Arctic ice-free by 2070

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Global warming 'past the point of no return'

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a relief. We can quit worrying and just give up now, right?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If dismissing an idea "on the basis of past performance" makes a person ignorant -- what would you consider an acceptable, or an informed basis for dismissing an idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

The "idea" of "earth destruction" (incl. the situation where the planet is beyond a certain threshold of hospitality for humans) is not yer average gambling situation.

For starters, most gamblers simply do not grasp the gambling situation they are presented with. A Video poker slot may be offering the same EV as a 21 game, for example, but the large-and-rare payoff makes VP very different from 21.

Also, it has been established that the proper definition of Bankroll escapes most advantage players (Hint: it's more than the total of your liquid assets). The consequence is that most APs are underbetting way below their desired RoR. Put it another way, they are probably setting a very high RoR but, because they underestimate their BR, they get away with it by betting smaller than their desired RoR would require.

On the other hand, Earth destruction presents a unique proposition (well, I have not lived through the Mob days in Vegas, when some people gambled with their lives!) : You are gambling with everything everyone will ever have, which is really the biggest "bankroll" that can ever be -- you are gambling with Life, actually.

So, the offered Reward must be examined and assessed very closely before you proceed with this gamble. Is the Reward really worth the gamble? What is this Reward, really, come to think of it?

And is the probability of the undesired "pay-off" as small as they make it out to be? Yes, you ride an airplane every month and risk your life -- but are the probability and the consequences of an airplance accident in any way similar to the Ultimate Gamble ?

Should we rather be erring on the side of caution here?

Even only on the basis of the findings of heuristics researchers in the last couple of decades, I'd say that we are, well, probably doomed.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
SheetWise. If dismissing an idea "on the basis of past performance" makes a person ignorant -- what would you consider an acceptable, or an informed basis for dismissing an idea?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going go out on a limb here, and pick a sentence as your response -

[ QUOTE ]
You are gambling with everything everyone will ever have, which is really the biggest "bankroll" that can ever be -- you are gambling with Life, actually.

[/ QUOTE ]
And try to draw a conclusion. You're saying that because the stakes are so high -- we have to apply a different standard to the skeptics than we do to the proponents. I think I even saw a quote in there ... got it.

[ QUOTE ]
Should we rather be erring on the side of caution here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Let me try a hypothetical.

Let's say you go to your Oracle every day, and your Oracle tells you that "Today is your day to die!" -- Now, I'm going to assume you consider this prophecy high stakes -- So you act! You go home and stay in your room, in an effort not to attract any unnecessary danger.

This has been going on for 20 years, and every day your Oracle tells you "Today is your day to die!", and every day you sit in your room.

Being a logical person and a good mathematician, you realize that one day the Oracle will be right! -- and not only that -- Her chances are getting better every day!

So, my question is, when you go see her tomorrow and she tells you "Today is your day to die!" -- considering the stakes --

Would it be wise to consider past performance before you decide to act on the prophecy?

nh, sir.

Sheetwise wins pot.
Cyrus mucks cards.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You're saying that because the stakes are so high -- we have to apply a different standard to the skeptics than we do to the proponents.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think this is going to drag on for another two dozen posts while we argue your notion of logic, forget it. I can simplify things for you but up to a point. This is the point:

-- The stakes are the highest possible.

-- We only get to play once. (We are already playing.)

-- "Past performance" is used by idiot "free business" advocates and assorted fauna on the following 'brilliant' basis: "Hey, the sky has not fallen YET, so why are you people moaning and crying??" Or, the other variant, which goes something like this : "Hey, the planet has overcome many crises BEFORE, as the geological/paleontological record shows, so why should it not ride this one out too?"

What part of the idiocy of the "past performance" can you not understand?

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you go to your Oracle every day, and your Oracle tells you...

[/ QUOTE ]
One stops reading right there.

Yes, if it was some Delphic gal mouthing off double entendres, we would not have to pay too much attention to her! Yes, there have been a lot of prophets of an apocalypse in History - some of them even gave a date. (I remember very well the most recent date they gave; a few computer programmers made out like bandits because of it!)

But the scientists who are warning us about the perils of our Way Of Life are not some bunch of religious idiots exclaiming about a Second Coming. Their arguments are scientifically sound enough, though not conclusive, to make us change our behavior towards the planet - a.s.a.p.

Those folks's past performance (=legitimate factor) makes this gamble (=fooling with the Earth) a gamble with unacceptably high risks (=losing the Earth). We should therefore ignore past performance of said gamble (="so far so f*cking good!") and start playing A LOT less maniacally.

Your typically nonchalant attitude, in the face of all warnings, reminds me of the story where the guy falling off the 50-story building and only ten floors down says to himself "so far, so good".

...As I already said : Based on what the researches of various competent scientists tell us about the way people make their choices, we are probably doomed. It might be quite some time before that happens but thanks, anyway, for providing real live support for my speculation.

[guller]

[ QUOTE ]
We only get to play once. (We are already playing.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that life itself has played many times before us, and will play many times after.

[ QUOTE ]
Their arguments are scientifically sound enough, though not conclusive, to make us change our behavior towards the planet - a.s.a.p.

[/ QUOTE ]

They already say we are past the tipping point, right. Enjoy the ride!

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
nh, sir.

Sheetwise wins pot.
Cyrus mucks cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was pretty funny. But you misread the hand, and you lost your chance at replacing Mike Sexton as commentator.

-ptmusic

[SheetWise]

Here's some data, do a risk analysis -

-We have several million years of data that is not detailed, but definitively shows us that there have been major fluctuations in global temperatures - at least +/-16F.

- We have a fairly accurate record of surface temperatures near cities for the last 150 years. The record has been flat for all significant purposes. There have been far too many changes in methodology and locations to draw any conclusions prior to 1980, other than to look at the composite data as a baseline.

- We have very accurate ocean and atmospheric data for the last 25 years. Not unexpectedly, there are fluctuations in both oceans and atmoshere, but the data we have available is statistically insignificant in determining any trend. At this time, using all available data -- an equally good case can be made for global cooling as for global warming.

- Several scientists have proposed a theory that "greenhouse gases" are a precursor of global warming. Unfortunately, there is no corrollation between known greenhouse gas emission and the existing temperature records. There seems to be a trend of warming in the oceans, but the change is in the range of .3F over a period of 100 years, and we have no knowledge of what the normal range is. Models have been developed, but computer models are imperfect -- and unfortunately, the increase in ocean temperature without the expected rise in air temperature is inconsistent with the "greenhouse" model.

What should we do? Buy a swimming suit or a parka?

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like we may re-build New Orleans only to lose it to rising sea levels in a few years:

[ QUOTE ]
Current computer models suggest that the Arctic will be entirely ice-free during summer by the year 2070 but some scientists now believe that even this dire prediction may be over-optimistic, said Professor Peter Wadhams, an Arctic ice specialist at Cambridge University.

[/ QUOTE ]

Global warming 'past the point of no return'

Nothing to see here. Move along. Go back to listening to Rush.

[/ QUOTE ]

The linked article seemed to address only sea ice. Melting sea ice doesn't raise sea level (it's floating). OTOH, if a significant amount of ice melts off of Greenland (or Antarctica), it will raise sea level. Worst case, if we melt all the ice off of Greenland and Antartica, is about a 300 foot rise. In that case, a lot more than New Orleans will end up under water, like all of Bangladesh and most of Florida.

[CORed]

One critical factor is often left out of the global warming debate: Ice ages. It is my opinion that burning fossil fuels definitely is a warming input. However, it is only one of many climatic inputs. For the past two million years or so, we have and long (100,000 years as a very rough approximation) ice ages interspersed with short(10,000-20,000) years, much warmer interglacial periods. We are in an interglacial period now, possibly approaching the end of it. So the question is: Are anthropogenic greenhouse gases overwhelming what would be the cooling phase of the natural cycle? Just balancing it? Or just slowing it down? I think available evidence points toward the first hypothesis fairly strongly, but it still raises the question: What happens when we stop burning fossil fuels? Whether we stop due to efforts to mitigate global warming, or because decreasing supplies make other energy sources less expensive, the global cooling that results could be just as disruptive as the global warming that we will likely see in the next several decades. The stakes are high indeed, but I think the best course of action is less clear than msny do.