Climate change will show no mercy to dithering Thailand

[Choctastic]

You can hammer home the CO2 is a 'warm blanket' theory all you like. Australia seems to consider it a wet blanket...

'Australia votes to repeal carbon tax'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28339663

[johnmcc6]

You can hammer home the CO2 is a 'warm blanket' theory all you like. Australia seems to consider it a wet blanket...

'Australia votes to repeal carbon tax'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28339663

The carbon tax was a useless burden foisted onto the nation to appease a pack of greenie loonies that in the end would have ZERO effect on the climate. With all the comments on this thread one would have to delusional to think the science is settled.

[RPCVguy]

You can hammer home the CO2 is a 'warm blanket' theory all you like. Australia seems to consider it a wet blanket...

'Australia votes to repeal carbon tax'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28339663

The carbon tax was a useless burden foisted onto the nation to appease a pack of greenie loonies that in the end would have ZERO effect on the climate. With all the comments on this thread one would have to delusional to think the science is settled.

“Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling

and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument

and they know it.”

―Charles R. Anderson

I previously posted an analysis of climate sensitivity based upon empirical evidence instead of computer modeling.(see http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/page-3#entry8049538) with the key graphic here:

That analysis explained that the differences in values was primarily a matter of time differential. Given enough time for all aspects of the current imbalance to work through the system would give the planet time to demonstrate the greatest shifts...while the IPCC assignment seemed focused on a hundred year horizon. CO2 is the trigger, the flywheel, but other processes (methane releases, forest degradation, albedo losses) are amplifying the effective warming as time of CO2 imbalance continues.

TV readers are demonstrating a full range of opinions, but whenever observed facts are included, the analysis tilts sharply towards a significant and growing shift in climate that correlates to the effects of human releases in CO2. Hoping that the recent pause in land area measurements in global temperatures is a demonstration of a reversal in the rate of heat absorption imbalance is to hope that ocean data does not matter in the global scheme of things. Even the denialist Easterbrook admits the oceans are warming.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/page-2#entry8044432

Scientific American Magazine published a related analysis of climate sensitivity as constructed by modeling.Its advantage is that it is written in a more readable manner, and is shorter. Do take a look.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/

A quick overview of the consequences of various temperature increases - risks increase with temperature:

...

The consequences are accumulating - building momentum.

Delaying action is to reduce chances for a successful mitigation of damage.

[VincentRJ]

TV readers are demonstrating a full range of opinions, but whenever observed facts are included, the analysis tilts sharply towards a significant and growing shift in climate that correlates to the effects of human releases in CO2.

RPCVguy,

This statement gets to the nub of the issue. We know that climate has always been changing in a cyclical manner due to a variety of natural causes. Such cycles vary in size, from the 20,000 year cycles of major Ice Ages, to 400 year cycles of "Little Ice Ages", which are followed by slightly warmer periods, such as the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and now the current Modern Warm Period.

The natural causes are not fully understood, but include such variables as cycles of sunspot activity and sun radiation, tilting and wobbling of the earth's orbit, and variations in the elliptical shape of the earth's orbit around the sun. Some scientists also think that cosmic rays from outside our solar system might also affect our climate, at least to some extent. Whether such effects from cosmic rays are significant or not, does not appear to be known with any certainty.

It so happens that this current Warm Period has been accompanied by a 'first' in human history, the Industrial Revolution, which has also been accompanied by an increase in the minuscule proportions of CO2 in our atmosphere.

If such Industrial Revolution had taken place during the Middle Ages when the Vikings were languishing in luxury in Greenland, growing crops and raising cattle on the southern shores, then scientists such as the late Stephen Schneider would have been able to stick with their initial hypothesis that increased CO2 levels were responsible for the subsequent cooling, now known as The Little Ice Age.

For the benefit of those who are interested in alternative views, the following link explains the issues quite well from a geologic perspective.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

For those who are interested in the plight of the Vikings at the end of the MWP, and why they eventually abandoned their country, the following article is illuminating.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/archaeologists-uncover-clues-to-why-vikings-abandoned-greenland-a-876626.html

Edited July 19, 2014 by VincentRJ

[connda]

Look up Maunder Minimum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum) More recent research http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

Man made climate change? Junk science. Even Australia has woken up to the farce. Trading carbon credits. Guess who has a company that is poised to make billions on a global carbon credit trading scheme: Al Gore. Wake up a smell the roses. Climate change itself -- very real - and cyclical. Palio-climatology shows it has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.

[connda]

You can hammer home the CO2 is a 'warm blanket' theory all you like. Australia seems to consider it a wet blanket...

'Australia votes to repeal carbon tax'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28339663

The carbon tax was a useless burden foisted onto the nation to appease a pack of greenie loonies that in the end would have ZERO effect on the climate. With all the comments on this thread one would have to delusional to think the science is settled.

“Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling

and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument

and they know it.”

―Charles R. Anderson

I previously posted an analysis of climate sensitivity based upon empirical evidence instead of computer modeling.(see http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/page-3#entry8049538) with the key graphic here:

That analysis explained that the differences in values was primarily a matter of time differential. Given enough time for all aspects of the current imbalance to work through the system would give the planet time to demonstrate the greatest shifts...while the IPCC assignment seemed focused on a hundred year horizon. CO2 is the trigger, the flywheel, but other processes (methane releases, forest degradation, albedo losses) are amplifying the effective warming as time of CO2 imbalance continues.

TV readers are demonstrating a full range of opinions, but whenever observed facts are included, the analysis tilts sharply towards a significant and growing shift in climate that correlates to the effects of human releases in CO2. Hoping that the recent pause in land area measurements in global temperatures is a demonstration of a reversal in the rate of heat absorption imbalance is to hope that ocean data does not matter in the global scheme of things. Even the denialist Easterbrook admits the oceans are warming.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/page-2#entry8044432

Scientific American Magazine published a related analysis of climate sensitivity as constructed by modeling.Its advantage is that it is written in a more readable manner, and is shorter. Do take a look.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/

A quick overview of the consequences of various temperature increases - risks increase with temperature:

...

The consequences are accumulating - building momentum.

Delaying action is to reduce chances for a successful mitigation of damage.

Let's try looking outside the box: http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/cliemate/

[canuckamuck]

If there is any truth to CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas, we should be celebrating this fact as it may indeed slow the onset of the next ice age.

Remember the default condition of the earth is to be locked in ice with a strip of desert around the equator.

[Choctastic]

“Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling

and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument

and they know it.”

―Charles R. Anderson

Are you being paid to sit on this forum and spread your message? Just asking. Because the name-calling directed at climate skeptics over the last decade and more, has been wondrous to behold. Now that the tide of public opinion has turned against the stories about the tooth fairy, 'scientists' like yourself are basically copping the fallout. It may not be your fault and you may still honestly believe in your theories and computer models but you can't spend years frightening the public to expect all sorts of catastrophes without getting a large dollop of blowback, when the threats don't materialize.

'Carbon commies' is apt, don't you think?

[boomerangutang]

Look up Maunder Minimum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum) More recent research http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

Man made climate change? Junk science. Even Australia has woken up to the farce. Trading carbon credits. Guess who has a company that is poised to make billions on a global carbon credit trading scheme: Al Gore. Wake up a smell the roses. Climate change itself -- very real - and cyclical. Palio-climatology shows it has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.

there are some people who may believe in man influenced (not man-made) climate warming.

there are some who may believe in man influenced climate warming, and not also believe that carbon credits will improve things.

Believing in one concept doesn't necessarily require believing in another.

I don't care for 'carbon credits' but I do believe that our one species affects the climate. 1 ton of CO2 (and other exhaust gasses) on average, annually, per man woman child, is sobering statistic. That's roughly 7 billion tons of fossil fuel exhaust per year. Does that have any affect on one small rocky planet? Do you have better data? Let's see it.

[VincentRJ]

I don't care for 'carbon credits' but I do believe that our one species affects the climate. 1 ton of CO2 (and other exhaust gasses) on average, annually, per man woman child, is sobering statistic. That's roughly 7 billion tons of fossil fuel exhaust per year. Does that have any affect on one small rocky planet? Do you have better data? Let's see it.

Here's another version of the statistics. Whether it's 6 or 7 billion tonnes annually due to human activity, it's still a relatively small percentage of the total amount of carbon floating around.

"Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

[thaibeachlovers]

<our chances of mitigating the impacts of climate change will remain as small as ever.>

Should be "our chances of mitigating the impacts of climate change will remain ZERO"

Even if it was possible for humans to change climate change, nothing is being done to really make an impact.

A good example is that some of the passengers on the MH17 flight were going to Australia to attend a conference. If governments were actually serious about climate change, the participants would be video conferencing, not going to attend yet another knees up by burning vast amounts of carbon. Unfortunately, governments are only interested in climate change as a means of raising taxes.

Besides, how many of the GW enthusiasts would be happy to never fly anywhere and go on the bus instead of driving, plus move 100% to nuclear power? The Japanese certainly aren't helping the cause by using oil fired electricity generation instead of restarting the reactors.

[thaibeachlovers]

You can hammer home the CO2 is a 'warm blanket' theory all you like. Australia seems to consider it a wet blanket...

'Australia votes to repeal carbon tax'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28339663

The carbon tax was a useless burden foisted onto the nation to appease a pack of greenie loonies that in the end would have ZERO effect on the climate. With all the comments on this thread one would have to delusional to think the science is settled.

“Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling

and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument

and they know it.”

―Charles R. Anderson

I previously posted an analysis of climate sensitivity based upon empirical evidence instead of computer modeling.(see http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/page-3#entry8049538) with the key graphic here:

That analysis explained that the differences in values was primarily a matter of time differential. Given enough time for all aspects of the current imbalance to work through the system would give the planet time to demonstrate the greatest shifts...while the IPCC assignment seemed focused on a hundred year horizon. CO2 is the trigger, the flywheel, but other processes (methane releases, forest degradation, albedo losses) are amplifying the effective warming as time of CO2 imbalance continues.

TV readers are demonstrating a full range of opinions, but whenever observed facts are included, the analysis tilts sharply towards a significant and growing shift in climate that correlates to the effects of human releases in CO2. Hoping that the recent pause in land area measurements in global temperatures is a demonstration of a reversal in the rate of heat absorption imbalance is to hope that ocean data does not matter in the global scheme of things. Even the denialist Easterbrook admits the oceans are warming.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/page-2#entry8044432

Scientific American Magazine published a related analysis of climate sensitivity as constructed by modeling.Its advantage is that it is written in a more readable manner, and is shorter. Do take a look.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/

A quick overview of the consequences of various temperature increases - risks increase with temperature:

...

The consequences are accumulating - building momentum.

Delaying action is to reduce chances for a successful mitigation of damage.

According to one study I saw, at 6 degrees rise the methane storms will wipe out all life, so if that is correct, that last chart is irrelevant.

[thaibeachlovers]

You can hammer home the CO2 is a 'warm blanket' theory all you like. Australia seems to consider it a wet blanket...

'Australia votes to repeal carbon tax'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28339663

Christine Milne probably does more to aid the anti GW crowd every time she opens her mouth than every other Australian supporter combined. The Greens were barking when they made her in charge of them.

[RickBradford]

“Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling

and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument

and they know it.

”

―Charles R. Anderson

How true.

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers." - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe (2007)

"Climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide. You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing." - Jill Singer, Herald-Sun

"What is the difference between Lomborg's view of humanity and Hitler's? ...If you were to accept Lomborg's way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing." - Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. IPCC (2004)

"We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don't think there's a great deal of difference." - Bill McGuire, University College London (2006)

"…every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned." - George Monbiot, Guardian

"...the others working to derail this critical piece of legislation will be seen as the Adolf Hitlers of our day, contributing to a holocaust vastly eclipsing the horrors of World War II." - Chad Kister, Environmental Activist (2008)

"We know who the active denialists are–not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices." - Steve Zwick, Forbes

"Climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous." - Clive Hamilton, Charles Sturt University (2009)

"I think these people are anti-science flat-earthers. ...They are every bit as dangerous as Holocaust deniers." - Guy Keleny, The Independent (2013)

"Those who abjure global warming are not skeptics; they are deniers. To call them skeptics is to debase language as much as to call the Ku Klux Klan "prejudiced," Holocaust deniers "biased," or Flat-Earthers "mistaken." - James Powell, National Physical Science Consortium (2012)

"David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial. Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence - it is a crime against humanity after all." - Margo Kingston, Webdiary (2006)

"I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Even mass murderers like Breivik should not be executed, in my opinion. GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability, caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death." - Professor Richard Parncutt, Graz University

"Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies." - Richard Glover, Sydney Morning Herald

"Fighting Climate Change Deniers Is Like Fighting Hitler" - Chris Huhne, former UK government minister

Your turn.

[RPCVguy]

“Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling

and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument

and they know it.

”

―Charles R. Anderson

Rick, you and I have been on opposite sides of this discussion fro about 4 years. (See http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/337065-global-warming-to-hit-thailands-rice-production/page-10#entry4040413 for one of the earlier episodes.)

Why? I understand that you don't like the idea of humans causing climate change. I even understand there are quite a few people willing to express similar opinions ... BUT your response is: "How true." and then...

[... a string of quotes warning that climate denialists will eventually have consequences as deadly as was the Holocaust.

I don't see that as a great way to sway support, but those quotes do have a logical truth. What lies at the extremes of climate change is the 6th Mass Extinction. In the last such event 95% of all species went extinct. If Earth gets that far out of balance again, then 8 to 10 million people will be small in comparison to the 7+ Billion who will be unable to survive.

Those quoted were arguing by hyperbole, NOT by calling derisive names beyond what can be logically inferred.

Hence - you missed the point of the quote by Charles Anderson - ... the repeated remarks by some on this discussion of which I had quoted the most recent, and you omitted:

"The carbon tax was a useless burden foisted onto the nation to appease a pack of greenie loonies that in the end would have ZERO effect on the climate. With all the comments on this thread one would have to delusional to think the science is settled.".

Even the simplest of experiments can demonstrate the heat trapping effect of CO2.

Bill Nye does one experiment in this video of about 4½ minutes.

Climate 101

The BASIC PROBLEM IS THE NET ACCUMULATION OF HEAT ON A GLOBAL SCALE. The physics in 2 or 3 of the papers I've supplied each state that the insulation factor of the added CO2 is equal to 4 watts of added heat energy per square meter of the Earth's surface FOR EVERY DOUBLING OF CO2 CONCENTRATION. Preindustrial concentrations of CO2 were at the typical interglacial maximum of 280ppm. They are now at 400ppm and all indications are we will pass 560ppm this century.

So far in this thread, people have supplied contrary experts (Easterbrook, whose video I went through and responded to at http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/page-2#entry8044432

Even Easterbrook acknowledged that the oceans are warming. 90% of the heat absorbed is held by the oceans.

Some have said, and recently repeated that the climate is always shifting - not their concern. Yet they fail to do the numbers to show why the climate is shifting differently in relation to the planetary orbital and axis variations and cycles of solar radiance as well as volcanic activity. Those influences have been measured and formulated to calculate temperature swings of the past. The same formulas no longer match observed readings UNLESS including the added influence of pushing a greenhouse gas out of its historic concentrations. If people don't "like" that fact, then supply a better explanation that matches the data. So far, no one has. That would be the science you're looking for. It does not exist.

Others have said to get the advice of experts in Risk Analysis. ... also done, as well as supplying a summary of what risks increase as temperature increases. ... which segues well to including a comment by thaibeachlovers.

ThaiBeachLovers said "According to one study I saw, at 6 degrees rise the methane storms will wipe out all life, so if that is correct, that last chart is irrelevant."

Not irrelevant so much as understated. This might be the chart you saw. It does answer the comparison to the Holocaust issue. So far, humans have failed to shift from the behavior / fossil fuel consumption patterns that are represented in the worst of the projections.

It is morally wrong to cry wolf in the absence of danger.

But when the danger is real and apparent to those who devote their lives to understanding the Earth's physical properties, it is also morally wrong to silence the warning,

... or to tell people to ignore it.

[RickBradford]

Those quoted were arguing by hyperbole, NOT by calling derisive names beyond what can be logically inferred.

We'll have to totally disagree on that score.

I would never call for the execution, jailing or branding of people whose views differ from mine, any more than I would support such measures against people whose skin color or religion differ from mine.

Proposals of that sort have a long, unpleasant and bloody history.

[RPCVguy]

As with Rick, I need to re-insert the quote for which I cited Charles Anderson

""The carbon tax was a useless burden foisted onto the nation to appease a pack of greenie loonies that in the end would have ZERO effect on the climate. With all the comments on this thread one would have to delusional to think the science is settled."."

“Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling

and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument

and they know it.”

―Charles R. Anderson

Put in context, I was giving reason to return to a civil discourse.

Then you asked:

"Are you being paid to sit on this forum and spread your message? Just asking. Because the name-calling directed at climate skeptics over the last decade and more, has been wondrous to behold. Now that the tide of public opinion has turned against the stories about the tooth fairy, 'scientists' like yourself are basically copping the fallout. It may not be your fault and you may still honestly believe in your theories and computer models but you can't spend years frightening the public to expect all sorts of catastrophes without getting a large dollop of blowback, when the threats don't materialize.

'Carbon commies' is apt, don't you think?"

I'm a retiree here in Thailand. Not paid except by my pension. My training and part of my career was in Chemistry (later it moved to computer modeling and software)

I have seen name-calling ever since being the "nerd" in school which IMO is a sad commentary on society at large... which often seems stuck in the same social patterns of popular people vs the geeks.

Time is bearing witness as to where the truth resides. The climate threats are materializing. The Earth's response to what we are doing is about 40 years delayed for half the full effect, centuries for most of the rest, millennium for 100%. The storms and polar vortexes and ice melting being seen now can be described as having been initiated by the fossil fuel released in the 70's.

Wake up to the time scale and finish doing the math - oh, and your closing comment reverts back to the reason again that I cited Charles Anderson. (NOT)

TV readers are demonstrating a full range of opinions, but whenever observed facts are included, the analysis tilts sharply towards a significant and growing shift in climate that correlates to the effects of human releases in CO2.

RPCVguy,

This statement gets to the nub of the issue. We know that climate has always been changing in a cyclical manner due to a variety of natural causes. Such cycles vary in size, from the 20,000 year cycles of major Ice Ages, to 400 year cycles of "Little Ice Ages", which are followed by slightly warmer periods, such as the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and now the current Modern Warm Period.

The natural causes are not fully understood, but include such variables as cycles of sunspot activity and sun radiation, tilting and wobbling of the earth's orbit, and variations in the elliptical shape of the earth's orbit around the sun. Some scientists also think that cosmic rays from outside our solar system might also affect our climate, at least to some extent. Whether such effects from cosmic rays are significant or not, does not appear to be known with any certainty.

It so happens that this current Warm Period has been accompanied by a 'first' in human history, the Industrial Revolution, which has also been accompanied by an increase in the minuscule proportions of CO2 in our atmosphere.

If such Industrial Revolution had taken place during the Middle Ages when the Vikings were languishing in luxury in Greenland, growing crops and raising cattle on the southern shores, then scientists such as the late Stephen Schneider would have been able to stick with their initial hypothesis that increased CO2 levels were responsible for the subsequent cooling, now known as The Little Ice Age.

For the benefit of those who are interested in alternative views, the following link explains the issues quite well from a geologic perspective.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

For those who are interested in the plight of the Vikings at the end of the MWP, and why they eventually abandoned their country, the following article is illuminating.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/archaeologists-uncover-clues-to-why-vikings-abandoned-greenland-a-876626.html

There is quite a bit of good detail in these links. Basic agreement on the impact of astronomical, solar, atmospheric and volcanic parameters affecting climate shifts.

I've already discussed and supplied similar links to historical patterns - mostly on pages 3 & 4 of this thread.

Your first link strays from valid science when it discounts the effect of long term greenhouse gases like CO2 nearly doubling in concentration. Water vapor is NOT long term - it precipitates out as rain. The CHANGE in insulation factor is CO2. Most of the CO2 in the Earth's system IS balanced - a part of the regular respiration and photosynthesis needed for life. The imbalance is from fossil fuels (92,000,000 bbls/day Oil consumption globally - includes NGL liquids but not bio-fuels or oil from coal) and just the oil portion, excluding tar sands and coal, accounts for 12.04 billion tons/year of CO2 IMBALANCE/ ADDING TO THE ATMOSPHERIC INSULATION. It is the imbalance that is amounting to over 1ppm increase per year.

Note: based upon "sweet" oil for which there are 317 Kg of CO2 generated by burning the fuels of a barrel of crude oil = 694.4 lbs of CO2 = 0.347 US tons CO2 /barrel. Add in the CO2 from Dirty Coal and Tar Sands, and the incremental increase in human caused CO2 is even more. What increase in the atmosphere is only part of the CO2, the rest is mostly absorbed in the oceans, causing a net lowering of pH.

Last comment before "adding reply" ... IMO, Trading Carbon Credits is insanity. It gives Wall St dealers the options to rob society blind, without accountability - only their bonus checks to themselves. Carbon Tax & Dividend also gathers in a very tempting pile of cash. It needs to be paid out per household on a monthly basis using some form of direct deposit. Yes, theft is going to be attempted by the politicians. That's why democracies and republics require an informed and engaged citizenry. While I've detailed the support earlier for the Tax and Dividend, I've never supported the Carbon Credit plans. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see where anyone here has posted support for trading carbon credits ... so to make disparaging remarks about that option instead of the plan proposed again is showing people too willing to express opinions without having a grasp of the facts.

[boomerangutang]

2 degrees (by 2100) - Increasingly acidic oceans lose life, summertine heat death tolls. Climate refugees. Greenland ice going, glaciers gone, 30% extinction rate, sea levels rise 7m.

That's some sobering stuff. Already some of that is happening, but to picture it happening on such a large scale is daunting. If I was a ThaiVisa denier, I could sit back in my comfy computer chair and know my pension is safe, and I probably won't be living beyond 2030, ....so why the fuss? My life is safe and comfortable, so why worry about what may happen in the future?

Incidentally, the 2 degree projected rise by 2100 is at the low end of scientific projections. A 7 meter rise would flood the entire center of Thailand, and a lot more. Most large cities near coasts would be inundated. But again, taking the view of a denier; 'so what?!' Those are other peoples' problems, most of whom haven't even been born yet. Pass the croisant and refill the demitasse. Why worry about uncomfortable future stuff, eh?

[connda]

I don't care for 'carbon credits' but I do believe that our one species affects the climate. 1 ton of CO2 (and other exhaust gasses) on average, annually, per man woman child, is sobering statistic. That's roughly 7 billion tons of fossil fuel exhaust per year. Does that have any affect on one small rocky planet? Do you have better data? Let's see it.

Here's another version of the statistics. Whether it's 6 or 7 billion tonnes annually due to human activity, it's still a relatively small percentage of the total amount of carbon floating around.

"Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

The is no longer a correlation between temperature and CO2.

[RPCVguy]

I don't care for 'carbon credits' but I do believe that our one species affects the climate. 1 ton of CO2 (and other exhaust gasses) on average, annually, per man woman child, is sobering statistic. That's roughly 7 billion tons of fossil fuel exhaust per year. Does that have any affect on one small rocky planet? Do you have better data? Let's see it.

Here's another version of the statistics. Whether it's 6 or 7 billion tonnes annually due to human activity, it's still a relatively small percentage of the total amount of carbon floating around.

"Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

The is no longer a correlation between temperature and CO2.

6018034_orig.png

Connda ... Jumping back in the thread so as to cherry-pick and argue numbers already shown as half-truths, and totally avoiding the detail I supplied,

"Earth's response to what we are doing is about 40 years delayed for half the full effect, centuries for most of the rest, millennium for 100%. The storms and polar vortexes and ice melting being seen now can be described as having been initiated by the fossil fuel released in the 70's."

The human activity starts with burning fossil fuels (carbon long sequestered in the ground) that on accounting sheets for oil consumption is

92,000,000 bbls/day Oil consumption globally - includes NGL liquids but not bio-fuels or oil from coal. (Go track down the rest - tar sands and coal) On that figure alone, humans account for 12 billion tons/year of CO2 IMBALANCE

Note: based upon "sweet" oil for which there are 317 Kg of CO2 generated by burning the fuels of a barrel of crude oil = 694.4 lbs of CO2 = 0.347 US tons CO2 /barrel.

ADDING TO THE ATMOSPHERIC INSULATION. It is the imbalance that is amounting to over 1ppm increase per year.

Too much blanket over a person in bed and they get too warm, they kick off part of the blanket. Unfortunately for human society and the species we share the planet with, we won't easily be able to kick off the CO2 blanket. So humans ARE causing an imbalance, the effects take almost 2 generations to be halfway apparent (It's indeed a big ocean to heat up, and currents mix deep)

The arguments being presented are

Option A - for conversion to cleaner, renewable energy using the market impetus of a carbon tax and dividend, coupled with promotion of family planning options to stem the population growth that can not be sustained OR

Lets not risk the economy, we like having fun jetting globally (including those attending climate conferences!) and riding in a/c temp controlled comfort aboard our SUVs, ... etc., etc.

1. The climate is doing what it always does, no way humans are changing it

   ... which lasts for most of those 40 years lag time until enough people see changes getting uncomfortable and persistent, then

2. Hey, its too big a problem, too late for me to change it. I won't live long enough to see the worst, so I won't worry about it...

   Either of which WILL see a rapid decrease in population - externally driven by food shortages and conflict, adding in health issues of malaria or worse. The Arab Spring is already being linked to the severe drought that preceded it. The only short term winners are arms merchants and Bible thumping evangelists encouraged to see the Apocalypse drawing near.

   ___________________________________________________________________________________________

I can indeed sit back and observe the mess. It'd be easier to do if not for now having step-children / grandchildren. The world they will see will be far harsher and more violent than most people now experience. I don't know IF I and others can succeed in helping shift societal direction. I only know that if we don't try, then the planetary reset button has a major "reset" ahead. The following image is from http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html

[Choctastic]

The storms and polar vortexes and ice melting being seen now can be described as having been initiated by the fossil fuel released in the 70's.

Wake up to the time scale and finish doing the math - oh, and your closing comment reverts back to the reason again that I cited Charles Anderson. (NOT)

Didn't Easterbrook point out that the 30s had something like 5x the extreme weather events than we see today?

The carbon commies label IS apt. Since their solution involves central planning (global governance) and the 'de-industrialization' of successful nations.

This is an extreme example of their thinking but there are plenty more... “An ecocatastrophe is taking place on earth.. prohibition, enforcement and oppression are the only solution. Those most responsible..will be sent to the mountains for re-education in eco-gulags. The sole glimmer of hope lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens.” -Pentti Linkola, Ecologist

It is irrelevant anyway because the battle to win hearts and minds (propaganda) has been lost by the green machine. UK Energy Minister, Osborne, said recently : “We are not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business. So let’s, at the very least, resolve that we’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.”

Quite a turnaround from the 'greenest government ever'.

While China continues to increase its number of coal-generated power stations, thus rendering any mitigating action moot, I think you should join The Global Warming Policy Foundation, launched by Lord Lawson. They will help you come to terms with your apocalyptic fears... http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/

The key to the success of the GWPF is the trust and credibility that we have earned in the eyes of a growing number of policy makers, journalists and the interested public. In our relationship with our members, with MPs, the media and our wider readership, it is the most important quality that we have.

This is of great relevance today in light of scientific scandals and the public’s loss of trust in climate activists and politicians. For us, public trust is our most important asset. It has been accumulated as a result of the reasoned and moderate positions we have taken, the integrity of our foundation and the credibility of our actions.

We hope you will join the GWPF and help us in our effort to restore trust and balance to the climate debate.'

Yep. That's where you lost it.

Trust and balance.

[thaibeachlovers]

“Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling

and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument

and they know it.

”

―Charles R. Anderson

How true.

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers." - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe (2007)

"Climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide. You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing." - Jill Singer, Herald-Sun

"What is the difference between Lomborg's view of humanity and Hitler's? ...If you were to accept Lomborg's way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing." - Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. IPCC (2004)

"We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don't think there's a great deal of difference." - Bill McGuire, University College London (2006)

"…every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned." - George Monbiot, Guardian

"...the others working to derail this critical piece of legislation will be seen as the Adolf Hitlers of our day, contributing to a holocaust vastly eclipsing the horrors of World War II." - Chad Kister, Environmental Activist (2008)

"We know who the active denialists are–not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices." - Steve Zwick, Forbes

"Climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous." - Clive Hamilton, Charles Sturt University (2009)

"I think these people are anti-science flat-earthers. ...They are every bit as dangerous as Holocaust deniers." - Guy Keleny, The Independent (2013)

"Those who abjure global warming are not skeptics; they are deniers. To call them skeptics is to debase language as much as to call the Ku Klux Klan "prejudiced," Holocaust deniers "biased," or Flat-Earthers "mistaken." - James Powell, National Physical Science Consortium (2012)

"David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial. Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence - it is a crime against humanity after all." - Margo Kingston, Webdiary (2006)

"I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Even mass murderers like Breivik should not be executed, in my opinion. GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability, caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death." - Professor Richard Parncutt, Graz University

"Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies." - Richard Glover, Sydney Morning Herald

"Fighting Climate Change Deniers Is Like Fighting Hitler" - Chris Huhne, former UK government minister

Your turn.

I keep hoping that some greenie GW loonie comes along and tries to pursuade me of the validity of their garbage science so I can destroy them with actual facts and logic, but sadly no one I have met to date gives a rat's bottom about it.

The day the government closes down all unessential air travel and forces everyone onto hydrogen powered public transportation, plus builds nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuel ones is the day I'll believe they are serious.

Good on Tony Abbott for standing up to the loons.

<They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people>

If that is the case, they are saving the planet for mankind, as overpopulation is the driver of pollution. Unfortunately, not a single green loonie has, to my knowledge, said anything re overpopulation and the need to reduce population growth by any means possible

BTW, any greenie that tried to pursuade Thais of the righteousness of their cause would get laughed out of town when they tell Thais not to buy cars. Same would happen ( I presume ) in Indonesia as they sell millions of new m'bikes and cars there.

Given the rapid depletion of remaining oil reserves, unless an affordable alternative is found, use of private motor vehicles may become a thing of the past within a few decades anyway.

Edited July 21, 2014 by thaibeachlovers

[RPCVguy]

The storms and polar vortexes and ice melting being seen now can be described as having been initiated by the fossil fuel released in the 70's.

Wake up to the time scale and finish doing the math - oh, and your closing comment reverts back to the reason again that I cited Charles Anderson. (NOT)

Didn't Easterbrook point out that the 30s had something like 5x the extreme weather events than we see today?

The carbon commies label IS apt. Since their solution involves central planning (global governance) and the 'de-industrialization' of successful nations.

We hope you will join the GWPF and help us in our effort to restore trust and balance to the climate debate.'

Yep. That's where you lost it.

Trust and balance.

No, Easterbrook did not reference 5x the extreme events (events being storms, droughts, floods.) He did cite a large number of temperature records being broken - which have since been topped repeatedly. So if a record is set in the 30s, but is then broken again later, isn't it the latter event which is more extreme? ... It is always harder to again set new records... and if that does happen, it is an indication that climate trend is heading towards warmer. BTW, That was an example of Easterbrook "cooking" his statistics. A story and image from 2011 came to mind. I didn't use it to rebut Easterbrook back on page 3 of this thread, but since you want to double down on his accounting... here is for July 2011 and only for the USA

[image 1: mapping of temperature records set in July 2011]

"July’s blistering heat wave either tied or set daily records in every state in the country, as evidenced by a new map showing the location of these records that essentially outlines the shape of the country. The new map shows the location of each of the almost 9,000 daily heat records that were broken or tied in July, giving a nearly complete image of the lower 48 states. The records include 2,755 highest maximum temperatures and 6,171 highest minimum temperatures (nighttime records)." see http://www.thinkonthat.com/archives/2357

And both you and Rick miss the point about whether or not it is possible to save the world economy.

What is actually being debated is who will have the deck seating

... upon the Titanic ... as the entire vessel of civilization crashes.

The course ahead is disaster, and too many people want to push the throttle up to full speed ahead! The reasons vary, but corporate interests buy a great deal of PR clout in every nation. In the USA it is corporate dominance of both major parties, along with a general ideological obstruction. (see last image in this post.)

No, I am not advocating communism, or a central economy, though there are some who would. IMO. IF we can avoid the worst of the Climate Change Consequences, it will be because people faced up to the global challenge and found a mechanism to diet quickly off fossil fuels. Post fall of the USSR and support via oil shipments, it took Cuba the equivalent of "Victory Gardens" in every available plot of land (also along the generally unheeded advice by His Royal Majesty the King for Thai people to have a garden for every family.)

The concept of a Carbon Tax and Dividend avoids the central planning description you seek to apply to it. It allows market forces to achieve the needed conversion to a lower carbon society. How? Within each line of products and services there will be companies that have already started towards renewable energy OR are better at converting to it. Those companies having that advantage will gain market share - but not because of planning for anything other than avoiding the tax applied on fossil fuels at the extraction point, thereby avoiding the disaster that Climate Change is set to demonstrate.

The "business as usual" approach is NOT SUSTAINABLE. It is set to hit an array of obstacles of which this is only a partial depiction.

[image2: "Running on Empty"]

By necessity of supply shortages for too many people, all nations will soon be shifting back from the globalized economy that existed briefly while use of fossil fuels was "cheap." A serious analysis of planetary resources such as here supplied by chemist / economist Chris Martenson. He does NOT look much at the need to reduce population, and he ignores Climate Change in his review of the environment - but he absolutely shows the folly of thinking what was briefly the norm in the latter half of the 20th Century could ever be continued long on a finite planet.

Note: Because Martenson is an economist, this video has advice that will appeal

to the financial conservatives. At under an hour, it is a condensed version of his

2008 video series of 3½ to 4 hours.

The Accelerated Crash Course

http://vimeo.com/98082156

______________________________________________________________________

Slow, changes are a problem. Always have been.

While Thailand is dithering, so too are many nations, especially the USA...

to which these last two images are too good not to share.

[image 3: Frog getting cooked]

[image 4: Political Gridlock in the USA]

If this was a movie plot and it was an asteroid set to cause extinction, all of the political parties and ALL of the nations would unite. The discussion would be on which plan or plans to implement to avoid the collision. Instead, humanity seems bent upon demonstrating that collectively, we lack the ability to show the trait of wisdom that our species proclaims under the label Homo Sapiens. Instead, I see humanity will continue too long along the above mentioned path of Option B:

Lets not risk the economy, we like having fun jetting globally (including those attending climate conferences!) and riding in a/c temp controlled comfort aboard our SUVs, ... etc., etc.

[RickBradford]

I keep hoping that some greenie GW loonie comes along and tries to pursuade me of the validity of their garbage science so I can destroy them with actual facts and logic, but sadly no one I have met to date gives a rat's bottom about it.

Forget it. They know nothing about the science (beyond watching Discovery Kids and Avatar) and care even less.

It is not, and never was, about the science. It has always been about defending an infantile emotional position that Nature Is Good And Capitalist Industry Is Evil, a lame middle-class guilt about being materially comfortable which, fortunately, is limited to sections of the rich Western nations.

Thais (along with other Asians) are far too practical to buy into this bedwetting mentality, which is only kept alive by the vanity projects of Western politicians, activists, and journalists ("Look at me! I'm saving the planet!").

It's no accident that the bible of the "progressive" Left is a book called "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" by Robert Fulghum.

Treat them on that basis and you'll get better results.

[RPCVguy]

WORLD BANK REPORT: TURN DOWN THE HEAT

"In the report Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience, launched in June 2013, scientists look at the likely impacts on three vulnerable regions if the world continues on its current trajectory and warms by 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times by mid-century and continues to become 4°C warmer by 2100.
"The report looks across Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and South East Asia, revealing how rising global temperatures are increasingly threatening the health and livelihoods of their most vulnerable populations. It builds on the previous report in the series, Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C World Must Be Avoided, that concluded the world likely will warm by 4°C by the end of the century."
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/publication/turn-down-the-heat-climate-extremes-regional-impacts-resilience

... to which Rick responds
[image 1: Cartoon of World Bankers being denounced]

Edited July 21, 2014 by RPCVguy

[EBlair48]

The global warming claptrap will be laughable in a decade or two.

btw...Whahatever happened to the hole in the sky?

It served its purpose for a couple of decades...now forgotten.

I quote from the 'Report from Iron Mountain.

[ BS Snippet removed ]

I believe the ozone " hole in the sky " was actually dealt with successfully.

Polar warming deniers- and it is polar warming, are all about man's right to sh* t where he sleeps. No matter others are sleeping there, too.

They think the globe is a pot of coffee that should heat up uniformly, and take any cold weather phenomena such as last winters pull down currents as " evidence" warming is a farce. It's only nature trying to balance, and she will alright.

It's the rate of change that is accelerated by green house gasses emitted by industries, and when methane is mixed in , it will be a runaway train. Lots of methane in ice caps. Just wait until the western Antarctic ice sheet breaks off.

Glad I'm not any younger, we've seen the best , kids today will have a crap world handed to them.

Odd thing is most deniers breed like crazy...Kids all over the world, two, even three generations of offspring sometimes. Something about being irresponsible..

Edited July 21, 2014 by EBlair48

[canuckamuck]

WORLD BANK REPORT: TURN DOWN THE HEAT

You realize of course that the world bank is the ultimate collection of banksters and ultra-rich. They exist for one reason. .Accumulation of wealth. Carbon credits have the potential of being a new fiat currency. If you haven't studied the history of currency, banks owe their existence to fiat currencies.

[RPCVguy]

WORLD BANK REPORT: TURN DOWN THE HEAT

You realize of course that the world bank is the ultimate collection of banksters and ultra-rich. They exist for one reason. .Accumulation of wealth. Carbon credits have the potential of being a new fiat currency. If you haven't studied the history of currency, banks owe their existence to fiat currencies.

While I've demonstrated taking the time to look through many of the videos and posts thrown out onto this thread by the climate-deniers, Canuckamuck asks a question he'd already know I've considered - IF he'd had the wisdom to look at my post from yesterday. He'd also know not to continue harping on Carbon Credits, Carbon Trading - no one here is supporting those ... (duh!)

Be willing to learn something...

A serious analysis of planetary resources such as here supplied by chemist / economist Chris Martenson. He does NOT look much at the need to reduce population, and he ignores Climate Change in his review of the environment - but he absolutely shows the folly of thinking what was briefly the norm in the latter half of the 20th Century could ever be continued long on a finite planet.

Note: Because Martenson is an economist, this video has advice that will appeal

to the financial conservatives. At under an hour, it is a condensed version of his

2008 video series of 3½ to 4 hours.

The Accelerated Crash Course

Edited July 22, 2014 by RPCVguy

[VincentRJ]

The major concern about a warming climate is the possibility that extreme weather events such as hurricanes, cyclones, floods and droughts will become either more frequent and/or more severe.
The following link provides a meteorological perspective of the problem.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/severe-weather-and-climate-change/62715

Here are a few quotes from that article.

"There is no strong evidence to support severe weather becoming stronger, more frequent or more widespread during the past 50 years in the United States. One of the reasons that the change in severe weather is hard to track is the fact that the reporting systems have changed so much over time."

"The big reason why we think that severe weather has gotten worse is our ability to communicate information about it. If you think back 100 years ago, a tornado that happened 10 or 20 miles away, you might not even be aware of it, if it didn't affect where you live directly. Now, you can watch people chasing tornadoes online live," Brooks said. "So it's the fact that we are more aware and able to communicate that information about events so much better than we used to be able to that it makes us think severe weather has increased."

"As the planet warms with more greenhouse gases, we really don't have very strong evidence as to what will happen with severe thunderstorms," Brooks said.

Now, let's pretend to agree that there is a risk of increased frequency of extreme weather events, due to global warming, regardless of whether such warming is largely man-made or largely natural.

What would be the best way to tackle this risk? If we were to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars, world-wide, over the course of the next few decades, changing our methods of energy production in order to halt the gradual increase in minuscule percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere, could we then congratulate ourselves that the money and resources had been well-spent if, for example, in the decade from 2041 to 2050, the statistics were to show that the loss of life and property due to floods and storms was no greater, after adjusting for population growth and increased urbanisation, than the loss of life and property during the decade from 2005-2014? Is this really the best we could do?

Supposing, instead of treating CO2 levels as some sort of simplistic control knob, we were to use the political persuasion, money and resources to ensure that people lived in dwellings that were above previous, known floods levels, and constructed houses strong enough to withstand previous, known hurricanes in the area. Would that not be more sensible?

Of course, when adopting such a policy to build a house above the highest flood level on record in the area, one doesn't go to the trouble and expense of building it just 6 inches above that previous record level, but at least a whole metre, or more, above that previous level. Likewise, when rebuilding a house that has been destroyed by a record-breaking category 4 cyclone, one would try to make it resistant to category 5 cyclones.
Alternatively, in the case of floods, sometimes it might be more efficient to build flood mitigation dams if the terrain is suitable.

In short, if you want to solve a problem, you don't approach it from the perspective of 'alarm' caused by biased information from people who are in a state of denial about the degree of certainty of the science. That approach almost guarantees failure.
Rather, you should approach it from the perspective of a calm understanding of the facts and related issues, an appreciation of the uncertainty of a very complicated science which has strong elements of chaos, and a compassion for the most vulnerable people in our society who currently cannot afford adequate housing, regardless of any consequences of climate change.

.

[RPCVguy]

Vincent, that is a fair analysis as to the uncertainty as to what will prevail, BUT IT ISN'T NEWS.

"As the planet warms, the moisture content of the atmosphere will also increase. And that's the basic fuel that drives thunderstorms. It's where the storms get their energy from... as we warm the planet that will increase the energy available for producing storms," Brooks said. "The other primary ingredient, the shear that organizes the storm, is likely going to decrease."

The primary application for this report is the US South-Eastern region... a region that bears the brunt of tornadoes and hurricanes. It is too soon to know whether the two forces will balance out - leaving a similar number of storms. Look through my posts and you'll see I'm mostly warning about the droughts vs floods issue. (Will the Wet get wetter and the Dry drier? see http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/page-2#entry8044500)

BTW, the continued posting of comments is giving ever more opportunity to provide axillary information. I've not had a prior reason to supply this excellent report I've added a screen-shot of page 15. It is useful to show the point Vincent just made as to numbers of storms. What most certainly changes is the severity of extremes in rainfall.
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

BUT that was not your only focus. You've suggested that it is better to continue investing in the current economy rather than to make the shift to a low carbon renewable energy alternative. Again, that you ask this option indicates that you too have skipped out of viewing the Chris Martenson video. Fossil fuels ARE a finite and dwindling resource. The conversion needs to happen this century, even without a CO2 / Climate Change crisis. Delaying the conversion is primarily beneficial to those sitting with title to the remaining fuel reserves. Millions of people live in and around the great coastal cities of the world. The vast majority have no means to move out of the way of bigger flood zones. This means your advice as to where to allocate expenditures will do little to resolve the needs of the poor of the world, but merely access time and resources to put off true mitigation until later. Carbon added to the atmosphere has a cost, and it is a cost that most affected companies are ready to bear (see http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/business/energy-environment/large-companies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html?_r=0), but it is a cost on the near term investment options of the very wealthy.

The political and PR activity of a few of those very wealthy are ultimately behind the PR campaign that now hinders shifting debate from "Is there a problem?' to "What are the best responses to the problem?"
I've described the cost benefit analysis before. See http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/page-4#entry8054308

THAILAND

The primary forms of disasters in Thailand come from Floods, Droughts, Tropical Storms, Tsunami (= earthquake) and mudslides. As bad as this chart depicts the natural disasters, it fell a year short of including the disastrous 2011 floods that drowned a THIRD of the nation from August through November of that year.

EVERY projection I've seen shows Northern Thailand as straddling the line between more rains and more droughts while Southern Thailand may be sufficiently south that more rain will be their long term prognosis. Recent history suggest the result is NOT normalcy, but rather a tenancy for one version of weather extreme or the other.

Above data from http://www.preventionweb.net/english/countries/statistics/?cid=170

Add to the story, what happens to even a river basin when trees are removed and drought sets in during a time when the sun's zenith is directly overhead? Currently, each disaster but the tsunami is climate related and is projected to worsen as Climate Change also intensifies. There is one dominant mitigating factor that can be done to mitigate floods, droughts and mudslides, and that would be an intensive program to reforest the lands.
Forested land more readily absorbs rainfall with the leaf-litter of its floor and root biomass acting as sponges. Similarly the shade of trees and the bringing to the surface the waters from deeper in the soil can moderate longer periods of drought than will any typical land area devoted to seasonal fields of agriculture. Further, most tropical soils are deficient of nutrients – and only as covered in forests are these lands able to recycle their nutrients sufficiently to maintain vitality/ i.e. be sustainable. Maybe you are willing to agree on the reforestation.
http://www.rainforestconservation.org/rainforest-primer/rainforest-primer-table-of-contents/l-tropical-soils/