Standing ovation! 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu 
> [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of Russell McMahon
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 4:47 AM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [EE]:: Global Warming as a genuine engineering concern
> 
> None of this is intended to be antagonistic or confrontational. It's
> an attempt to genuinely address Steve's points and try to move his 
> (and others') opinions. If this does not somewhat alter Steve's
> perspectives on the subject (provided he reads it :-) ) I'll be
> surprised. I've been surprised before today.
> 
> 
> Prescript - those who are not interested in my "what we can know and
> whether it matters" verbose rant may like to skip to the end below my
> signature and look at the comment on the specific points Steve raised.
> Much briefer and MAY be useful. Maybe read that part first and then
> the rest if still interested.
> 
> 
> Steve Ravet said:
> 
> > It was suggested that I not post statements such as "humans cannot
> > cause
> > or relieve global warming" without either an IMO or some
> > substantiation.
> > So I'll explain.
> > First is what seems to me to be common sense.
> ...
> 
> followed by lots of very good and well reasoned material.
> 
> I essentially do not disagree with most or all the points and
> questions that Steve raised - BUT I come to a somewhat different
> conclusion.
> 
> I have no axe to grind on almost any subject whatsoever. This may
> sound like a surprising statement from a card carrying born again
> raving looney evangelical Christian (which I'm sure is the straight
> jacket that I'm bound in by many people). But, while there is very
> good reason to paint me that way, even that does not stop me
> questioning and/or evaluating much within the bounds of Christianity
> proper. OUTSIDE those bounds I have no really hard and fast
> certainties about any facts at all because, how do we know and how can
> we tell? Knowing the answers to those two questions is often as
> important in any given area as knowing answers to questions which
> directly relate to a given area.
> 
> So, Steve has essentially asked these two questions about GW (Global
> Warming.). However, he has come up with the answers "We cant know and
> we can't tell SO we might as well not bother". My answers to the same
> questions go more like this:
> 
> 1    The whole system constituted by the earth and its environment is
> exceedingly complex and we cannot model it perfectly.
> 
> 2    We care about the answers because the direction that the system
> takes affects us and our children's children's children. So much so
> that the answers MAY mean that our children's children don't have any
> children!
> 
> 3    If in fact we are able to make a difference to the system we'd
> like to know.
> [If we can break and/or fix it we want to know]
> 
> 4    If we are able to know whether we are able to make a difference
> to the system we'd like to know.
> [We want to know if it's possible to know if we can break and/or fix
> it].
> This is one level removed from the prior case and is quite a different
> proposition and a vital one.
> 
> 5.1    The consequences of being able to affect the system are utterly
> world changing.
> 5.2    The consequences of not being able to change the system are
> utterly horrific.
> 5 general:   We want to know which it is, even though finding out its
> the latter may be a pretty horrific discovery.
> 
> 6.1    The consequences of knowing we can know are utterly world
> changing.
> 6.2    The consequences of knowing we can't know are ALSO world
> changing but in a different way.
> This last point is crucial, not just a tautological extension of the
> alternatives to make it a tidy and symmetric sequence, and are utterly
> relevant to Steve's points.
> 
> SO
> 
> 7 If we can alter the system and
>     If the system is going to hell in a handbasket and
>         If we can stop it
>             Then we almost certainly will want to at almost any cost
> 
> 8 If we can't alter the system and
>     If the system is going to hell in a handbasket then
>         We obviously can't stop it
>             Then we may want to do something really really really
> radical instead.
> 
>         eg Developing Space Elevator technology to make off planet
> access
>             far far far cheaper may be come a multi trillion dollar
> international
>             priority under that scenario.
> 
> BUT
> 
> the above do not address knowing and knowing whether we can know.
> 
> eg
> 
> 20 If we can change it and
>     If it needs changing
>         But we don't know we can change it
>             AND we don't know whether we can know whether we can
> change it
> 
>     Then finding out if we can know becomes a priority
> 
> ALAS,  reality as is often the case, is about the most complex mix of
> all.
> Where we are goes like this.
> 
> 21 The system MAY be going to hell in a hand basket
>     AND if it is Then
>         We may be contributing fatally
>             AND we may be able to tell whether we are or not
>                 AND we may be able to tell whether we can tell or not.
> 
> That's (as you have no doubt noted) somewhat less precise than
> desirable and doesn't cover things exactly BUT is good enough to
> proceed from.
> 
> 22 GW as a long term trend MAY be happening.
> Some say yes and some say no and some say ... [[12 3 down in the game
> of my childhood]]
> 
> 23If it IS happening it may lead to  medium to long term catastrophe
> due to
>     - temperature rise.
>     - triggering an ice age. (some models have warming doing this)
> 
> 24 We are undoubtedly doing things that are contributing to global
> temperature increases
> BUT
> 25
> - .1 This may have already staved off another ice age.
> - .2 This may be a irrelevant contributor to natural trends.
> - .3 This may be able to significantly worsen natural ends.
> - .4 This may be capable of providing a trigger to add to global
> trends in such a way that it produce a catastrophe that otherwise 
> would
> not have happened or which may have happened much later.
> 
> It's this latter possibility (25.4) which is the big fear and concern
> and priority for addressing.
> 
> IF 25.4 and we take Steve's approach we 'die'.
> 
> BUT
> 
> IF 25.4 and 8 then no matter what we do we die so Steve's approach MAY
> be fine.
> BUT we may want to do other things differently if we know we are going
> to die.
> 
> BUT
> We are back at 20. We may also be at 25.4 and we may also be at 8 but
> we don't KNOW.
> We don't know if we know enough to know.
> We don't know if we CAN know enough to know.
> We don't know if we can do things to make a difference or whether what
> we do will.
> 
> If the system is going to hell in ....
> And we were able to do something about it.
> And we could have found out that this was the case and didn't.
> Or if we knew we could do something about it.
> Then our children's children's children will curse us chapter and
> verse, should they ever get to be born.
> 
> Alas, the cost of getting to a stage where we can have any degree of
> certainty whether
> 
> - anything needs doing
> - it matters what we do,
> - whether we can do enough or the cost of doing enough
> - whether we can know whether we can know
> 
> is utterly horrendous.
> The system is so complex.
> The models are so uncertain.
> The data is so poor.
> The initial conditions are so ill determined
> 
> that it will cost billions to trillions to start to find out well
> enough.
> 
> BUT the worst case cost of getting it wrong when we could have got it
> right is a change in the earth's climatic system for thousands of
> years. If we precipitate a major climate change the worst case models
> say we cannot get it back. One such model is the stopping of the
> "Atlantic Conveyer" - the deep Atlantic anti-gulf stream current which
> carries warm water far into the North Atlantic and keeps it ice free.
> Once stopped this current may take 1000's of years to restart. Once
> stopped the UK would become permanently ice bound. This processed has
> been modelled now for perhaps several decades. At one stage there were
> strong suggestions that the current could be stopped in under 10 years
> by high enough CO2 concentrations. Recent things I've seen seem to
> suggest that a hundreds of years minimum is more likely. BUT this may
> be wrong, and even if right, there was no certainty early on that the
> under 10 years figures wasn't right. IF right now in 2006 we fund
> that the North Atlantic and the UK were permanently frozen and were
> going to stay that way for thousands of years it should be no
> surprise - although of course it would be. THAT outcome would have
> been an extreme but possible outcome of the models - and we didn't
> know. We didn't know the probability or the extent of the effect or
> the trigger levels and more. That is just one effect.
> 
> *** BUT the worst case cost of getting it wrong when we couldn't have
> got it right is also a change in the earth's climatic system for
> thousands of years. If we can get to the stage of knowing if we need
> to get it right AND that we can or can't actually get it right then it
> behoves us to see how well we can refine the probability of the worst
> case occurring. ***
> 
> If the odds of "all hell freezes over" is 1 in 10^6 per annum then we
> may decide to take a punt and go and buy a beer.
> 
> If the odds of the North Atlantic freezing over in the next century
> lie in the range 0.0000000001 to 0.001 then we better do some work on
> finding out how good the 0.001 figure is.  ie if there's 1 1/1000th
> chance of the NA going solid before 2106, how much would we like to
> spend to see if we can reduce the odds by a factor of 10. If the odds
> MAY be 1 in 10, how much then?
> 
> And, that's where we are.
> There is enough indication that we MAY BE bringing damnation (and some
> very fine skating conditions) upon ourselves.
> And that we MAY be able to make a difference and that the consequences
> of not doing so are REALLY bad, that it may be worth spending a few
> 100 billions finding out. Even if the answer is "NO" the money may
> have been very well spent.
> 
> None of this should be a problem for the citizens of earth if we fit
> it into our global priority scheme. It's just a cost of doing
> business. Levy everyone an average of $16 pa worldwide, adjusted as 
> per
> the agreed international equitable cost model, gather in all the
> freely and joyfully given responses and go forth and spend the $100
> billion pa of the people's money wisely for the people's benefit.
> 
> About here we wake up (screaming if you're Mr JG, sweating profusely\y
> with a heart rate of 150 if you're me).
> This is NEVER going to work because as soon as there's a spare billion
> up for grabs, let along 100B per annum or whatever the gravy boaters,
> the swindlers, pork barrellers and all hop on board and utterly foul
> the water. The good science goes out the window, vested interest,
> career choices, toeing the party line and much more make it impossible
> to efficiently determine reality.
> 
> There are 4 possible solutions:
> 
> - Give up in disgust and walk away.
> - Join the crowd, there's money to be had.
> - Loudly decry the very existence of any problem and pillory them all.
> - Sigh deeply, put hand in pocket, contribute as one must and can and
> do one's best to steer the process as best as possible into the good
> science and integrity path of finding out what we can know and do.
> 
> I am, alas, for the last option.
> If 5 to 10% of the input gets to be used effectively we may get
> somewhere and we may save the world and we may have our children's
> children's children rise up and bless us. We may have them just call
> us silly fools for wasting all that money when there was no need. But
> I think it's the best game in town when one considers the worst case
> outcome if we do nothing.
> 
> 
>         Russell
> 
> _________________________________________________________________

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist