[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment
jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <504hmm$pdp@spool.cs.wisc.edu> tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael
: Tobis) writes:
: >What we should be concerned about isn't how much the
: >temperature increases (we're pretty confident at this point that
: >it's nonzero and positive) but what that means to the general
: >circulation.
: We cannot be confident of this in the least - *even* assuming,
: for the sake of the argument only,
: that the greenhouse effect and all the chain of
: its indirect consequences (some of which may
: well have opposite signs) is somehow modelled
: perfectly.
I see you confuse "confident" and "certain" when it suits your purposes.
Since this is the case, I will state that I am certain that all else
being equal, increasing greenhouse gases warms a planet reliably and
effectively.
: Since climate predictions are impossible now,
: the most effective course of action is probably to wait
: and see - and then, *if* there's an unfavorable
: change in climate (whether manmade or not,
: does not matter) - to counteract this change. To be
: able to do this, we must maximize, not
: minimize, our ability to impact global climate.
I think that being able to control global climate is
a worthwhile goal - there are several solid reasons
for believing that the planet will become less hospitable
to life in a time period quite short on geological scales.
Others may object on philosophical grounds.
Regardless of this, one has to make a distinction between
controlling climate and blindly affecting it as a side effect
of some other activity. These are opposites, not similar actions.
It is far from incontrovertible that the best strategy for
geoengineering is to dump as much carbon as possible into
the climate system now. It seems rather unlikely, in fact.
: There's another consideration: climatology (like
: some other disciplines) has been
: corrupted as an objective science
: by its new prescriptive role - because power corrupts.
This is an interesting assertion. The community has been
misrepresented to the extent that people believe this. Most
climatologists would like to think their work is important,
but they would prefer to leave the policy implications to
others. Most of us would prefer to avoid prescription entirely,
and feel compelled to speak out only when our work is subject
to severe misrepresentation.
: One symptom of its corruption is that it is reversing
: the wise dictum "extraodinary claims require
: extraodinary proofs": instead, it demands weakened
: standards of proof - *because* of the putative
: practical importance of the issue.
Again, the real question is where the burden of proof lies.
The radiative action of greenhouse gases certainly isn't an
extraordinary claim. The claim that greenhouse gases can be
accumulated indefinitely without major disruptions seems to
to be much the more extraordinary claim.
The question is which is the more extraordinary action -
endlessly accelerating emissions or new regulations and/or
taxes. This in turn depends on your perspective. In terms
of geologic time, the sudden emission of greenhouse gases is
extraordinary. In terms of economic time, the imposition of
new regulations may be extraordinary.
Both sides of the policy debate need to understand that there
are reasonable contrary cases to be made, as well as unreasonable
ones. The role of science is to help the society distinguish
between the reasonable and the unreasonable ones. Judging by
what is seen on usenet, we haven't been doing so effectively.
mt
Follow-Ups:
References: