Two Distinct Scenarios – Conversations Thirty Years
Hence on Climate Change
This
is my first attempt to write on a hypothetical. Climate change would or would not
be a reality thirty years hence. What if the reality is either of the two
possibilities? Assume two friends Anandi and Balasubrahmanyan (Alice
and Bob, in Game Theory) have stayed stay friends for thirty years.
A
and B were the closest of platonic friends in college. They meet after
thirty years, and their views on climate change have diverged. B is a
climate sceptic and a panglossian, even when a boat-load of evidence is thrown
his way. He puts more faith in human ingenuity. This makes him OK in this
writer’s book.
A
is
the other extreme, pessimistic to the core. To her credit she seeks and finds
evidence supporting her position. This is her asset, and she too is OK. The
hockey stick was how she was introduced to climate change, and the image is a
tough one to forget (This writer has hitched himself to the climate change boat
much before the hockey stick appeared).
The
image at the bottom shows the hockey stick used in ice hockey. This is the
reference When rotated counter clok-wise by one quarter of a circle) for the image at the top. A has also read much on the topic
and is not about to let that evaporate in the heat of the arguments bound to
follow with her college friend. Global heating, after all!
I
have written two scenarios in which the meeting could have taken place. One,
the Earth escapes catastrophe, thanks to human ingenuity. Two, the human body
cannot shed heat to keep itself cool enough (the normal for human blood
temperature is hide-bound at 98.6oF).
Scenario
1
A:
You still a climate change denier?
B:
Why not? Do you have any new results? I am not convinced by any of the old?
A:
Even the hockey stick?
B:
That is soooo pass
! It is an illusion.
Only dishonest scientists believe in it.
A:
You calling me dishonest? I remember you telling me that I wear my honesty on
my sleeve.
B:
But that was then...any new evidence?
A:
I’ll give you this, the most laymanish ... over the last decade, the average global
temperature of every year has been higher than the year before. The trend is
established.
B:
Average global temperature, is that actually a parameter? Are you sure the
higher temperatures have not happened earlier... what about the Medieval Warm Period?
A:
Look, in the medieval period, people did not keep temperature records ... by
the way, the “Hockey stick” does not represent a measured metric, it is a proxy
culled from different ways the effects of temperatures are manifested in the
biosphere ...
B:
Oh, I hate that word, “biosphere”! You take it on yourself to “protect” all the
other species! That is soooo self-righteous.
A:
As though you are not! For you, the biosphere consists only things that
can be exploited by us, human beings!
B.
What is wrong with that?
A.
If I have to tell you that it will take me till all the land ice in the
Antarctic has melted! Let me just say that you have been lucky over the past
thirty years; do not expect a repeat in the next thirty.
B.
Let us agree to disagree and stay friends. Let us meet another thirty years
later. Bye!
Scenario
2
A.
Are you feeling warm? It is December
(in Delhi) and you are in shirt sleeves!
B.
Of course you would point that out.
As Rameses II says in The Ten Commandments, “These things were ordered
by themselves”, not by human beings; I am talking about your “Anthropogenic”
warming!
A.
Don’t you at all think that science
tries to tell the truth?
B.
Yes and no. It does try, but mostly
fails, at least for the first few times. That is why scientists demand
replication of experiments to get any result validated. Can we do such an
experiment in climate science, prove global warming, yes, G L O B A L warming? Has
there been any repeat in this matter? No.
A.
You are grasping at straws. You
know we cannot do any experiment at the level you are demanding. This is dishonest.
OK, We have heard a lot from climate sceptics about technological fixes to this
problem. Tell me why there has been zero progress over three to four decades on
this?
B.
I will tell you. It is economics,
and I carry no brief for that. The blame is on you. You cannot convince
economists that the returns for indulging ourselves in stopping, nay even
slowing down the rate of warming is enormous.
A.
You are right, but not quite.
Economists are like you, like very short-termists. If I am not able to convince
you that taking the effort now could give an environment that is at least liveable
for your grandchildren, what chance do I have with the economists?
B.
You have a point there, not about
me but about economists. I merely demand that prove that science works. OK,
what if I agree to a laboratory experiment, if at all that can be meaningful,
for a global scale geo-engineering effort, would you agree to that?
A.
I am not sure. ...
B.
Why not?
A.
We do not know whether scaling
works at that scale; there are just too many variables. But, let me go to the starting
point. The globe is warming. So what would you want to do about that?
B.
I cry uncle and go with you. Perhaps
get off the “growth through consumption” scenario, that even Adam Smith
advocated. But, I have to pray to all the gods! May God be with Us!
A.
Amen, to that.
Anandi and Balasubrahmanyan
stay friends.
Raghuram Ekambaram
No comments:
Post a Comment