lawrocketI say, "we don't know whether we can accurately predict or not. We have to wait another 80 years until we see how the predictions panned out."
Here's the rub...what are the implications of being wrong? If we prepare for global warming and try to mitigate it by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and trying to live more sustainably, and the warming fails to materialize, what harm have we done? On the flip side of that coin, if we ignore it for 80 years and do as we please, and the climate scientists were right, well that's a cat you can't put back in the bag.
Reasonable accomodations leave us as prepared as we can be for any eventuality, and the cost of being wrong is measured purely in dollars. Obstinance, on the other hand, leaves us only prepared for one eventuality, and the risk of being wrong is not only far more dollars (preparation being cheaper than recovery) but many lives as well.
I'm a big proponent of robustness analysis, in skydiving, at work, and for life in general. My basic approach is "Keep as many options and feasible paths to success as possible." Ignoring the claims of an overwhelming majority of experts, with very little credible opposition, on the basis that long term predictions haven't been proven yet, seriously limits our future options.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
billvon 2,464
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Here's the rub...what are the implications of being wrong?
Some people won't make as much money as they would have otherwise. Some people will make more money than they would have otherwise. In a capitalist society that's a big stinking deal. And most businesses have, at most, a ten year horizon. Thus if they can make a billion dollars on a dirty industry over the next decade, that outweighs any consideration of what will happen in twenty years.
> On the flip side of that coin, if we ignore it for 80 years and do as we please,
>and the climate scientists were right, well that's a cat you can't put back in the
>bag.
Right. But to a 50 year old investor - why does he care?
Some people won't make as much money as they would have otherwise. Some people will make more money than they would have otherwise. In a capitalist society that's a big stinking deal. And most businesses have, at most, a ten year horizon. Thus if they can make a billion dollars on a dirty industry over the next decade, that outweighs any consideration of what will happen in twenty years.
> On the flip side of that coin, if we ignore it for 80 years and do as we please,
>and the climate scientists were right, well that's a cat you can't put back in the
>bag.
Right. But to a 50 year old investor - why does he care?
[Reply]
"When it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C. This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C."
"When it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C. This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C."
Great to know that the new research means that doubling of CO2 concentration would produce a range of temperature increase from .9 degrees C to 5 degree C (1.6 to 9 degrees F).
Am I the only one who thinks that the new research adds uncertainty? Put another way, "well, we have managed to identify a temperatyre increase. If we double the CO2 in the atmosphere, we expect temperatures to be up to 9 degrees F warmer than now. Our previous estimate was only 7.2 degrees warmer, so that's a big deal. Bear in mind, however, that the warmth may only be 18% of that. So predicting it is kinda like planning for a wedding for anywhere between 16 people and and 90 people. Before our range would have been like 36 to 81 people. So the climate predictions are either far less warming or far more warming."
So the science, it seems, it muddier with this.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,464
> So predicting it is kinda like planning for a wedding for anywhere between 16
> people and and 90 people.
Sorta, yes. You have your wedding planner saying it will be between 40 and 90; you have your future mother in law saying no, it will be between 16 and 90. Who's right? The number probably lies somewhere between those extremes.
However, the smart money on that point would be to plan for the wedding while waiting for the RSVP's, rather than deny there is a wedding at all.
> people and and 90 people.
Sorta, yes. You have your wedding planner saying it will be between 40 and 90; you have your future mother in law saying no, it will be between 16 and 90. Who's right? The number probably lies somewhere between those extremes.
However, the smart money on that point would be to plan for the wedding while waiting for the RSVP's, rather than deny there is a wedding at all.
rehmwa 2
livendive
In Speaker's Corner, valid arguments and invalid rhetoric are compared as apples to apples. I respect the people who make valid arguments, even if I disagree with their conclusions. The other folks...meh, just noisy entertainment. It's highly unlikely that they or I will ever convince the other of anything because both of us stopped listening to each other long ago, albeit for different reasons.
people try valid arguments, but then give up quickly with the attacks and background noise - I appreciate the attempts also
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
[Reply]Here's the rub...what are the implications of being wrong?
If we prepare for global warming and try to mitigate it by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and trying to live more sustainably, and the warming fails to materialize, what harm have we done?
If we prepare for global warming and try to mitigate it by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and trying to live more sustainably, and the warming fails to materialize, what harm have we done?
Depends on the measure of harm. Have we caused a massive worldwide economic depression by forcing elimination of fossil fuels, thus making energy less available and more expensive? Ever see what happens when the power goes out? Or when heating oil is unavailable?
There are numerous scenarios wherein elimination of fossil fuels without sufficiently available and inexpensive technologies cause lots and lots of deaths and human suffering. Take a look at the aftermath of Sandy - human misery results when energy cannot be easily obtained. This is something that, in my opinion, must be considered. I think the concerns are too easily dismissed.
Like it or not, our economy and our society runs on fossil fuels. Nuclear energy, at this point, is the only commercially viable alternative to fossil fuels but is politically unsatisfactory.
[Reply]On the flip side of that coin, if we ignore it for 80 years and do as we please, and the climate scientists were right, well that's a cat you can't put back in the bag.
Yes. But we also understand that we arengoing to wake up one day and see that the houses in Miami are now submerged.
What effects will we see? It'll probably be seen moer with agriculture than anything. And here's how acting like something is going to happen when we don't know can cause problems: Let's assume that we want to be prepared for climate change, so the Department of Agriculture decides that the lower midwest will be the new citrus belt and that the Nebraska and north will be where the hard red winter wheat seed will be allowed - that's where the climate is going so direct the resources there now so we'll be ready.
One can imagine the human cost of directing resources for "preparation." Crop failures are predicted with climate change, right? So what's the cost if it happens and we don't have a robust winter wheat industry in Minnesoat and Wisconsin? We can prevent that by establishing winter wheat crops there now.
No. We can't. We take a potential famine and mitigate it by creating an actual one.
Here's how I see it: the predicted problems facing the California wine industry provide opporunity for the Oregon wine industry. The predicted problems for the Florida citrus producers mean good news for Georgia Citrus, who are grateful since the stonefruit industry went up to the Carolinas.
It's how adjustments work. It'll be that way for just about everything. We invaded Iraq because there existed the chance that Hussein had WMD's. Imagine if he DID have them what he could have done with them! The price paid was worth it for national security. The justification turned out not to hold water. And the cost of it? There are plenty of them that just can't be measured.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
these are scientists
it would different if they were just posting in Speaker's Corner - then the tactic is normal
In Speaker's Corner, valid arguments and invalid rhetoric are compared as apples to apples. I respect the people who make valid arguments, even if I disagree with their conclusions. The other folks...meh, just noisy entertainment. It's highly unlikely that they or I will ever convince the other of anything because both of us stopped listening to each other long ago, albeit for different reasons.
Blues,
Dave
(drink Mountain Dew)
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites