What happened to global warming. Too many people catch on the that farce. Too embarrassing to say now

Not embarrassing at all. While global warming has more evidence in its favor daily, the term is too simplistic. 'Climate change' is preferred by many but with the understanding that in most areas that means warming. These changes will and already do involve precipitation pattern changes and increases in extreme events. Some areas are anticipated to actually get colder. The only farce has to do with the ostrich mentality folks who want to believe if they say it or hear it on Fox 'news' often enough that maybe it is not really happening. Are you going to stay part of that group?