Originally Posted by patteeu
I think man has an impact. I don't know how much impact. I don't know how well science has bracketed that impact.
I don't know how significant, but I don't think it would be prudent to ignore them.
There are costs and benefits. I don't know how to evaluate them and I don't know how capable scientists are of evaluating them.
I assume this is probably true, but I'm not sure I know what the most extreme solutions are.
It's hard to argue with "reasonable" and "slight", but I guess the devil is in the details.
These are where the lack of settled science make the cost benefit calculations nearly impossible, afaict.
This is my point. Once you get past the denial stage, and ignore the most extreme proposals, reasonable people can talk about moderate steps that could be taken to address the situation. But we can't do that because we can't move past the denial stage.
Number 7 doesn't really require that much projecting of cost/benefits. For example, a seawall to protect NYC is projected at $20B. Sandy cost NYC $19B in lost economic activity and 43 lives. If you get another Sandy type storm in the next 10 years, it is pretty clear evidence that the cost benefit favors building the seawall.
But you don't spend billions, on a projection of something that might happen. In other words, if Sandy had not yet occurred, and someone were advocating a seawall for NYC based on predicted potential storms that would crash the city, I'd say let's wait and see.
But the planning for these types of hardened infrastructure takes time, and often times multiple iterations, so we should begin that planning process now.