Here are a couple of examples from the last few weeks of what could go wrong:

http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V6_N1/feature2.pdf

In it the prominent NOAA researcher Martin Hoerling discusses the alarming prospect of “a new era of drought” for the Southwest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/science/30bear.html

In this story, Jesse Logan discusses how a species of pine trees on which grizzly bears depend are likely to be nearly wiped out by the mountain pine beetle’s ability to thrive in warmer winters, as he predicted in studies years ago.

Other examples could be found without much difficulty. To suppose that changing the climate will have major consequences is not a stretch. I can buy Roger’s argument that we need to do more than simply reduce greenhouse gas emissions to face this challenge, but to suppose that there is no reason to worry is a little crazy.

But I’m impressed with your orginality!

I agree with you that it is in our enlightened self-interest to “improve well-being” in the developing world, by helping them to improve domestic governance and rule of law. SOme, like Jonathan Adler, have even acknowledged that there may be an ethical aspect to this, since the climate effect likely to be felt over the next century are largely the result of emissions by the developed nations.

But as you have elsewhere acknowledged, this is likely to require a significant commitment of funds and concerted action with other nations. Other than voices such as yours, I see little discussion of the size and difficulty of the adaptation/development problem and little appetite for actual further funding. Rather, the “adaptation” argument is used mainly as a rhetorical device by those who wish to continue to use the global commons for free, and to avoid expenses they would anticipate from mitigation actions.

IMHO, it seems to me that we need to proceed on both fronts, and to use revenues generated from carbon taxes/sale of emission rights to fund our efforts to help other nations.

Regarding earthquakes …. we have examples in the last 100yrs. However, for co2/GW we have no disaster examples in the last 100yrs.

Thus it’s perfectly reasonable to take precautions regarding future earthquakes but to be rather skeptical regarding future disasters resulting from co2.

Jim talks about people living in disaster areas, and writes, “Why do you suppose that is?”. Good question. For some reason people are smarter when they vote with their feet.

That sounds like a very worthwhile project. I suspect you are right about the future level of malaria prevalence being much lower than it is today because even today’s developing countries will be richer, technologically more advanced and with greater access to human capital, and we’ll know much more about the disease. I suggest as much in the paper I referred to in that earlier post.

Malaria is a disease of poverty, and Tol & Dowlatabadi, who are referenced in that paper, have shown that malaria is more or less eliminated in countries with a GDP per capita of $3,100 (I think it was in 1995 dollars, but I’d have to check).

Notably, for other diseases of poverty the long term declines in death rates have exceeded 99% for the US (and I suspect for other developed countries too). For the US, they declined 100% for typhoid and paratyphoid between 1900-1997, 99.8% for gastrointestinal diseases from 1900-1970, and 99.6% for dysentery from 1900-1997. [Source, if you don't mind me tooting my own horn: Goklany, The Improving State of the World: Why We're Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2007 (just published)]. So your first order guess would seem to be in the right ball park, assuming that, for whatever reason, we don’t reject effective technologies (like we did DDT), and that we stay on top of whatever evolution, in the form of resistant strains of mosquitoes and malaria parasites, throws our way.

Incidentally, these declines also illustrate the perils of projecting estimates into the future using methodologies that neglect improvements in technology and adaptive capacity, as virtually every current impact assessment does. [So I'll be very interested in seeing whether the IPCC WG2 report claims anything other than "low confidence" in any results based on such assessments, particualrly if they are sensitive to socioeconomic factors.] However, regardless of the precise magnitude of deaths due to malaria in 2085 (or whatever), as a first order approximation I would think the contribution of climate change to the total malaria deaths would continue to be in the 3-4% range (or similar), i.e., for malaria at least, climate change ought not to be a dominant factor.

These perils also extend to methodologies that estimate costs of control or adaptation but neglect secular trends in technology.

Malaria, 8820, 256 to 323, 9076 to 9143, 3% to 4%”

As a result of my exchange with Richard Tol on malaria, I hope to develop a model to predict the total number of deaths worldwide from malaria every year in the 21st century. It plan to produce predictions in the form of 5 percent, 50 percent, and 95 percent probability predictions. That is, a number for which there is only a 5 percent probability that the total number of deaths will be lower, a number for which there is a 50 percent probability that the deaths will be lower (and 50 percent chance that it will be higher), and a number for which there is a 95 percent probability the deaths will be lower.

Currently, worldwide deaths from malaria might have 5 percent, 50 percent and 95 percent probability estimates of 500 thousand, 1 million, and 2 million. (These are just wild guesses, I need to carefully review the literature.)

I would not be surprised if the 2080 values look something like *zero*, 10 thousand, and 200 thousand. That is, I wouldn’t be surprised if the “50 percent probability” value for 2080 is at least a factor of ~100 lower than the present level (i.e. a 99 percent reduction from the present value). And I think I’ll find at least a possibility of total eradication of malaria by 2080. In fact, maybe I’ll even find a 50 percent probability (or greater) of total eradication of malaria by 2080.

These are just total guesses. I need to do the research first. But I think I’ll find that speculating about worldwide deaths from malaria in 2080 will be like people in 1890 speculating about deaths in Manhattan in 1980 from diseases related to horse poop. Would people in 1890 have foreseen the complete replacement of horses by automobiles? Only if they had extraordinary foresight!

http://www.vny.cuny.edu/blizzard/building/building.html

P.S. Check out those overhead wires! There’s another big change from 1890 to 1980 in Manhattan. Would a person in 1890 have predicted that in 1980 one would not be able to see the sky at all from the streets, due to overhead wires?

A climate change crisis, on the other hand, is not something we have historical data on, yet there is the constant call to limit our use of fossil fuels to prevent a problem that only exists in computer models.

I guess the folks in California are willing to accept the risk of the next big quake in order to continue enjoying their California lifestyle. They know the quake will happen, but they are willing to prepare for it now and deal with it when it arrives, rather than give up their wonderful way of life.

The same strategy is in play with people who live in hurricane prone areas or in the Northeast US where they have their famous blizzards! All across the planet people have chosen to live in areas prone to extreme natural events, preferring to prepare for these events and dealing with them when they arrive, rather than dramatically changing their lives.

A similar strategy for climate change seems to be out of the question, even though it is not nearly the clear and present danger of extreme natural events.

Why do you suppose that is?

Having lived in California I am familiar with earthquakes. My understanding is that climate and earthquakes are quite different. We should be able to see the consequences of burning FF, increased co2, associated warming and the resulting negative and positive consequences in the record of the last 100yrs. And I think we do see some.

Increased standard of living

More plants and animals from co2 fertilization

Slightly warmer winter nights in the higher latitudes

Modest increases in sea level

The linkages of the above are not certain. However the the results thus far have been modest to beneficial. Again, given co2 is increasing linearly and co2 forcing ~log there is no reason to worry about the future (unless you want to).

Surely you wouldn’t argue that Californians need not worry about earthquakes, since it’s been over a 100 years since they’ve faced a really big one?