Optimum Global Mean Temperature for Humans
enc0re
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Disclaimer: This is my first thread here. Advance apologies, if I screwed this up.
Rules: This is not a "is global warming happening," a "is global warming athropogenic," or a "is global warming worth stopping" thread. There are other threads that address these issues.
So, a bunch of scientists are claiming that:
a) Global mean temperatures will rise by 1.1°C to 6.4°C.
b) This will be bad for humans.
This assumes:
c) Not all global mean temperatures are equally beneficial to humans.
In my opinion:
c) => d) There exists a global mean temperature which is optimal (in a Greater Good, or at least a Pareto, sense) for humans.
b) + d) => e) Bringing about a decrease in global mean temperature would be good for humans.
I am pretty confident about d). I woul like for someone to convince me that e) is wrong.
Rules: This is not a "is global warming happening," a "is global warming athropogenic," or a "is global warming worth stopping" thread. There are other threads that address these issues.
So, a bunch of scientists are claiming that:
a) Global mean temperatures will rise by 1.1°C to 6.4°C.
b) This will be bad for humans.
This assumes:
c) Not all global mean temperatures are equally beneficial to humans.
In my opinion:
c) => d) There exists a global mean temperature which is optimal (in a Greater Good, or at least a Pareto, sense) for humans.
b) + d) => e) Bringing about a decrease in global mean temperature would be good for humans.
I am pretty confident about d). I woul like for someone to convince me that e) is wrong.
enc0re on
0
Posts
I think this pretty much circumvents your algebra problem.
Also, it's pretty difficult to assess Pareto optimality when the criterion is something amorphous like "good". Some sociologists, for instance, speculate that populations in temperate regions tend to give rise to greater technological innovation than in warmer climes, and now we're stuck with not only verifying these claims but debating the relative merits of technological innovation versus nasty weather.
I understand "change is bad" because adaptation is costly.
However, reading the executive summary of IPCC Working Group II (Impacts, etc.), it seems to be that even if you discount those predictions that are based on change of temperature, they still argue that the higher level of temperature would be bad. I.e. more droughts, more floods, fewer fishable lakes, and less fresh water.
Then again, maybe I am misunderstanding these guys.
p.s.: Does anyone else have trouble loading the forums today?
Bees are currently disappearing around the globe. Although there are a variety of theories being put forth, everything from global warming to cellphone towers, nothing has been accepted by the scientific community yet as the most plausible cause of CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder).
However, with the bees disappearing, this has a majorly adverse effect on crop pollination, which will decrease our food production capabilities.
I don't think it's a matter of returning to a stable temperature for humans... once global changes have begun to upset the delicate balance, the entire global ecosystem stands the chance of collapsing.
I think you see where I'm going with this.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's a cute one. I might have to use that.
Regarding (e), like Shinto said, what we're worried about is stability, not so much temperature. What would ostensibly be "good for humans" is confidence that we can fix whatever breaks by turning a knob on the thermostat.
If we're talking about humanity the species and not humanity the civilization, such a small change in mean temperature seems meaningless to me (yes, it could - and I believe it's likely to - get worse, but I'm just addressing the mean temperature question and not global warming). With some more increase, the effect on crops and the planet could certainly bring about some shit for our civilization the way it functions now, but as for direct (and "direct" is the key word) effect on humanity as a species, it'll be awhile before we see larger regions of the planet becoming inhospitable.
Not to mention the shit it does to the other species or diseases.
Malaria in Europe would be so much fun.
Quinine?
But yeah. A lot of things that one group of people have adapted to while others haven't are limited by environmental factors. If you change the environment, you will alter the borders of things.
I likes me a good g&t.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.