On Jun 2, 1:24 am, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The impact of a new climate equilibrium may well be a net positive,
> though the losers in such a scenario may feel robbed by the winners.
>
> That's entirely beside the point. We are moving into sustained rates
> of change rarely if ever seen in nature, even in the rather
> climatically erratic recent million years. It is indeed outlandish to
> suggest that this is a good idea.
>
> Economists seem to think derivatives (they call them "marginal rates")
> are some subtlety unique to themselves, but the slightest exposure to
> physical science makes clear the whole physical universe seems to be
> glued together with first and second order differential equations.
>
> In the present case, whether one equilibrium is slightly better than
> another is of little consequence as the rate of disruption continues
> to accelerate.
>
> Heiko, Griffin is severely wrong and to the extent you agree with him
> you are wrong too.
>
> The difference is that he represents an agency which should have
> expertise on the matter. I would hope that if you were in a position
> of similar responsibility you would take into account the opinions of
> the experts who were in your agency before making such a sweeping
> statement.
>
> mt
Mike,
I think this is at least the second time that you have replied to
Heiko, but his posts have not appeared here! Have you forgotten to OK
his post or has he sent you a private e-mail?
It is very unlikely that there will be a net positive result from
global warming, but the net result will depend on the weighting that
is given to the factors that are selected for the measurement! If you
are GWB and you give the maximum weighting to the prosperity of the
Bush family, then it is quite likely that you could come up with a net
positive. Certainly, he seems to think that so long as the US economy
prospers that is all that matters.
But the signs are that even the US will suffer under AGW. Already
there has been an increase in wild fires and a reduction in the extent
of the glaciers which provide for summer irrigation. Any lessening in
heating costs has been offset by the increase in charges for the
energy used by air conditioning. Moreover, geological evidence shows
that in a warmer world the tropics become areas where evaporites are
deposited with wet winters leaching the soil and dry summers baking
it. Thus the net arable/habitable areas of the world will decrease.
As an engineer, you must be aware of Murphy's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy's_law
which is a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That states
everything tends to chaos. In other words, any change is likely to be
for the worse.
Grifin is in the unique position of being able to blow billions of
dollars, which will disrupt the atmosphere far more than all the SUVs
put together. Wouldn't you try to rationalise that act of vandalism
if you were in his shoes.
Cheers, Alastair.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
