On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> 
> There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution
> because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the
> amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of
> anthropogenic global warming does not look so stellar because it
> failed to predict the current cooling period.

Actually, I remember it did - around 10 years ago there was a
concensus opinion of a decade or two statis in the warming trend - but
it might have been the sunspot guys rather than the climate
modellers. This is not expected to last, though, so we'll soon see it
being put to the test.


> 
> Given the tremendous human cost of reducing CO2 emissions, the
> rational thing to do is to weigh the probability of the theory being
> correct against this cost. I don't have an answer here, nor am I
> qualified to give it. I know a bit about complex systems modelling and
> this makes me very skeptical of "overwhelming evidences", especially
> in the face of surprising observables against the models.
> 

As Liz pointed out, that "tremendous cost" for decarbonising the
economy will need to be paid sooner or later anyway. With a bit of
political will we can do it sooner, and the cost will be less as a result.

The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a
tremendous cost after all.

> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
> > we'd have to do something.
> 
> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
> 

The point is whether we do something, or do nothing, energy costs
_will_ rise. Yes this _will_ lead to human suffering, either way. We
can either choose to pay a bit more now, and have less costs later, or
pay less now, and have steeper rises later.

A 10 or 20% energy cost increase to hasten decarbonisation by a decade
will save many billions of dollars of geo-engineering, or evironmental
restoration down the track. Seems like quite an astute investment to
me. Our current conservative government, alas, doesn't seem to think
so.

> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a bit
> of religious moralism.
> 
> Telmo.
> 

They're not being ignored. But they do require a lot more small-scale
research to understand their risk-benefit tradeoff.

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to