Comments on: Some Views of IPCC WGII Contributors That You Won’t Read About in the News http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4181 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4181&cpage=1#comment-8818 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:41:03 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4181#comment-8818 Simon- Thanks for your comments. had the E&E article said anything remotely as nuanced as you did it'd be a different story: "Of course, the effects of mitigation won't be felt for some time. And of course, some adaptation is necessary, as there has already been some warming and some further warming is unavoidable given the aforementioned lags." It said nothing of the sort. Thanks! Simon- Thanks for your comments. had the E&E article said anything remotely as nuanced as you did it’d be a different story:

“Of course, the effects of mitigation won’t be felt for some time. And of course, some adaptation is necessary, as there has already been some warming and some further warming is unavoidable given the aforementioned lags.”

It said nothing of the sort. Thanks!

]]> By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4181&cpage=1#comment-8817 Mark Bahner Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:15:37 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4181#comment-8817 "Adaptation by social and ecological systems to this committed warming, or to warming under a stabilization at a doubling of CO2 scenario, is clearly more plausible and more affordable than adaptation to a 3-4 C warming." I don't understand. The IPCC AR4 "best" estimate of warming from a doubling of CO2 ***is*** 3 degrees Celsius. So if 3 deg C is the IPCC's best estimate of the warming from a doubling of CO2, how can adaptation to stabilization at a doubling of CO2 be "clearly more plausible and affordable" than adaptation to 3 deg C warming? “Adaptation by social and ecological systems to this committed warming, or to warming under a stabilization at a doubling of CO2 scenario, is clearly more plausible and more affordable than adaptation to a 3-4 C warming.”

I don’t understand. The IPCC AR4 “best” estimate of warming from a doubling of CO2 ***is*** 3 degrees Celsius.

So if 3 deg C is the IPCC’s best estimate of the warming from a doubling of CO2, how can adaptation to stabilization at a doubling of CO2 be “clearly more plausible and affordable” than adaptation to 3 deg C warming?

]]> By: Simon Donner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4181&cpage=1#comment-8816 Simon Donner Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:02:03 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4181#comment-8816 Straw man aside here, the use of those quotes, especially the first highlighted line from Dr. Agrawala, is a bit disingenuous. The message "that adaptation would be difficult, hence mitigation should be preferred" obviously depends on the time frame. Of course, the effects of mitigation won't be felt for some time. And of course, some adaptation is necessary, as there has already been some warming and some further warming is unavoidable given the aforementioned lags. Adaptation by social and ecological systems to this committed warming, or to warming under a stabilization at a doubling of CO2 scenario, is clearly more plausible and more affordable than adaptation to a 3-4 C warming. A 'preference' for mitigation now simply recognizes that actions today dictate the emissions path, and whether we'll face the unenviable and for many impossible task of adapting to a 3-4 C warming. Dr. Agrawala's final sentence should be highlighted: without mitigation now, adaptation may become impossible Straw man aside here, the use of those quotes, especially the first highlighted line from Dr. Agrawala, is a bit disingenuous. The message “that adaptation would be difficult, hence mitigation should be preferred” obviously depends on the time frame. Of course, the effects of mitigation won’t be felt for some time. And of course, some adaptation is necessary, as there has already been some warming and some further warming is unavoidable given the aforementioned lags.

Adaptation by social and ecological systems to this committed warming, or to warming under a stabilization at a doubling of CO2 scenario, is clearly more plausible and more affordable than adaptation to a 3-4 C warming. A ‘preference’ for mitigation now simply recognizes that actions today dictate the emissions path, and whether we’ll face the unenviable and for many impossible task of adapting to a 3-4 C warming. Dr. Agrawala’s final sentence should be highlighted: without mitigation now, adaptation may become impossible

]]> By: Lab Lemming http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4181&cpage=1#comment-8815 Lab Lemming Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:59:06 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4181#comment-8815 So is the idea of using carbon pricing (tax or credits) to pay for adaptation not on anyone's agenda? Have there been any realistic, tractable conservative solutions to climate change suggested? Just wondering. -LL So is the idea of using carbon pricing (tax or credits) to pay for adaptation not on anyone’s agenda? Have there been any realistic, tractable conservative solutions to climate change suggested?

Just wondering.
-LL

]]>