What can be done (climate change debate)?

[Chief_Pedant]

@ralfy

Results are watered down because governments do not want to alarm the public:

“Climate Risks Have Been Underestimated for the Last 20 Years”

http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years

The reason for this is not hard to understand: governments earn more from increased economic activity and growth, and that means less regulation and more fossil fuel use. For the same reason, businesses earn more profits and a growing global middle class gets what it wants. The same public relies on businesses for work, income, and returns on investment, and will vote for government officials who promote the same.

The problem is that what most want doesn’t negate global warming, especially when seen in light of peak oil.

Hmmm…OK. It’s the governments not wanting to alarm us, is it?

I think it’s more like that articles such as the one you cite don’t have much anxiety-provoking stuff, as far as examples.

The two examples your author comes up with (and one assumes he picked the scariest ones) are:

1. Arctic sea ice is disappearing
2. Sea levels will be 8" higher in 50 years.

I don’t think anybody gives a crap about either of those terrifying predictions, and that the average guy is not moved into a panic by those kinds of dire forecasts. At least, not into a strong enough panic to demand his government Do Something, where “do something” costs anyone any real sacrifice or money. We need that money for healthcare and social security. For us. Not spend it on the grandkids because their beaches might erode.

You need more frighteningly intense items to underplay, I’d say.
The beach house erosion photo is frightening, of course. Seems like marketing, though.

[tomndebb]

@Clothahump

The first part of that statement is correct, the second is not. Climate change is caused by the Sun. Until we learn how to hang a thermostat on it, humans don’t have a damn thing to say about it.

Take this sort of comment to one of the numerous threads discussing whether AGW is real. This thread begins with the granted (if hypothetical) point that AGW is real and asks how to reverse or prevent it.

Do not hijack this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

[tomndebb]

@watchwolf49

[SIZE=“2”]. . . both FX and Gigo are in complete agreement. Do you agree with these two clowns . . .

Direct personal insults are prohibited in this forum

This is a Warning that you need to refrain from such postings.

[ /Moderating ]

[watchwolf49]

“that’s why a sauna set to 80° C will be relaxing,”

No, step into a sauna that’s 80ºC and you will quickly die. This pot roast here in my hand says it’s cooked at 72ºC.

Yes, the Sun does directly effect temperature, as does albedo and … as Gigo points out … emissivity, one equation in four variables.

[watchwolf49]

… with two solution sets …

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

“that’s why a sauna set to 80° C will be relaxing,”

No, step into a sauna that’s 80ºC and you will quickly die. This pot roast here in my hand says it’s cooked at 72ºC.

Yes, the Sun does directly effect temperature, as does albedo and … as Gigo points out … emissivity, one equation in four variables.

Not going to follow the highjack but for a comment:

Suffice to say that the evidence shows that the other variables are not very important regarding the current warming. We have to do something about the variable that is changing the climate now.

So, onward.

One book by Lester Brown, that is already a text book at the California State University, Chico: Plan B does have a lot of what is recommended and can be downloaded for free.

http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb4/pb4_presentation

The Challenges: Food Insecurity and Climate Change

Some trends are worrying:
[ul]
[li]As levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide continue to increase, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that Earth’s average temperature will rise 1.1-6.4˚C during this century.[/li][li] [/li][li] Our current trajectory is already outpacing these projections.[/li][li] [/li][li] For every 1˚C rise in temperature above the norm, yields of wheat, rice, and corn drop 10 percent.[/li][li] [/li][li] The glaciers feeding rivers like the Yellow, Yangtze, Ganges, and Indus, which provide critical irrigation water, are disappearing at accelerating rates.[/li][li] [/li][li] The United States has been converting more and more corn into fuel for cars; yet the grain needed to fill an SUV’s 25 gallon tank once with ethanol could feed one person for an entire year.[/li][li] [/li][li] World grain and soybean prices tripled from mid-2006 to mid-2008, causing riots and unrest in dozens of countries.[/li][li] [/li][li] More than 1 billion people in the world are suffering from hunger.[/li][li] [/li][li] In an effort to ensure their own food security, some affluent food importing countries, such as Saudi Arabia, China, and South Korea, have begun buying or leasing land abroad to grow their own food.[/li][li] [/li][li] It was food shortages that led to the collapse of several ancient civilizations.[/li][/ul]

The Response: Plan B
Plan B 4.0 Overview
We have the tools to reverse these negative trends and can choose to stabilize climate, eradicate poverty, restore the earth’s natural systems, and check unsustainable population growth. Some bright spots include:

[ul]

[li]The sunlight hitting the earth in 1 hour could power global economy for 1 year.[/li][li] [/li][li] The wind potential in North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas alone could satisfy U.S. energy needs.[/li][li] [/li][li] A worldwide switch to highly-efficient lighting would cut electricity use 12%, equivalent to closing 705 coal-fired power plants.[/li][li] [/li][li] Denmark already gets more than 20% of its electricity from wind and is aiming for 50%.[/li][li] [/li][li] China’s 27 million rooftop solar water heaters harness energy equal to the output of 49 coal-fired power plants.[/li][li] [/li][li] In Germany a systematic shift of taxes from labor to energy reduced global warming emissions and created 250,000 jobs.[/li][li] [/li][li] Iran has slowed its population growth from one of the fastest rates in the world through national literacy, health, and family planning programs.[/li][li] [/li][li] By spending just 1/8 of the world’s current military budget, we could meet the Plan B goals for basic social improvements and restoring the earth.[/li][/ul]

These facts, and more, are featured in this guided tour through the Plan B blueprint to move the world onto a sustainable path. Based on Lester Brown’s latest book, Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, the presentation lays out the threats facing our civilization, including food insecurity and climate change, and presents the Plan B proposals for solving them.

[Chief_Pedant]

(I thought that Plan B was a contraception approach, although that kind of fits in…)

But in any case, GB, that guy’s “Plan B” seems to be a bunch of interesting facts without a Plan.

See, a Plan is when you take an interesting fact and create a roadmap to make it a reality.

An Execution is actually making the Plan a reality.

The solar and wind comments above are interesting facts, but they aren’t a Plan.

For example, there has been a Plan to create a windmill farm off of Nantucket. Like most Plans, it’s been long on hoopla, and even longer on execution.

Look at the chart I gave you for where total energy is going, and explain to me how Plan B is even a Plan, much less an executable approach.

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

(I thought that Plan B was a contraception approach, although that kind of fits in…)

But in any case, GB, that guy’s “Plan B” seems to be a bunch of interesting facts without a Plan.

See, a Plan is when you take an interesting fact and create a roadmap to make it a reality.

An Execution is actually making the Plan a reality.

The solar and wind comments above are interesting facts, but they aren’t a Plan.

For example, there has been a Plan to create a windmill farm off of Nantucket. Like most Plans, it’s been long on hoopla, and even longer on execution.

Look at the chart I gave you for where total energy is going, and explain to me how Plan B is even a Plan, much less an executable approach.

You are only talking about the problem, not the solution. Are you involved in pressuring the local government or private group to get the Nantucket project done?

[Uqbar]

The best answer I can find to the OP (REMEMBER, there was no specification that this just had to do with America, and its boresight polarized political views, quite the opposite; developing nations stand to suffer a lot more for example, given just-able-to-make-ends-meet issues):

A low carbon tax, not intended to damage the economy, or strangle out fossil fuels, but directed to fund alternate energy innovation…
(wolfpup and others have suggested similar things upstream)

…

A pretty good discussion is here (Yale):

“…decision by the Indian government was to impose a small tax on coal, with the proceeds to be invested in renewable energy technologies. That small levy — expected to raise $535 million in its first year, despite imposing a tax equivalent to only 35 cents per ton of carbon — met with no public protests. Yet it could have a substantial impact on helping India develop its own green energy technologies.”

“Emissions reduction goals will not be achieved by policies that seek to stimulate innovation by constricting, much less by reducing, economic activity.”

“Government must foster competition, pursue energy innovation using a public works model, and recognize the crucial role of demonstration projects. Governments should also become a major consumer of innovative energy-technology products and systems.”

…

And just to follow up my own post on the risk analysis front, there HAVE been models estimating cost, like these for America, which includes one by Nordhaus who comes up with only a few percentage points dent in the American GDP through 2100; others are more dour; you get complications with the discount rate, how to account for large disasters (even one can skew results), the GDP doesn’t account for everything, etc.

[QUOTE=watchwolf49]
So I’m sitting here trying to imagine every last actuary walking along the new dikes in southern Louisiana ignoring the effects of AGW…
[/QUOTE]

(err…not sure what you meant…I wasn’t suggesting actuaries ignore AGW(?), but that their risk analysis skills be used to give world-wide, national, regional estimates on the costs of climate change; accurate cost assessments can better help frame policy; I don’t care what the insurance industry does.)

[ralfy]

@Chief_Pedant

Hmmm…OK. It’s the governments not wanting to alarm us, is it?

I think it’s more like that articles such as the one you cite don’t have much anxiety-provoking stuff, as far as examples.

The two examples your author comes up with (and one assumes he picked the scariest ones) are:

1. Arctic sea ice is disappearing
2. Sea levels will be 8" higher in 50 years.

I don’t think anybody gives a crap about either of those terrifying predictions, and that the average guy is not moved into a panic by those kinds of dire forecasts. At least, not into a strong enough panic to demand his government Do Something, where “do something” costs anyone any real sacrifice or money. We need that money for healthcare and social security. For us. Not spend it on the grandkids because their beaches might erode.

You need more frighteningly intense items to underplay, I’d say.
The beach house erosion photo is frightening, of course. Seems like marketing, though.

There are lots of sources that do not underplay the effects, from the Pentagon to the IEA.

[Chief_Pedant]

@ralfy

There are lots of sources that do not underplay the effects, from the Pentagon to the IEA.

I submit it’s more accurate to say that many sources are concerned about what severe effects might occur in worst case scenarios, but that no one knows with a high degree of confidence what will actually occur for net effects. Moreover, there’s a human (and practical) tendency to focus on the negative possibilities.

I recommend Kerry Emanuel’s booklet, “What We Know About Climate Change,” as one source for straightforward comments about how confident we should actually be that our understanding of climate and ACC consequences is accurate.

We just don’t know. That uncertainty is part of what makes it so difficult to know what to do. In a sense, we need to do something just in case something bad is going to happen.

[Chief_Pedant]

@Uqbar

A low carbon tax, not intended to damage the economy, or strangle out fossil fuels, but directed to fund alternate energy innovation…

I think this is a palatable approach, but of course it’s very naive to think it will do anything to significantly reduce current and projected CO2 levels for the next 20 years. And if it doesn’t, there are many who would say the die is cast.

On the other hand, I don’t think anything more than that will get done, which is why I think the die is cast already.

It’s just not in human nature to sacrifice for future generations, particularly when the thing you are sacrificing for is so nebulous.

The average climate over the next 5 or 10 years might help, if it’s really bad and obviously in an Alarmist direction. But we are going to have to see charts more obviously horrible for trends than this one for Atlantic hurricane intensity, for example.

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

I submit it’s more accurate to say that many sources are concerned about what severe effects might occur in worst case scenarios, but that no one knows with a high degree of confidence what will actually occur for net effects. Moreover, there’s a human (and practical) tendency to focus on the negative possibilities.

I recommend Kerry Emanuel’s booklet, “What We Know About Climate Change,” as one source for straightforward comments about how confident we should actually be that our understanding of climate and ACC consequences is accurate.

We just don’t know. That uncertainty is part of what makes it so difficult to know what to do. In a sense, we need to do something just in case something bad is going to happen.

I submit that others with more experience and Emmanuel himself do not agree with what you are getting from “What We Know About Climate Change,”

What We Know About Climate Change

Overview

The vast majority of scientists agree that human activity has significantly increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere—most dramatically since the 1970s. In February 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that global warming is “unequivocal” and that human-produced carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are chiefly to blame, to a certainty of more than 90 percent. Yet global warming skeptics and ill-informed elected officials continue to dismiss this broad scientific consensus. In What We Know About Climate Change, MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel outlines the basic science of global warming and how the current consensus has emerged. Although it is impossible to predict exactly when the most dramatic effects of global warming will be felt, he argues, we can be confident that we face real dangers. Emanuel, whose work was widely cited in media coverage of Hurricane Katrina, warns that global warming will contribute to an increase in the intensity and power of hurricanes and flooding and more rapidly advancing deserts.

But just as our actions have created the looming crisis, so too might they avert it. Emanuel criticizes the media for playing down the dangers of global warming (and, in search of “balance,” quoting extremists who deny its existence).

An afterword by environmental policy experts Judith Layzer and William Moomaw discusses how the United States could lead the way in the policy changes required to deal with global warming.

Indeed in his second edition Emmanuel refers to the options that we have, and the options we should deploy “Are inherently political, ranging from technology to reduce emissions to methods of adapting to climate change.”

His main point regarding the negative consequences is that they are also included with the possible positives. And this is because while there can be issues that we are missing the most likely issues out there or found so far are pointing to little understood bad feedbacks to become worst and not better in a warming world. Emanuel takes both the good and the bad possibilities into consideration to make the overall point that indeed we need to avoid the huge risks and ignore the ones that continue to claim that the risk is minimal.

[Chief_Pedant]

@GIGObuster

I submit that others with more experience and Emmanuel himself do not agree with what you are getting from “What We Know About Climate Change,”

What We Know About Climate Change
Indeed in his second edition Emmanuel refers to the options that we have, and the options we should deploy “Are inherently political, ranging from technology to reduce emissions to methods of adapting to climate change.”

His main point regarding the negative consequences is that they are also included with the possible positives. And this is because while there can be issues that we are missing the most likely issues out there or found so far are pointing to little understood bad feedbacks to become worst and not better in a warming world. Emanuel takes both the good and the bad possibilities into consideration to make the overall point that indeed we need to avoid the huge risks and ignore the ones that continue to claim that the risk is minimal.

I’m not sure who wrote your “overview,” but may I recommend actually reading the book itself?

At issue is not whether or not Kerry’s book reminds us of the broad agreement among scientists about the direction of the earth’s current temperature trend. What I have been trying to get across is that the confidence with which we can predict the net result of this current trend is not high. We simply do not know, and we do have a history of predicting doom for the various Great Causes we’ve embraced over the years.

The message of (dispassionate) Alarmists is that it’s prudent to avoid ACC as much as possible, not because we know it will be catastrophic, but because we do not know whether or not it will be catastrophic. This message does not play well to a public inclined only to act when disaster is imminent, and disinclined to act if disaster is either unknowable or will have an effect only on future generations. For this reason, the more hysterical Alarmists have (in my opinion) over-played the “disaster” hand. Should those disasters not turn out to be very proximate, this approach will backfire. Indeed, this version of Emanuel’s book was published prior to the very quiet 2013 Atlantic hurricane season.

From the end of chapter 5 in Kerry Emanuel’s 2nd edition (2012) of “What We Know About Climate Change”

“…(We) should also be wary of our own collective ignorance of how the climate system works. Perhaps negative feedback systems that we have not contemplated or underestimated will kick in, sparing us debilitating consequences. On the other hand, little understood or positive feedbacks might make matters worse than we expect. We are humbled by a sense of ignorance…We know as little about the consequences of our actions as Phaeton did when he took the reins of his father’s chariot.”

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

I’m not sure who wrote your “overview,” but may I recommend actually reading the book itself?

I did read the book too, I quoted from it, so yeah, you are getting it all wrong.

[Emmanuel]
“…(We) should also be wary of our own collective ignorance of how the climate system works. Perhaps negative feedback systems that we have not contemplated or underestimated will kick in, sparing us debilitating consequences. On the other hand, little understood or positive feedbacks might make matters worse than we expect. We are humbled by a sense of ignorance…We know as little about the consequences of our actions as Phaeton did when he took the reins of his father’s chariot.”

Emmanuel then mentions that they are worried that similar jumps in the change of our climate might be part of our future; **really **you are trying to make that uncertainty as part of a justification of not doing anything that is opposite of what the book is telling us overall. The book is making the point many times mentioned before that uncertainty is not your friend. That is: not a friend of the ones that claim that we should not do anything.

We have to control our emissions and plan to adapt.

[Chief_Pedant]

@GIGObuster

I did read the book too, I quoted from it, so yeah, you are getting it all wrong.

[Emmanuel]
“…(We) should also be wary of our own collective ignorance of how the climate system works. Perhaps negative feedback systems that we have not contemplated or underestimated will kick in, sparing us debilitating consequences. On the other hand, little understood or positive feedbacks might make matters worse than we expect. We are humbled by a sense of ignorance…We know as little about the consequences of our actions as Phaeton did when he took the reins of his father’s chariot.”

Emmanuel then mentions that they are worried that similar jumps in the change of our climate might be part of our future; **really **you are trying to make that uncertainty as part of a justification of not doing anything that is opposite of what the book is telling us overall. The book is making the point many times mentioned before that uncertainty is not your friend. That is: not a friend of the ones that claim that we should not do anything.

We have to control our emissions and plan to adapt.

I’m not clear which part you think I am getting wrong.

(I’m also not clear which part you think you quoted. The “Overview” you linked to was not written by Emanuel. It’s from a book review. Perhaps you got confused?)

Anyway, I have not said that Emanuel’s (there’s only one “m” in his last name) position is that uncertainty is justification for not acting. In fact, I have said that many–perhaps most–climatologists (including Emanuel) worried about ACC are worried about it for precisely that reason: We do not know what will happen.

Quoting myself here:
“The message of (dispassionate) Alarmists is that it’s prudent to avoid ACC as much as possible, not because we know it will be catastrophic, but because we do not know whether or not it will be catastrophic.”

I have suggested that, because what will happen has such a high degree of uncertainty, it is difficult to mobilize the public. It’s sorta like if your Great Cause was a religion that preaches hell, but when push comes to shove you have to admit you aren’t sure if hell is actually a consequence or not. The people whom you are trying to convert may be less likely to change their ways, even if you feel strongly that the possibility of hell is reason enough to stop sinning.

Hope that helps.

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

I’m not clear which part you think I am getting wrong.

(I’m also not clear which part you think you quoted. The “Overview” you linked to was not written by Emanuel. It’s from a book review. Perhaps you got confused?)

The point was clear: others can see what is the overall intention by Emanuel. He clearly does not recommend that we should stand by.

Emanuel research points at how bad it will get just by concentrating on the most likely outcomes, like more precipitation in specific areas and more intense droughts in others, with ocean rise also thrown in.

What you are cherry picking from his book is that we should not act because “we do not know whether or not it will be catastrophic” but that is referring to the other less likely things that could get worse like hurricanes and tornadoes. People that recommend inaction are only looking to roll the dice and bet a lot of the well being of nations.

Following interviews about his book show that indeed Emanuel is not your friend.

If Conservatives Were Really “Conservative,” They Would Want to Do Something...

At the start of the interview, Emanuel expertly detailed why we know climate science is reliable, how climate change manifests itself in extreme weather—statistically, of course, and not anecdotally—and why outright skepticism of global warming caused by humans just isn’t a credible intellectual position for one to hold any longer. So far, so good.

But where things got really interesting was around minute 14, where the conversation shifted towards policy and Emanuel made a conservative case for taking the science of climate change seriously, and finding a solution to the problem. “The thing to do is to get [conservatives] to understand how much they could potentially bring to the table in trying to figure out how we deal with these risks,” Emanuel explained.

What did he mean? Well, if one is a Burkean conservative, then one by definition wants to prevent risk to the existing order of things. One wants to conserve, to ensure stability. And since climate change is clearly a grave risk to economic, ecological, and overall planetary order, Emanuel naturally sees addressing global warming as a conservative idea. As he explained at minute 16 or so of the podcast:

It’s conservative in the little C sense that most people mean when they say, a conservative family insures itself, for example, and doesn’t take unnecessary risks and gambles. And that’s an important point, because what we’re dealing with here is risk. And a conservative approach to risk is, to take out an insurance policy, for one thing. And that’s the way we ought to be thinking about this problem.

And speaking about your tired point about this being like religion. Many times before I have posted evidence that deniers in congress and a few contrarian scientists like Spencer are creationists and use religion to justify inaction. You will not notice as usual, but then I’m not posting to just help you. I post for others that will learn who is really the one using religion to prevent change.

[Chief_Pedant]

@GIGObuster

What you are cherry picking from his book is that we should not act because “we do not know whether or not it will be catastrophic” but that is referring to the other less likely things that could get worse like hurricanes and tornadoes. People that recommend inaction are only looking to roll the dice and bet a lot of the well being of nations.

I don’t think I can help you on this point anymore. I’m not sure if you are just struggling to understand it, or being obstinate.

Kerry Emanuel thinks we should act because we do not know the consequences.

His book presents his position very clearly: We do not know what the consequences of too much CO2 are, but they might be bad. For that reason we should act, according to Emanuel.

My position is that we do not know the consequences of pumping carbon into the air, and this makes it vastly more difficult to:

1. Create effective action plans
2. Mobilize the public to do anything costly until some very specifically-predicted, proximate and severe consequences occur. Really; until a bunch of them, all in the direction of predicted warming events, beat us over the head collectively.

For example, a Katrina or Sandy doesn’t cut it for hurricanes when we have a season like we just had in the Atlantic. One area of the globe burning up doesn’t cut it when we just finished freezing our ass off for 4 months with a Great Lakes ice cover not seen in decades.

Does that help? If not, I’m apparently unable to help you reiterate my position accurately. You are such a one-trick pony. Either a poster is totally onboard with how you see the world, or they are a Denialist. I’ve met many a religious Great Cause proselytizer who sees the world through the exact same sort of binary glasses. They can’t usually be helped either, and end up spending a lot of their time wondering why the world just doesn’t get it, stop sinning, and avoid hell.

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

I don’t think I can help you on this point anymore. I’m not sure if you are just struggling to understand it, or being obstinate.

Kerry Emanuel thinks we should act because we do not know the consequences.

Nope, this is just ignorance, in other interviews and reports Emanuel does clarify that water vapor is increasing in the areas where storms happen, that added water is making things worse. That, and other items we do know.

@Chief_Pedant

Does that help? If not, I’m apparently unable to help you reiterate my position accurately. You are such a one-trick pony. Either a poster is totally onboard with how you see the world, or they are a Denialist. I’ve met many a religious Great Cause proselytizer who sees the world through the exact same sort of binary glasses. They can’t usually be helped either.

No it does not help, you also pointed also to a classic denier point about the cold in an area in winter, that is weather, not climate:

The evidence actually shows to all that your points are reheated baloney, you are cherry picking what scientists are telling us, they actually report the opposite of what you recommend, [and on top of that you are totally wrong about me being a one-trick pony.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17203073&postcount=122)

Again: “A conservative approach to risk is, to take out an insurance policy, for one thing. And that’s the way we ought to be thinking about this problem.” No wonder Kerry Emanuel has turned into an independent know, too many misrepresentations and threats directed at him from the real one trick ponies from the right out there.

[wolfpup]

@Chief_Pedant

Kerry Emanuel thinks we should act because we do not know the consequences.

His book presents his position very clearly: We do not know what the consequences of too much CO2 are, but they might be bad. For that reason we should act, according to Emanuel…

… For example, a Katrina or Sandy doesn’t cut it for hurricanes when we have a season like we just had in the Atlantic. One area of the globe burning up doesn’t cut it when we just finished freezing our ass off for 4 months with a Great Lakes ice cover not seen in decades.

I’m quite familiar with Kerry Emanuel and let me say that if you’re singling him out as some sort of poster boy for climate skepticism or at least as skepticism about the need for urgent action, then you are most certainly either misinterpreting and/or cherry-picking his words out of context.

Emanuel is one of the most respected climate scientists currently practicing, and probably the foremost authority in the world on many aspects of atmospheric physics including the linkage between climate change and hurricanes. He happens to be both a political conservative and a scientific conservative and his comments are so exquisitely even-handed that they can sometimes sound disarmingly conciliatory toward denialists, speaking very frankly as he does about the things we need to know more about, and the existence of extremists on the environmental side as well as on the business and denialist side. And just when the denialists are lulled into a sense that here they have a friend in the legitimate scientific community, he hits them with a zinger like…

[ul]
[li]The incidence, intensity, and duration of both floods and drought will increase.[/li][/ul]
or
[ul]
[li]The intensity of hurricanes will continue to increase, though their frequency may dwindle.[/li][/ul]

Emanuel has also said, and I quote from his essay “Phaeton’s Reins” that appeared in the Boston Review in 2007:

We have preciously few representatives in Congress with a background or interest in science, and some of them display an active contempt for the subject. As long as we continue to elect scientific illiterates like James Inhofe, who believes global warming to be a hoax, we will lack the ability to engage in intelligent debate.

On the bright side, the governments of many countries, including the United States, continue to fund active programs of climate research, and many of the critical uncertainties about climate change are slowly being whittled down. The extremists are being exposed and relegated to the sidelines, and when the media stop amplifying their views, their political counterparts will have nothing left to stand on. When this happens, we can get down to the serious business of tackling the most complex and perhaps the most consequential problem ever confronted by mankind.

Like it or not, we have been handed Phaeton’s reins, and we will have to learn how to control climate if we are to avoid his fate.

That allegorical fate toward which we are headed, as he reminds us earlier in the essay, is that Phaeton, an offspring of the sun god Helios, lost a wager to his son and was obliged to allow him to drive the sun chariot across the sky. In this primal environmental catastrophe, Phaeton lost control and fried the earth, killing himself in the process. And that, ultimately, is Emanuel’s message.