At 09:03 AM 4/14/00 -0700, Steve wrote:
My original post:
>> Here's an analogy: A bath is being filled at the rate of 100 litres per
>> minute, and draining at the same rate. The water level stays constant.
>> Now
>> increase the filling rate to 102 litres per minute without altering the
>> rate of drainage and pretty soon the bath overflows, causing who knows
>> what
>> damage to the floor below.
>>
>> To a first approximation that seems to be the situation with global
>> warming, where our small anthropogenic inputs of CO2 have now caused CO2
>> levels in the atmosphere to rise by about 30% over the last century or
>> so.
>
Steve:
>Only if the drainage out of the tub remains constant is there a problem.
>It is not clear this is so for the global warming debate.
>
My response:
In that case, how do you account for the 30% rise in CO2 concentration in
the atmosphere?
My original post:
>> So my take on all this is pretty similar to Michael's (except that I
>> probably wouldn't put my subjective probability quite as high as 0.99,
>> as I
>> know the literature about overconfidence of subjective estimates).
>>
>> For what it's worth, I make my living trying to calculate the
>> probabilities
>> and the 'stakes' on both sides (impacts and costs of taking action). And
>> it's not absolutely clear from the calculations whether taking action to
>> cut our emissions is a good bet or not. The calculations are just very
>> hard
>> to do.
>
Steve:
>I absolutely agree with you here. I to make my living in this area as
>well. One of the things that is usually missing from this debate is any
>attempt to discuss costs, and the probabilities associated with various
>policies. In short, it does not conform to any type of decision theory.
>
My response:
There are *many* analyses that have discussed the costs, and several that
do so in an explicit decision analysis framework. Can I suggest you look at
the work of Alan Manne and Richard Richels, for instance. Or, if you will
forgive the self-advertisement, C Hope, P Wenman and J P Anderson, "Policy
analysis of the greenhouse effect", Energy Policy, 21, 3, p327-338, March
1993, which describes an integrated model and applies it to assess the
merits of policies to prevent and adapt to global warming.
Chris
Chris Hope, Judge Institute of Management Studies,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1AG, UK.
Voice: +44 1223 338194. Fax: +44 1223 339701
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|