The magnitude of the percentage of effect may still be significant even if it's small. If warming has a "snowball" effect, where the climate starts to drive itself ever higher from just a little nudge, then 5% could be just as bad as 50%.
Well that is a valid point. If the system is inherintly unstable outside of a certin equilibrium point then a driving force pushing the system outside of that equilibrium can cause the system to veer either out of control or to a new equilibrium. However since there is historical evidence that global warming and cooling occurs I would hazard that from a control systems perspective the system is stable.
Except for the point that human intervention never existed historically... you can't exactly use past performance of a system as future result when you've just introduced a new factor to it.
Well that’s the rub. Again from a control systems perspective not only is the system stable but it is controllable. The question is not if there is an equilibrium point which the system can deviate from and then return to. That’s been proven historically, man doesn’t enter into it.
All we know is that: i) Global warming and cooling has occurred naturally. ii) The system of dramatic climatic change seems similar to what humans are doing (ie greenhouse gases seem to be the key). iii) A shift seems to be occurring now.
We don’t know: i) How much we are driving the current shift. ii) Where the equilibrium really is. iii) How far we can ‘drive’ the system (If we are driving it) before the system breaks.
Any other facts I’m missing?
I want to nail down my opinion on this a bit more, today seems like a good day for it.
I think you hit the nail on the head. We all know that climate change happens... Question is the rate at which it is happening right now. Are we responsible or is big mama just doing her thing.
For my money, we don't have enough data to make a conclusion on climate trends.
We've been paying some sort of organized attention for some fifty years now, and we're trying to track changes that ought to be occurring on a geological timescale. That we can make correlations between the recent rapid increases in global temperatures and surges in anthropogenic activity using the data presently available is a significant red light. I know, you said that. It just bothers me when people use the uncertainty in natural processes to justify throwing out conclusions based on overwhelming data - and the evidence for anthropogenic forcing is overwhelming at this point - as if everything in nature was supposed to operate along straight lines.
Dykes to the rescue!thatjoeMarch 15 2005, 22:43:15 UTC
So it always seemed like people talked more about whether Global Warming was natural or man made than what effect it was going to have.
Not many people seem ot dispute the trend of glbal warming, they jsut point backwards and say the climate ahs been all over the map its "natural".
Arsenic is natural it doesn't make it good for you.
It seems like warming is coming and we should figure out what to do about it. Big public works projects: Dykes to the rescue!
Now business has recognized the effect weather has and its warming trend. That is part of the reason weather futures were invented. The increased weather risk can be moved around and traded. Increased volatility will mean increased profits for someone. http://www.cme.com/trading/prd/env/monthftr3671.html
If anyone knows hwo to beuild a better weather forecaster you could make soe serious bank.
Comments 11
Reply
Reply
Reply
All we know is that:
i) Global warming and cooling has occurred naturally.
ii) The system of dramatic climatic change seems similar to what humans are doing (ie greenhouse gases seem to be the key).
iii) A shift seems to be occurring now.
We don’t know:
i) How much we are driving the current shift.
ii) Where the equilibrium really is.
iii) How far we can ‘drive’ the system (If we are driving it) before the system breaks.
Any other facts I’m missing?
I want to nail down my opinion on this a bit more, today seems like a good day for it.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
We've been paying some sort of organized attention for some fifty years now, and we're trying to track changes that ought to be occurring on a geological timescale. That we can make correlations between the recent rapid increases in global temperatures and surges in anthropogenic activity using the data presently available is a significant red light.
I know, you said that. It just bothers me when people use the uncertainty in natural processes to justify throwing out conclusions based on overwhelming data - and the evidence for anthropogenic forcing is overwhelming at this point - as if everything in nature was supposed to operate along straight lines.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Not many people seem ot dispute the trend of glbal warming, they jsut point backwards and say the climate ahs been all over the map its "natural".
Arsenic is natural it doesn't make it good for you.
It seems like warming is coming and we should figure out what to do about it. Big public works projects: Dykes to the rescue!
Now business has recognized the effect weather has and its warming trend. That is part of the reason weather futures were invented. The increased weather risk can be moved around and traded. Increased volatility will mean increased profits for someone.
http://www.cme.com/trading/prd/env/monthftr3671.html
If anyone knows hwo to beuild a better weather forecaster you could make soe serious bank.
Howdy Sir Inysh=)
Reply
Leave a comment