Population growth is THE problem.

Never mind the thousands of animals and plants that also live on those atolls, they have nowhere else to go. People will simply relocate. The human animal only thinks of itself.

Exelent detailed post. It would appear that 'climate change' is being used to deflect from a host of underlying social, political and cultural problems.

Credit where due: a sound and detailed article which reaches irrefutable conclusions.

Policy relevant facts on climate change:

1. Climate change does not change in smooth curves as the climate modelers' would have you believe. It changes abruptly. Always has and always will.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1 ,
http://web.vims.edu/sms/Courses/ms501_2000/Broecker1995.pdf

2. Life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when colder. It thrives during warming periods and struggles during cooling. See Figure 15.21 here: http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/1983/1/McCarron.pdf . Note that the climate warmed from near glacial temperatures to near current temperatures in 7 years 14,600 years ago and in 9 years, 11,600 years ago. And guess what? Life loved the rapid warming periods. Life burst out and thrived.

3. For 75% of the last half billion years - the period when animal life has thrived - there has been no ice caps at either pole http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-3.html . We are currently in a cold-house phase. It strains credulity to argue that 1% warming (i.e. 3K/273K) will be catastrophic when we won’t get anywhere near the global average temperatures of the previous warm times.

4. The planet has been cooling for the past 50 million years and we are currently in only the third cold-house phase in the past half billion years.

5. We won’t get out of the current cold-house phase until plate tectonics movements reopen a path for global ocean circulation around the equatorial regions http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html .

6. Warming and increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been a major benefit to life and to humanity for the past 200 years. It strains credulity to accept the increased plant productivity that this positive trend is delivering will suddenly change and turn negative.

7. Despite 25 years of climate research and spending reportedly $1.5 trillion per year on the ‘Climate Industry’ http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm , we have only a very poor understanding of the damage function. In fact, most people who blabber on about 'climate science' and call those who do not accept their interpretations of the relevant facts "climate deniers" haven’t even heard of the damage function, let alone able to define it and quantify it.

Cont ...

Cont ...

8. According to the most widely accept Integrated Assessment Model (IAM) for projecting future climate damages, abatement costs, social cost of carbon, net-cost benefit of proposed policies, the abatement policies that have a net cost - irrespective of any climate considerations - would be a net cost, not a net benefit for all this century. See the chart here:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2014/10/Lang-3.jpg
explanation here: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/

9. Figure 3 in http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0613-3 (free access to earlier version here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf ) shows that global warming projected by the climate modelers would be net beneficial for most of this century. The only component that becomes a significant net cost, late in the century, is energy. This cost is based on the assumption that energy costs must rise as GHG mitigation policies force us to move to renewables. However, we won’t move to renewables (because they cannot provide the energy the world needs). We'll move to cheap nuclear power. With cheap energy and all other parameters summing to be a significantly net-beneficial any GW that does occur would be net beneficial to well beyond this century. (Professor Richard Tol - has been a recognised world leader in estimating the damage effects of climate change for 25 years or so.)

10. What is needed to support rational policy analysis are probability distributions for:

a. time to next abrupt climate change

b. direction of next abrupt climate change (i.e. warming or cooling)

c. duration of next abrupt climate change

d. total amount of change

e. damage function (i.e. net economic cost per degree of warning or cooling)

It is concerning that we’ve spent 25 years on climate research (and are spending some $1.5 trillion per year on policies justified on the basis of CAGW) to get to the point we are at now where we know little that is relevant for rational policy analysis.

Oh dear Peter,

I've just discovered your post.

It is a direct cut and paste from a previous one in another thread. I think you might be just a clickbait whore.

I had been looking forward to an enlivening exchange however I usually find the cut and pasters are not that bright.

Pity.

Peter. An excellent post and, like the author of this piece, most comprehensive. It is unfortunate that, despite presenting accurate relevant information repeatedly (clickbaiting?), Sometime it takes repeated presentation to get through to the science and evidence deniers. As opposed to name calling, perhaps the content of the links you refer to could be disputed with alternative evidence. Slug on sir.

Dear Prompete,

I'm assuming your post was directed at me, if it wasn't then please forgive me.

The tone I adopted was reflective of Peter Lang's dismissiveness of AGW proponents. But if you are keen to have a discussion on the merits of his post here minus the sniping then I am more than happy to oblige.

Perhaps we could begin by you letting us know what you consider to be the best example of “accurate relevant information” contained within his post. I will undertake to give a full and frank appraisal of it.

Oh dear SteeleRedux

I hope you're not calling me a whore. Hopefully (from my point of view) you're referring to another Peter, whose reply I found very interesting, and who did put his name to his reply.

Dear Peter McCoy,

My apologies if you thought my post was directed at you, it was not. As yet I have not had cause to think you are going to take a belligerent and dismissive tone toward those who accept the science of AGW.

I asked this of another gentleman on another thread and repeat it here. You say you found Peter Lang's post interesting, I'm wondering if you could enlighten us on what part you found the most engaging? I would be more than happy to address it in a fulsome manner.

In the meanwhile I acknowledge it has been rather remiss and even rude of me not to have cast a critical eye over your article. Forgive me also for seeking out any statistics regarding the impacts of climate change as they are pertinent to the issue even if your piece suggests they are of limited concern.

The only figures you seem to have supplied addressing sea levels was the following;

“The Australian Bureau of Meteorology's Sea Level & Climate Monitoring Project found that between 1992 and 2012 the mean sea level at Tarawa varied between about 1570mm and 1680mm”

The figures for Tarawa can be found here;
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70060/IDO70060SLD.shtml

My question for you is why did you only include the data up to 2012 when a complete and up to date data set was readily available? It shows that the mean monthly sea level in fact ranged from 1.37 mts to 1.838 mts. The highest reading was recorded in May this year.

Why have you used the term “varied”? Taking the decade figures the average mean sea level during the 1990s was 1.613 mtrs, during the 2000's it was 1.669 mtrs and thus far in the 2010s the figure has again risen to 1.695 mtrs.

This year thus far the figure is 1.761 mtrs.

On the surface you appeared at pains to want to downplay the issue of rising sea levels, but perhaps there is another explanation for your phrasing and misquoting figures.

I'm interested to hear it.

The relevant issue is not whether sea levels are rising. The point is that these islands are living organisms, they tend to adjust to the sea level. The fresh water lens floats, the sea level is largely irrelevant. The real damage to both science and the population of islands like Kiribati is done by those who use observations of selected phenomena e.g. sea levels, to avoid addressing the real issues - in this case being that the real danger to Kiribati is the politics of climate change, not the fact of climate change.

Dear Peter McCoy,

It appears these are the three takeaway messages from your last post.

1. You do not have an explanation for your 'phrasing and misquoting' of mean sea level figures.
2. You dismiss the concerns of sea level rises because of a belief the islands will 'rise above' them. Hopefully you understand why those living there might not share your optimism given the rate of increase.
3. You found nothing in Peter Lang's post worthy of highlighting.

Well I suppose I'm happy to leave it there.

Thanks Peter McCloy for a very sound article. Population growth does indeed seem to be at the heart of the problem though sea-level rise is certainly an existential threat that cannot be dismissed. If Australia is giving so much aid, it should insist it goes into reproductive health with free contraception an integral part of it and any policies for gender equality and education of women must be supported. Stabilisation of populatioin numbers has to be the number one priority.

popnperish,

You say:

"sea-level rise is certainly an existential threat."

What do you mean by that statement? Can you quantify the risk of sea-levle ris? Risk means consequence times probability. It is normally givin in terms of the expected monetary value of the risk. Consequences is normally given as the cost if the event or condition occurs, bu can also be given As fatalities or serious health consequences per defined population, period,, or other definitions). The expected monetary value should be normalised, e.g. as % of GDP or some such measure.

This paper estimates that the cumulative net cost for the whole world of a rise in sea level by 2100, would be:
0.5 m rise = $0.2 trillion
1 m rise = $1 trillion
"Economic impact of substantyial sea level rise" http://www.springerlink.com/content/851112j434t26502/fulltext.pdf
These costs are insignificant compared with cumulative global GDP to 2100. For comparison, we are spending $1.5 trillion per year on the "climate industry" now. And that is virually all wasted.

" Stabilisation of populatioin numbers has to be the number one priority."
We'll achieve that fastest by lifting the poor countries out of poverty as quickly as possible. The best way to achieve that is to maximise world economic growth and spread the growth as widely as possible. The way to achieve that is:

1. stop wasting money on ridiculous distractions like CAGW
2. open up trade by reducign trade barriers and moving as fast as possoble to global free
3. Encouraging globalisation
4. Encouraging the large multi-national corporat5es, rather than trying to slow them. They are the very best way to spread wealth from rich to poor and to reduce cost of products and services globally. They also develop all the drugs and other things that are most capable of improving the health and well being of the poorest people.

Dear Peter Lang

Sea-levels are rising and Kiribati and other atolls are low-lying. We can expect seawater incursions into their gardens and drinking water supplies even without the pressures of population growth. We can expect more extreme weather events. If James Hansen is right (though the recent paper has yet to be peer-reviewed) then we may get 3 metres of sea-level rise by the end of the century. If that is the case, Kiribati will be pretty much underwater.

You're wrong when you say the only way top reduce population growth is through economic growth. Plenty of poor countries e.g. Bangladesh, have reduced their fertility rates just through provision of family planning/contraceptives. It's better when wrapped in universal primary health care and accompanied by gender equality and education for women and girls. Economic growth does help (though it's usually correlation rather than causation) but if that economic growth is based on a fossil fuel economy then it makes climate change worse. By all means, lift the poor out of poverty but they have to leapfrog the dirty technologies and energy use that have made us in the West wealthy

popnperish,

You are wrong. It's already been explained to you. That atols rise and fall with sea level has been known for hundreds of years. I learnt about it in geology ins second year of high school in the early 1960s.

You clearly didn't even read the paper I linked.

There is no point making statements of your beliefs.

Dear Peter Lang

Atolls rise with sea-levels but not at the current pace, or certainly not the pace we will see in coming decades. They will be swamped.

No, I didn't read your paper because I stick to reputable scientific journals for my information. Mine are not 'beliefs'; just facts based on scientific evidence.

This is not to dispute what Peter McCloy originally argued. I agree that the problems of overpopulation and adoption of western lifestyles on the island is the immediate problem. The climate change one is, as he says, a cloak to hide the problems which he could himself solve, nevetheless, the effects of sea-level rise will be made manifest before century's end.

Kiribati most definitely has a problem with climate change, and sea level rise. Briefly the problems are more extreme weather events, leading to coastal erosion, storm surges causing more flooding, and damage to the coral reefs from cyclones and storms. To top it all off this part of the globe is subject to a wide variation of sea levels with El Nino events producing much higher sea levels, the resulting flooding is also getting worst due to increasingly heavier rain events during El Ninos. As we are heading into a strong El Nino event we can expect to see some serious flooding in the Islands this year.

Anyway lets just ignore all that and just blame the locals for using to much fresh water !

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2015/mar/11/climate-change-in-the-marshall-islands-and-kiribati-before-and-after-interactive

Popnperish

"Atolls rise with sea-levels but not at the current pace, or certainly not the pace we will see in coming decades. They will be swamped. "

Rubbish. Show your evidence for your basless assertion (your statemetn of your belief). There is absolutely nothing unusual about the current rate of sea level rise or the projected rate comnpared with the rate that sea levels rose coing out of the last glaciation. Atols keep pace with sea level rise no matter whthere it is caused by them sinking or sea level rising. And many times faster than current. YTou are simply ignorant.

"No, I didn't read your paper because I stick to reputable scientific journals for my information. "

Again what rubbish. You are refusing to read even the most authoritaive papers probably because they do not support your beliefs. Perhaps you'd like to list the journals you accept on the economics of climate damages, and provide the estimates of the net costs of sea levels rise of 0.5 and 1 m by 2100, compare the key assumptions and inputs and and explain why those papers should be regarded as more authjoritative than the one I quoted (a key input to AR4). You may also like to explain why AR5 walked back a long way form their previous claimes about dangerous consequences of climate change.

"Mine are not 'beliefs'; just facts based on scientific evidence. "

More baseless assertions. Your beliefs and opions are simply thos of the catastrophic climate cultists. You'ver demonstrated no ability to think for yourself, or to objecitvely analyse the relevant facts.

But, you've already made it clear you are simply a gullible cultists, with nothing to ovffer except repoetition of the cultists beliefs, with nothing to support your beliefs otrher that "you believe". So, really, you are just a waste of time.

Peter Lang

The accusations you make of me should be turned around and applied to you.

Like it or not, climate change is an issue that the islanders will have to confront - are already confronting - but the immediate problem is misuse and overuse of available resources, largely because of excessive population growth.

"Like it or not, climate change is an issue that the islanders will have to confront"

Climnate change is always an issue. However, GHG emisisons is a trivial issue compared with real issues. It is extremnely foolish to rant on about it without the slightest understanding of costs and benefits. It's just plain stupid to advoicate for wasing $1.5 trillion per year on the climate industry for no benefit. And that is what gullible climate cultists (i.e. deniers of the rlevant facts) do continually and as you are doing.

You continually repeat your beliefs but they are simply unsubstantiated beliefs. You have nothing to support them.

I've explained the way to reduce global population growth rate. You apparently don't have sufficient background to understand it. Trying to impose your beliefs is similar to what the religious preachers did to the islanders long ago.

Ice melt going on around the world is increasing, do you have an antidote for that as well. Why would ice and permafrost melt if we did not have climate change.