> > > > > For consequences like that, I'd hope a one in 10,000 chance would do
> it!
> > > >
> > > > I think meteorite strikes and what, or rather how little, we do about
> > >
> > > (btw, I think in this example, the odds are 1 in millions and we are
> taking
> > > actions.)
> > >
> > > > I think meteorite strikes and what, or rather how little, we do about
> > > > them is an indication that even for extinction we do take account of
> > > > probability.
> > >
> > > As we should, that's what I mean. But so far I have yet to see any
> > > discussion of what probablity of really catastrophic climate change it
> would
> > > take to justify some kind of tangible sacrifice. So far the discussions
> > > seem to encompass mostly arguments about whether or not it is worth "a
> > > single american job" and the underlying assumption that 100% certainty
> of
> > > anthropogenic causes is required before any change in policy is
> justified.
> > >
> > > I don't think I made my point clear, I hope that helps.
> >
> > Curiously in an adjacent thread, comes the following argument:
> >
> > 1. The equilibrium sea level rise for 3 C is from 15 to 35 meters.
> >
> > 2. The question is how fast do we get there
> >
> > 3. We do not know ice dynamics under strong forcings
> >
> > 4. Todays models of ice dynamics are stretched even now in modeling
> > what is happening in the Greenland ice cap.
>
> This is precisely the configuration of confidence and clarity that I think
> is consistently under-emphasized. The question in the case of an outcome
> with severe consequences should not be "are you sure this will happen" but
> "can you promise this can't happen".
Unfortunately, there are enough demands on our resources that are
in the "I am sure this will happen" category that some fairly strong
odds of pretty bad unpleasantness need to be in place to justify an
action.
Compare to this.
you have a job with a 401k. you have 1000 in your 401k.
you have a house with a mortgage payment of $1000/month due now.
You get sick, the operation will cost $3000 if you don't get it,
you die..
You have $3000 in the bank.
Now, under these conditions, you can get the operation, lose your
house and keep your retirement money, you can die, but keep your house
and retirement money, or you can spend a little of your retirement
money and both live and keep your house.
I am betting the money will be out of your 401k faster than you
can say "20% penalty".
now it isn't really comparable, just like any metaphor, but the
enormity of the task of reducing global co2 emissions basically puts it
in a similar vein.
My understanding is that (for grid power)
a) nuclear plants cannot be built because of public distrust.
b) pv doesn't work (at least not in a remotely economical
fashion).
c) wind is almost impossible due to public opposition.
d) Bio-mass is almost as carbon intensive as coal due to the
processing and low EROEI.
e) new hydro projects are impossible due to public opposition.
f) there is no f) no other options exist.
now none of these are absolute, but they're all pretty firm.
Now for transportation.
a) Crop fuels have a miserable eroei, and aren't capable of
producing the energy required anyway.
b) Plug in hybrids are technically possible, but bleeding
expensive, and besides, that just moves the problem back to grid mix
power.
c) reducing overall driving involves a truly monumental
reallignment of our development style and lifestyle.
d) there is no d. that's game.
Again, not absolute, but....
This isn't to say it's hopeless, but it is to say that it's
hopeless for a number of years. even if the public were to take to the
streets tomorrow and chant "we want nuclear, we want PHEVs." it would
take 10 to 15 years for the first plant to come online, during which
time, we'd still be getting the bulk of our power from coal.
And that's just for america. the rest of it is that even if
america were to start this year and reduce our emissions by 5%/year
down to zero, the total global release wouldn't change due to
developing nations taking up the slack.
Another aspect to the situation is that there's a saturation of
co2 in the atmosphere after which it ceases to matter if more is
released. Look at paleoclimate studies. That saturation will be
reached at around the year 2100 at current growth rates. this means
that simply put, we are going back to a cretatious climate conditions,
and there's nothing we or anyone else can do about it.
From an engineering perspective, therefore, our best bet to
produce the best effects would be to steamroll the anti-nuclear people
and start changing our electrical grid from coal to nuclear with all
possible speed, and simultaeneously develop PHEVs as agressively as
possible. And simultaeneously, start construction on some "refugee
cities" on higher ground. These cities should be planned with public
transportation in mind. Many cities in the next 100 years will suffer
hurricane katrina type events, when those happen, you will have the
ready-made refugee cities to relocate the people to.
Will it happen? No. it will not. This means that it won't be
an orderly and graceful changeover, it will be a series of relatively
minor catastrophies like Katrina, Each one will come as a surprise and
each one will be mishandled.... but it will be handled.
The problem that REALLY concerns me at this point is at current
release rates, the co2 saturation of the atmosphere becomes toxic in
200 years.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
