Topic: This should give FirstAscent a stroke... (Read 7367 times)

Your diligence is semi-admirable, but may I suggest something? As I said earlier, you essentially lack common sense. I don't mean common sense as in you can't fix yourself a sandwich, but as in, you don't understand climate science at the general level. Interested laymen know much more than you. Your nose is stuck in spreadsheets, but you have no general understanding of the forces at work, the dynamic interactions, etc. Sort of like someone who has no real 'feel' for hitting a baseball.

Learn about the following:

- Ice ages and their causes
- Ice albedo feedback loops
- Current fieldwork on glacier melting
- Ice core analysis, tree ring analysis
- Climate change induced species migration
- Sea level rise and its causes
- The changing of precipitation patterns
- Political blockades
- Consensus view
- Prior EPA success stories

And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I think you discount scientists doing field work out in the real world too much. I sensed this when you tried to make light of the article which summarized the effects of climate change on the migration of species. It's akin to an armchair mountaineer analyzing the decisions of a team pushing a new route on an 8,000 meter peak in the Himalaya. You're not seeing the things that field workers are seeing - years of study allow them to intuit the truth in ways you're not familiar with.

Ok, I see the problem. That is just not true. What is your source for this?

OK, but the point was, this method is for analyzing 100% stochastic systems, not deterministic ones, it has been misapplied. I also have some doubts about that second sentence, on the surface it seems unlikely that you can factor in the massive influences we understand on the climate and still be stuck at 50/50. I don't need to know the initial point, exact impact angle, or velocity for a baseball to know that if it is hit it will likely go forward, but there is a small chance it might go backwards or straight up.

OK, but the point was, this method is for analyzing 100% stochastic systems, not deterministic ones, it has been misapplied. I also have some doubts about that second sentence, on the surface it seems unlikely that you can factor in the massive influences we understand on the climate and still be stuck at 50/50. I don't need to know the initial point, exact impact angle, or velocity for a baseball to know that if it is hit it will likely go forward, but there is a small chance it might go backwards or straight up.

This is confused. The actual direction of a 100% stochastic process is 50/50. The actual direction of a deterministic process is obviously not 50/50. However, when there are various unknown initial parameters and relationships between parameters it is 50/50 from the perspective of the investigator.

I really don't entertain questions that you might take seriously, given they are derived from your silly statement.

Melting ice doesn't absorb heat in your world?

Let's assume this heat energy is directly or indirectly added by human action. What do you propose to do about it?

Are you ever going to answer those questions?

You had your chance.

This is confused. The actual direction of a 100% stochastic process is 50/50. The actual direction of a deterministic process is obviously not 50/50. However, when there are various unknown initial parameters and relationships between parameters it is 50/50 from the perspective of the investigator.

I would also add to that:

Predicting the direction of something is 50/50 in a random-walk model, when did you prove this earlier? In a model with causation you generally can predict the direction and magnitude with some level of certainty (and you should be able to generate some error bars as well.)

That is a big responsibility so I would not be able to make snap decisions, but here are some short-list actions.

-Make sure that everyone knows that they DO have an impact on the environment and provide tools to self-determine your impact. Gamification of personal reductions with prizes/awards for those that are willing to go above and beyond. (PoC (Proof of Conservation?)
-Reduce emissions where possible, I like a market based approach similar to cap and trade, but it's not perfect. Removing the perception of political bias and preventing off shoring of entire industries is critical a global scale.
-Reduce incident radiation where possible, multiple technologies available including sulfur injection and mirror arrays, but most of them require such large numbers to be effective that multiple will have to be used in parallel to have a large enough impact very soon. (this would also reduce the chances of a "runaway" effect that we cannot correct for, if the sulfur injection estimates are off we can re-position the mirrors to compensate (and maybe even help with storm control as well))
-Encourage non-fuel use of petroleum and ban/limit feed-stock biodiesel while incentivising landfill owners, ranchers and others to capture and convert what they can.
-Encourage older buildings to be updated and reduce emissions by 40%
-Encourage local efforts for green streets and homes
-Fast-track a Mars mission with a goal of 1000 permanent inhabitants by 2045 and over 1 million by 2070.
-Mandate a highly functional transit system in every major city, and encourage folks to live closer to work (I actually like this one for fostering communities as well)
-Require the full lifecycle impact of a new vehicle technology be within 90% of state of the art, shipping battery packs for a new Prius around the  world a couple times might not be the best plan, some manufacturing should be better distributed to reduce this (hard drives, other tech that has built a single global center that produces more than 60-70% of world consumption.
-Enact distance-based tariffs on food that could be obtained locally at a slightly higher price. (exceptions of you get products from point A to B by sailing or other low/zero emissions method)
-Significant expansion of Solar, Wind, Hydro, and Nuclear power (and finally get around to doing something with the waste on the last one)
-accelerate deployment of hydrogen power for cases where electric is not going to work.
-require carbon sink rigs be used to offset a significant portion of (then current) production.

A lot of this is happening already, at least at the research level, just without the urgency that I would feel it important to insist on. I've encountered other ideas, but these are the ones that came to the top of my mind. I think I hit all the major areas, but I was just going off the top of my head.

I'm going to ask you the same thing I did FA, and he ignored:
You have just been elected world dictator, and presented with irrefutable evidence that not only is global warming happening, but it is happening through human action.

What do you do to fix it?