SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the heel-the-feat-or-else-feel-the-heat dept.
Given the rising number of extreme weather events, . In an investigation recently published in Nature Climate Change, scientists looked into how quickly benefits of climate mitigation strategies—meaning dropping CO2 emissions—reduce the risk of heat waves.
The researchers answered these questions using climate-model simulations. These models can be run with different levels of emissions, some assuming a very aggressive mitigation scenario with lowered emissions, others assuming emissions that are unchecked, producing significant increases in emissions over time. By comparing model runs with different levels of emissions, the researchers were able to develop an understanding of the time required for effects of mitigation plans to be noticeable.
In particular, the team focused on extreme events that occurred on average once every 10 years when emissions continue to rise unchecked. They then introduced different levels of emissions mitigation until the probability of such an event is half as likely, occurring only once every 20 years. Using this method, the scientists determined that for many regions, it takes less than 20 years of emissions reductions to drop the probability of extreme hot weather by more than 50 percent after mitigation has begun.
Climate change is god's will, isn't it?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 09 2017, @05:48AM (3 children)
Show the exorbitant outcome exists first and that you aren't ignoring other exorbitant outcomes in the process.
To illuminate this further, consider the original Pascal's wager [wordpress.com]:
But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness.
So Pascal says here that risking finite pain against the promise of infinite gain (going to Heaven) is the only choice possible. In particular, he right away "renounces" reason. But he ignores several critical things. First, there are number of alleged routes to Heaven and some of these are mutually exclusive. Which finite cost is the right bet? In particular, why appease God rather than Satan? Perhaps your time in Hell will be made more comfortable, if you do the Dark Lord's will on Earth, right?
Second, in the situation where a zero change of infinite gain means you have no expected gain. So in the case where there is no Heaven or equivalent infinite gain afterlife, then no amount of Earthly sacrifice will change that. For allegedly large but finite gain, one would have to weight the benefit/costs not assume that one particular choice is the best.
Third, one isn't using reason with this approach as Pascal noted.
Finally, he ignores that Pascal's wager is a lousy argument for getting into Heaven. "I was playing the odds, so could you please let me in?" Yea, right.
The climate change problem is the same deal. There is an unwarranted assumption that any mitigation makes the world a better place. But we already have a number of examples where that is unlikely (US corn ethanol subsidies, German and Danish renewable energy policy, and carbon cap and trade markets with a long history of sloppy problems).
And there are other problems which also deserve our attention and which are often sacrificed by the climate change people, such as overpopulation, poverty, resource mismanagement, and habitat destruction.
Second, what's the basis of the huge gain or costs? It strikes me as an argument from ignorance which is the basis of the Pascal's wager argument. Scientists haven't been able to show that catastrophic global warming from our current modest input is impossible so we must engage in dramatic and costly mitigation efforts? This isn't the supernatural. We can observe the climate rather than merely climate models, if we choose. How about showing climate change is that much of a problem first?
Third, there's the abandonment of reason which Pascal admits as part of his argument. Sorry, I don't buy that we're in that much of a hurry that we can't do the science and economics parts of the job right.
Finally, we need to keep in mind motives (which is one of the larger ignored factors in Pascal's wager). There's a fair number of people who have an ax to grind. I am frequently reminded by others of the interests of fossil fuel companies, as if those were the only beings in the world with relevant interests. But quite a few other parties have interests going the other way. Climate researchers are one of those parties. Their funding is in large part predicated on climate change being urgent enough to justify that. Here, I've noticed several inflammatory research pieces in the last few weeks (here [slashdot.org] and here [soylentnews.org], for example). Perhaps it's a prelude to organizing [unfccc.int] the next IPCC report, which is coming up next month. Or perhaps it's a slow news day, though you'd think scientists would be a little more circumspect without actual evidence to back their assertions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @08:15AM (2 children)
So, khallow, you're going to hell? You still don't understand the Wager. It is not fallacious. Perhaps you should consider Rawls' MinMax principle instead? And quit poo-pooing the science, the possible catastrophe is proven possible enough for all non-right-wing nut-job persons of science!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 09 2017, @12:38PM (1 child)
You still don't understand the Wager. It is not fallacious.
Sorry, but what gave you that idea? I think my reasoning is more than ample counterevidence.
Perhaps you should consider Rawls' MinMax principle instead?
What makes you think that my approach is worse than yours? We've done mitigation already. It hasn't been a boon for the worst off. There's a history here of bad ideas with negligible impact on global warming, but making food and energy more expensive for the worst off.
And optimizing for the worst off doesn't help those who aren't. I don't buy that this principle is at all useful, particularly when used by top-down people who don't have a clue what they're doing.
And quit poo-pooing the science, the possible catastrophe is proven possible enough for all non-right-wing nut-job persons of science!
You do realize you are wrong here? The actual studies indicate that while a very high percentage (at least 90%) "researchers" by whatever criteria the research uses, do indeed agree that there is human-generated global warming, but only a minority think that it could be catastrophic. For example, from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (referring to this study [oup.com]):
When asked "What do you think is the % probability of human-induced global warming raising global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years?’’: 19% of respondents answered less than 50% probability, 56% said over 50%, and 26% didn't know.
When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @07:11PM
I think my reasoning is more than ample counterevidence.
Obvious, but that does not a rebuttal make! Truly you have a dizzying intellect! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1n5CQe1krI [youtube.com]