Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Optimal Climate & Optimal Human Development
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1 of 10 (778472)
02-20-2016 1:07 PM


I'm splitting this from: 2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?.
A lot of the boogeyman hype regarding climate change seems to work from the assumption that the only amount of climate change that is good is no climate change at all.
But does the evidence really support this? What does the optimal climate system actually look like and why is that system optimal?
I addition, since almost everything we do seems to have some impact on some aspect of that system at least somewhere, what is the amount of change from an optimal climate system we can accept in exchange for the benefits of doing stuff?
To answer these questions, I think we need to start out by addressing what impacts various climate systems have on humanity. Then we can find one that has the fewest negative impacts.
Next we should probably lay out the benefits of the various things we do and the influences on the climate system these activities have.
Finally, by comparing the benefits of our activities with the negative impacts their climate changes cause we should be able to find the best possible compromise between our development and what effect our changes on the climate system might have on that development.
From there, the only real directions to go would be to lower the negativities or increase the benefits (or both) of that compromise.

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Coyote, posted 02-20-2016 2:06 PM Jon has replied
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2016 2:49 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2016 5:00 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 9 by Stile, posted 02-22-2016 9:11 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 02-22-2016 11:10 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 10 (778553)
02-21-2016 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Coyote
02-20-2016 2:06 PM


The less technology a group has, and the less it is able to utilize available energy, the more it is dependent on a moderate and stable climate.
Very true.
But to the extent that development of technology mostly involves the destabilization of the climate, there is potentially a point at which the costs start to outweigh the benefits - a point at which each additional unit of technological advancement destabilizes the climate more than that unit allow us to mitigate that associated destabilization.
Within limits most modern first-world populations could handle a 3 degree increase in temperature more readily than a 3 degree drop in temperature.
In modern times, insufficient farm yields would be mitigated by putting some food grown somewhere else using fossil-fueled tractors and combines onto diesel trucks and rolling it across a few thousand miles of asphalt to where people need it.
Warmth is, generally, more tolerable than cold, though. Its effects are also easier to mitigate.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Coyote, posted 02-20-2016 2:06 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 02-21-2016 12:04 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 10 (778581)
02-21-2016 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by caffeine
02-21-2016 3:16 PM


Never cite MailOnline in support of an assertion. It automatically makes you look less likely to be correct.
Content over source.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by caffeine, posted 02-21-2016 3:16 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024