Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Vaughan Pratt
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by brentns1
Rewilding North America
The idea of ‘rewilding’ was developed in the mid-1900’s by Michael Soulè. According to Soulè rewilding means restoring large native predators into the wild. However, rewilding has been expanded to include megafauna.
http://rewildingnorthamerica.weebly.com/
Michael E. Soulé is a U.S. biologist, best known for his work in promoting the idea of conservation biology. He earned a Ph.D. in Population Biology at Stanford University under Paul R. Ehrlich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Soul%C3%A9
Rewilding California sounds like a great idea!!!
Why stop with Pleistocene Rewilding?
We could go Jurassic!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_Park
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Vaughan Pratt
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
As it’s been described, the attention on AGW seems to come with little recognition for other potential existential threats; as if looking down a tube and seeing only AGW mitigation without peripheral vision. Alternate disaster scenarios with the potential of shorter-term realization that could prove more costly, perhaps more likely, are evident.
But
Where’s the massive technological curve that’s been self evident for over a century fit into the equation as an alternate, and perhaps preferable, conviction over the presumed need for punitive mitigation? I’m not referring to the current stable of technologies; black glass, wind, et al; but rather new paradigms. An excuse for this to be ignored could be, “one can’t factor something that hasn’t been invented yet”, but why not? We don’t have a prognosis for AGW and nothing is stopping the warmer crowd from developing lavish punitive measures for mitigation even though much of the science isn’t observable. So we’ve embraced pessimism and discarded prudent optimism; because our technology curve is observable. We may not know everything that will be developed now, but we do know how fast technology in general has advanced. The Wright brothers flew a little over 100 years ago. Determination isn’t needed to find alternative energy sources, the work’s already being done. What’s being defined now as a threat can be potentially non existent in 30-50 years through technology, or mostly mitigated.
So, out of sight out of mind? For example Lockheed Martin Skunk Works last year announced its High Beta fusion reactor, and proclaimed they’ll have a prototype in 5 years, and a product in 10. Outlandish? Maybe, they’ve been looked at with a skeptical eye which may be appropriate. But it’s Skunk Works, ya know? Why would they put their reputation on the line for something impossible if they don’t know something the rest of us don’t. This only serves as an example. If it’s not them, there will be something else. It’s going to happen. Perhaps breakthrough advances in sequestration technology. Just sayin.
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Vaughan Pratt
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Vaughan Pratt
Tony, if you’re predicting less of a rise than Hansen is predicting based on linear extrapolation from some point in time, why not pick 1000 AD as that point and extrapolate linearly from there? This should make your reasoning even more compelling.
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Jim D
People always have a right to risk their own lives, but when it comes to risking other people’s lives there is a difference in what precaution means.
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
Cerescokid
“There were 201 tax payers in 1954 making over $1 million. There were just 600 tax payers who paid the top marginal rate of 91%. The taxes contributed by the latter group made up 1% of Total Tax revenue and less than .5% by the former group. That is hardly massive income redistribution.”
Well said. Too many don’t understand the nature of the tax code in the 1950s and blindly follow monolithic group think evangelists on the left that it is indeed possible to tax the country into prosperity. It’s never worked and it never will.
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Vaughan Pratt
China’s growth,energy, and CO2 emissions would seem likely to decline for half a century or more.
My god, man, you should sell China short. Over that period of time you’d make out like a bandit!
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Vaughan Pratt
Given that carbon dioxide is the basis of most of the life in the environment
If by “most” you mean plant life then in part yes. Our carbohydrates come from plants via the miracle of photosynthesis which converts CO2 to carbohydrates, benefiting both plants and vegetarians.
For all of life, plants included, along with artificial life like internal combustion engines, CO2 is the basis of life only in the sense that poop is the basis of life, but even more so.
Engines, animals, and plants all oxidize carbon-based fuels 24/7, producing CO2 as their waste product. The oceans convert CO2 into harmful carbonic acid, the rocks convert it into (ultimately) useful limestone, and the plants convert it more directly into immediately useful carbohydrates.
Were it not for the plants, CO2 would not be the basis of life in any plausible scenario of “life’.
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Don Monfort
Very funny, opie. Bernie Sanders. And it is just as likely that you will be V.P. Don’t quit your day job.
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by opluso
@cereskokid
Sorry I left the /sarc label off the Sanders comment.
I also consider the deficit (or income redistribution) irrelevant to determining the appropriate level of military spending. Both issues are important on their own but are not related to the “plausible/possible risk” debate we were having.
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by thomaswfuller2
Hiya TE,
Comparing trends of total pop to working age pop is not going to lead to enlightenment. China’s population is actually still growing, as is their income and the migration of people from electricity free villages to the cities.
They’re building 346 coal plants now. There’s a reason.
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Vaughan Pratt
@curryja: Right now we have no idea what the plausible worst case scenario is
Agreed. Much better would be to base forecasts on the most likely scenario.
As can be seen from the CDIAC data, fossil fuel emissions between 1750 and 2015 have been increasing exponentially. Approximately 40% of those emissions have remained in the atmosphere during those 265 years. This has increased atmospheric CO2 from about 280 ppmv in 1750 to about 400 ppmv today.
If that exponential increase continues unabated, then as Hofmann et al pointed out in 2009, atmospheric CO2 will hit 1000 ppmv right around 2100 AD.
The probability that atmospheric CO2 will be above 1000 ppmv in 2100 is therefore about 0.5.
Is that too unlikely for you, Judith?
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by mwgrant
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Vaughan Pratt
Given another decade of climate history we will hopefully be in a better position to judge what is happening, and if not might decide it is better to wait yet another decade.
Indeed. In 2020 it will appear based on temperatures during 2010-2020 that 2100 will fry at 5 °C higher, while in 2030 a hiatus will be claimed leading to freezing in 2100.
Anyone looking at anything less than 20-year climate is kidding only themselves and their followers.
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Vaughan Pratt
@DM: You only lose the bottom floor. That’s about 1% of a 100 story building, if my calculations are correct. Venice on the Hudson. Venice on the Thames. The tourists will love it.
Swimmer tourists enter the elevators on the next floor up. Non-swimmer tourists are issued scuba gear.
Sounds like it all ought to work pretty smoothly. ;).
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Hans Erren
Every country will aim for the optimum. Even you don’t insure yourself against a worst case. You insure yourself against a likely case.
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by genghiscunn
Judith: Shorter Oxford Dictionary 1959: Plausible: a. 1. Deserving of applause; praiseworthy; commendable – 1711; 2. Acceptable, agreeable, pleasing; generally acceptable, popular – 1828; 3. Having a show of truth, reasonableness or worth; apparently acceptable; fair-seeming, specious. (Chiefly of arguments or statements (1565); b. Of persons: Fair-spoken (with implication of deceit) 1846. B. That which is plausible; a plausible statement, etc 1654. 3. Little aided by conjecture, however p. b. A cunning kind of fellow 1875.
Concise OD 2001: plausible adj. apparently reasonable or probable, without necessarily being so.
So a “plausible” scenario is one which you should approach with circumspection; don’t bet your house on it. Or the source of general well-being.
As I said earlier, I disagree that policy should be driven by the worst plausible warming scenario. Other posters have also given strong grounds for not basing policy on such scenarios. So on this issue perhaps it is not just your definitions which need an addendum.
Faustino
Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Vaughan Pratt
@mwgrant: In a nutshell like some others here I am not at ease with singular worst case estimates
Right, like I said here:
Those who don’t see any connection between CO2 and temperature won’t like any cases, best or worst.
Those expecting CO2 to suddenly dive down for some reason won’t like worst case estimates at all.
Those expecting CO2 to follow the past 265 years, the case I wrote about in the above, won’t like the worst case either, since that would predict considerably greater than 1000 ppmv of CO2 in 2100.
RPC8.5 is not the worst case, merely the most likely case based on prior data.