- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 15,186
- Reaction score
- 11,428
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are
The problem is a rational policy maker has to deal with uncertainty and a chain of known (and unknown) probability. For example, suppose the chances of a temperature rise of greater than 1 degree centigrade is 50-50. Then suppose that the chances of significant climate change is 50-50. Then suppose the chance of good or bad effects are 50-50? One ends up with a 12.5 percent chance that there will be a significant rise in temperatures, that will in turn cause a significant change in climate, that will turnout to be "bad" rather than "good" economically.
Now add in the uncertainty of just "how bad" the economics effect will be, as well as whether or not it is worth a penalty on the world economic to address? And if so, then there is the uncertainty of what strategy will actually work and is "best" (e.g. adaptation to change vs. geo-engineering vs. attempts to slow or stop change via heavy carbon taxes and/or regulation of greenhouse emissions).
To say nothing of the political reality that any serious, verifiable, and coordinated plan will almost certainly never arise in the next 20 years.
My own view is simple: the next generations will be far richer than today, and their technology far more advanced. Let them fix it - after all, they will be the one's inheriting the standard of living and capital built by their fore-fathers.
I'm not sure that's the real question, but it is certainly a fair point. It's difficult to keep any rigor in these sorts of discussions as many of the participants are approaching this with about a 3rd graders understanding.
A more important question, which is seldom addressed, is what is the likely climate outcome given a particular set of policy actions on CO2 (etc...) emissions. How does bending the emissions curve bend the temperature curve? How does it bend the economy curve?
Forget the reasons why, increasing global temperature will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy. So too will scarcity of fossil fuels. Restrictions and efficiency mandates will also have a negative effect on the economy. However, they will also offset some of the negative effects of climate change AND resource scarcity. So the real question is what should we do now to put us in the best shape economically for the future?
The problem is a rational policy maker has to deal with uncertainty and a chain of known (and unknown) probability. For example, suppose the chances of a temperature rise of greater than 1 degree centigrade is 50-50. Then suppose that the chances of significant climate change is 50-50. Then suppose the chance of good or bad effects are 50-50? One ends up with a 12.5 percent chance that there will be a significant rise in temperatures, that will in turn cause a significant change in climate, that will turnout to be "bad" rather than "good" economically.
Now add in the uncertainty of just "how bad" the economics effect will be, as well as whether or not it is worth a penalty on the world economic to address? And if so, then there is the uncertainty of what strategy will actually work and is "best" (e.g. adaptation to change vs. geo-engineering vs. attempts to slow or stop change via heavy carbon taxes and/or regulation of greenhouse emissions).
To say nothing of the political reality that any serious, verifiable, and coordinated plan will almost certainly never arise in the next 20 years.
My own view is simple: the next generations will be far richer than today, and their technology far more advanced. Let them fix it - after all, they will be the one's inheriting the standard of living and capital built by their fore-fathers.