[Vision2020] Global Climate Change Responses - A Proposal

[Paul Rumelhart]

Just some ideas I've been kicking around.  I've been thinking about how 
those in control are trying to "sell" global climate change and I don't 
like it.  They are using our fears to manipulate us into doing something 
about the problem.  I wouldn't be as up in arms about this, though, if I 
also didn't suspect that those in charge of the science of climate 
change weren't using confirmation bias to shape policy.  Don't get me 
wrong, I think they are fully bought into their conclusions and are 
trying to save us all from what they see as a series of dangers that 
will come to pass.  The downside, though, is that I think they are not 
being as skeptical of their main hypothesis (anthropogenic global 
warming - AGW) as true scientists should be.  I think there are many 
reasons for this, but that's a post for another day.

I'm skeptical of the AGW hypothesis, skeptical enough that I think we 
will be causing more harm to ourselves than the climate will do in the 
near to medium term future if we adopt the plans that our government and 
others would like us to.

However, I also think that the world is warming.  I think that humans 
play a small part in that, but I think it would be warming whether or 
not we were ever here in the first place.  I don't like the idea of 
taking drastic measures at this stage when (in my view) the consequences 
of our actions are still up in the air.  However, I think a response 
might be needed sometime down the road.

So, here is my proposal.  I propose that the UN fund a series of 
state-of-the-art sensing stations world-wide, network them all together, 
make their data publicly available, and setup a series of milestones 
that when reached will precipitate further previously agreed-upon 
actions. These wouldn't be triggered by CO2 levels but by actual global 
temperature measurements, sea level measurements, ocean acidification 
levels, and whatever other metrics are directly related to actual harm 
caused by the warming climate.  At the time that a milestone is reached, 
actions directly related to protecting various populations from harm 
will be started.  If the climate scientists can convince the G20 that 
CO2 is the cause of the alarm going off, then the UN can initiate some 
actions regarding carbon sequestration or start limiting use of coal or oil.

Why use new sensing stations as opposed to just using the ones we 
currently have?  Because there is reason to believe that
many of the current stations suffer from bad equipment, poor station 
placement, and other such concerns.  There are also valid questions 
about global station distribution, especially in light of the fact that 
many of our sensing stations aren't currently used any more.  So we 
should make new stations, with new equipment, and they should be setup 
in accordance with the best recommendations on station placement so that 
the urban heat island effect and other such worries can be minimized.  
They should be placed globally so that they cover a representative array 
of altitudes, terrain, and such that their geometries provide as wide a 
coverage as possible without clustering them close together.  They 
should be networked together and the data streams made publicly 
available so that anyone can compare their readings with the preset 
milestones.  The methods of aggregating the data should be agreed upon 
up-front and software for applying those methods to the data provided, 
along with full source code.  Similarly, the same kind of system should 
be used with measurements of sea levels, ocean temperatures at various 
depths, and ocean pH levels, and what other measurements are decided are 
necessary to act as tripwires.

It may be expensive to build all these stations, especially since we 
would need a large number of them for adequate coverage.  However we are 
talking about making changes to our global economy that could be 
measured in billions, so what's a few hundred million to ensure our 
survival?  We may also need to launch specialized satellites as part of 
the this effort, which would obviously be very expensive.  There will 
also be a political component since we can't afford for various portions 
of the globe to be un-measured because individual countries don't want 
to let stations be built on their land.  Such a system, in my opinion, 
would be worth the hassle.

We would need to spend some time coming up with the appropriate values 
that, when reached, would precipitate further action.  I would suggest 
that these values are tied to actual potential dangers.  For example, at 
what global mean temperature would agricultural yields be adversely 
affected?  At what level would we expect to start seeing deaths due to 
heat prostration?  And so forth.  Back the values back from those 
dangerous levels by a reasonable amount, and set them as milestones.

We would also need a list of agreed-upon responses to these alarms.  For 
example, if the sea level hits this value then the construction of sea 
walls in these places and the evacuation of these islands will begin.  
The funding would have previously been agreed upon to be spread out 
among the international community and will only need a confirmed 
milestone event to be allocated.

There would be a series of tripwires for each type of measurement, with 
responses escalating in severity as the measurement values increase.

The idea behind this proposal is that we should be concentrating on the 
potential harm and not on the perceived causes.  That way, we're covered 
no matter what the cause of the warming is.  If the current climate 
scientist community is correct about AGW, then we will take more and 
more drastic measures as their hypothesis pans out.  If they are wrong, 
and we don't start warming at dangerous levels, then we won't have 
tanked our economy for nothing.  If they are wrong and we simply warm to 
those levels naturally, then we will still be ready to combat that scenario.

I wish I could put faith in the IPCC that they are handling this problem 
as a scientific issue and not a political one, but I can't.  In light of 
that, this seems like the best compromise.  The best one I can come up 
with, anyway.

Paul