Joshua,
“I think that there is no reasonable time horizon for “preventing” extreme weather.”
Agreed. We will never prevent extreme weather, it is like death and taxes. And further my point, mitigation will not prevent extreme weather either. It may help with reducing frequency and duration, but not in the near future from my understanding of the problem. I call the next three generations the near future. Even with a cold turkey stop of fossil fuel CO2 emissions, there is enough in the atmosphere now, that will stay there for a long enough time, that if it is influencing extreme weather events…. we are stuck with that predicament for the next three generations…. minimum.
“As for perhaps lowering the likelihood of extreme weather, on some measurable scale, I think that reducing carbon could theoretically have an impact on a shorter timescale than three generations. There is huge uncertainty there, but I think that it is valuable to consider those uncertainties and not dismiss them away with a handwave by calling those discussions “distracting.”
Understood, but from a practical standpoint, even with high uncertainty as to how much benefit mitigation might have, look at it from a local perspective. Call the UK a local area. The UK, even achieving 100% mitigation within their borders, would not put a dent in the global CO2 emission budget. That is my estimation, but I think it is pretty sound (Ha, no uncertainty there… LOL). To achieve that goal, it would likely be painful for the residents of the UK (again, goodbye Mr Uncertainty Monster… sometimes you have to go with your gut). Further, due to the uncertainty of whether it will be beneficial or not… assume the worse, it doesn’t help much in the short three generation time frame, and what do you get for your money? Extreme weather events that will happen regardless. Isn’t your money better spent now on readiness for extreme weather because there is really no uncertainty it will happen, it’s just a matter of when. Be prepared.
“Perhaps mitigation is secondary in terms of immediate priorities, but that doesn’t mean that it is non-existent or meaningless.”
Agreed, and I would guess Judith agrees.
“A sizable chunk of stakeholders feel that mitigation is primary. Simply calling their concerns a “distraction” will only result in more same ol’ same ol’.”
Well yes… we don’t want to hurt feelings. But from my vantage point, the alarmists are ignoring the near term consensus science of AGW being an inertial problem and the energy is in the pipeline already. By insisting mitigation is the answer, they dismiss that for the next three generations it is not going to really help much… from my understanding. We will disagree on this point. But the public does not have a long time horizon attention span (again… my gut. We may want to consider ourselves as being noble for future generations, but that is feel good stuff. In reality we care for ourselves now and perhaps the next couple generations).
“I think that is a straw man. No one (or at least hardly anyone) is suggesting that mitigation will make that train stop on a dime.”
Not a strawman. But I agree mitigation will not stop climate change on a dime. That is the whole point. Short term problem is: be prepared on the local level for extreme weather events. Spend more money on this part now… locally and wisely. Long term problem is: mitigate fossil fuel usage to decrease CO2 emissions. Spend some money of this part now, but spend it wisely as part of a long term plan. Long term in that for it to be really effective, we need more global partners to make a dent. A local area is not big enough to make a meaningful dent…. Still want to mitigate and should be ahead of the curve… but we need more of a global effort to make a difference. That whole global effort part… I would bet that will be a difficult thing to achieve and will likely take a long time (again, Mr uncertainty just strolled out the door).
“I’m looking for clarity and specificity.”
Fair enough. We all want that and asking for such is completely acceptable. But you set a very high bar for Judith to meet that standard every time she writes a post and with every idea she puts out there in ward where the chronic illness is….well… messy. Just not sure how fair that is to her. I don’t want to come across as white knighting for her, but sometimes you just have to cut her a little more slack. OTOH, I do find you bring pertinent inconsistencies of skeptical ideas to the discussion and though I will likely be hounded by many for saying this, they are important and often worth while when discussed without malice to others. For this reason, I continue to challenge you and enjoy our respectful dialogues.
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ccffdd&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
