Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7028)

badhatharry 09-15-2011 10:02 AM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225526)
3. Well, expertise is subjective and who's to say? We can't trust experts anyway.

The point I'm making is that there's no way to prove that the quantity of right wing violent rhetoric is larger than violent left wind rhetoric. Ocean said that the difference is quantifiable although apparently there is no way to quantify it. So I guess we are stuck with Ocean's opinion.

I don't know what your analogy was supposed to portray. I suppose it was some kind of criticism of the right's propensity for questioning the validity of some expert opinions. I don't see how this applies in the case of Ocean's assertion that right wing violent rhetoric is more prevalent than left wing violent rhetoric. But it does seem like a belief that you and your peeps are very interested in perpetuating.

I think it would be best if everyone just admitted that in politics all sorts of unfortunate things are said and to try to be grown up about it.

eeeeeeeli 09-15-2011 10:44 AM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 225659)

Instead, of course, people who claim to be skeptics, who admit that the majority of the science is against them but question whether the question is settled, use that perhaps reasonable position as a basis to mock certain of these kinds of efforts and to oppose the rest as apparently not worth doing unless we have proof certain that calamity will strike within our lifetimes. But if we had such proof, the kinds of mild proposals in question would be far from sufficient. So the argument over the reasonability of the skeptic position really seems beside the point to me.

Interesting point. It's sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't: calling for more serious regulations that would have greater impact on climate change would be seen as too alarmist, but the current moderate approach, which is arguably doing little to reduce the problem, is seen as too little.

In the end, the reality is there is a hugely consistent scientific consensus of a serious problem and any attempt to reduce it is fought.

badhatharry 09-15-2011 11:12 AM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli (Post 225752)
In the end, the reality is there is a hugely consistent scientific consensus of a serious problem and any attempt to reduce it is fought.

It is fought because, leaving the issue of settled science and serious problems aside, what we get is stuff like giving $535 million in loans to companies like Solyndra so that we can look like we're doing something about the impending global catastrophe.

stephanie 09-15-2011 01:12 PM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli (Post 225752)
It's sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't: calling for more serious regulations that would have greater impact on climate change would be seen as too alarmist, but the current moderate approach, which is arguably doing little to reduce the problem, is seen as too little.

Yeah, that's definitely a way the political game is played. I was actually saying something slightly different. Basically, that even if one grants the skeptic position, that we don't know for sure how bad the problem is, that there are some few experts who claim it's not that bad, there's still no basis in that to justify doing nothing, let alone the extreme opposition to even low-cost proposals. That doesn't sound like a reasonable response to "skepticism" to me. It sounds like a response that can only be based on denialism. Similarly, while the Dems may say they accept the consensus of a serious problem, their proposals show at best some kind of mild skeptic sort of view. I expect this demonstrates the personal and political barriers to change here, but there's a real disconnect between the scientific argument and the political one. The idea that we shouldn't do anything until there's concrete and undisputable proof, not denied by even 2% of experts, of a serious problem isn't one that would be followed in any other area. It's bizarre. Skepticism might justify not acting in alarmist fashion, but there are no political proposals that one could characterize that way.

Quote:

In the end, the reality is there is a hugely consistent scientific consensus of a serious problem and any attempt to reduce it is fought.
Yep.

badhatharry 09-15-2011 01:37 PM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 225763)
The idea that we shouldn't do anything until there's concrete and undisputable proof, not denied by even 2% of experts, of a serious problem isn't one that would be followed in any other area. It's bizarre. Skepticism might justify not acting in alarmist fashion, but there are no political proposals that one could characterize that way.

There is no other 'area' quite like this. We're talking about attempting to change the climate and economy of the entire planet.
Besides, if the evidence is so strong and the way to solve it is so indisputable, concrete and clear then make the changes needed (whatever those are). Otherwise you'll just have to wait. We've been hearing doomsday scenarios since the 1970's...global warming, global cooling, mass starvation, acid rain. Maybe scientists should be a little more circumspect before issuing dire predictions.

PS where do you get the 2% figure? If it's from that ad hoc survey of 78 climate scientists you should delve into that a little more.

Starwatcher162536 09-15-2011 02:46 PM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 225765)
There is no other 'area' quite like this. We're talking about attempting to change the climate and economy of the entire planet.
Besides, if the evidence is so strong and the way to solve it is so indisputable, concrete and clear then make the changes needed (whatever those are). Otherwise you'll just have to wait. We've been hearing doomsday scenarios since the 1970's...global warming, global cooling, mass starvation, acid rain. Maybe scientists should be a little more circumspect before issuing dire predictions.

I doubt there has ever been an issue in the history of mankind where someone hasn't said stupid things. There have always been a few false prophets of doom regarding resources claimed to soon be in shortage and have deleterious effects on society when in truth there was more then anyone anticipated and no shortage ever happened. There have always been preceding an actual shortage that did have deleterious effects on society a few cornucopians claiming there will not be a shortage. Worse case scenario human ingenuity will just learn how to transmute sand. A few crazy people will exist in any group of non-trivial size. Even among scientists! This is why the ratio of believers to non-believers is important.

For Global Cooling; There never was a consensus. Only a few relevant people thought there would be an Ice Age in less then a few thousand years. For Mass Starvation; There never was a consensus. Only a few relevant people though there would be impeding famines. Don't you think if there was there would have been more things then a few books proclaiming so? Famines are rather unpleasant after all. For Acid Rain; I don't know anything about this one.

Quote:

PS where do you get the 2% figure? If it's from that ad hoc survey of 78 climate scientists you should delve into that a little more.
There have been studies both before and after the one you mention, but let's just keep pointing out the flaws in that one over and over. I'm sure that's what matters most to the overall question.

Starwatcher162536 09-15-2011 02:57 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Both you and Florian further down are splitting hairs. Answering in the affirmative to the question posted by Sulla is not defendable. Truthers are worse then birthers, but the birther movement was worse because the movement was flirted with by actual Republicans ensconced in the State. People wielding the power of their positions. Only a few Democrats did this with the truther movement. At a cost of the end of their political career.

Starwatcher162536 09-15-2011 03:45 PM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 225545)
The word compensation implies that someone is getting paid their market worth. According to your definition, a slave family, or someone working a concentration camp, provided with a hovel and some bare survival sustenance, is being 'compensated'.

The argument here seems to be that the material compensation awarded to soldiers is not equal to the task of rewarding those soldiers service to the country. If it were not for an exogenous factor, their patriotism making them think being a soldier is a worthwhile endeavor, there would be far fewer soldiers. Ergo soldiers are under-compensated. This is counter to traditional labor market theory. LMT states that total compensation, in the case of voluntary employment, must be greater (POV; worker) then the labor. Otherwise the worker would go somewhere else.

What matters is total compensation. Not material compensation. One can't say soldiers are under-compensated because of the exogenous factor of their patriotism then one can say teachers are underpaid because of the exogenous factor of their love of children. Whatever gap exists between the service they provide and their material compensation is made up for by their good feelings about their chosen profession. Times when one wants more or higher quality of soldiers/teachers is the only time to talk about adjusting compensation.

Edit: Just watched your link. The "already compensated" remark seem to be congruent with my post. Which makes sense this is how Glenn would see it as he is an economist.

badhatharry 09-15-2011 05:42 PM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 225772)
This is why the ratio of believers to non-believers is important.

believers and non-believers...sounds almost religious.

Quote:

There have been studies both before and after the one you mention, but let's just keep pointing out the flaws in that one over and over. I'm sure that's what matters most to the overall question
So what do the other studies say the consensus is? What do all these scientists agree is absolutely true? And what is the overall question that matters most?

PS. I just found this list of blacklisted skeptics. There seem to be nearly 500 of them. Not insignificant, I daresay and the credentials aren't all that shabby either. I think the guy who authored this list was associated with the Anderegg study.

The list was compiled this way...
Quote:

This table lists all the names I've found who have signed any of the open letters or declarations expressing skepticism of the IPCC's findings, of climate science generally, of the "consensus" on human-induced warming, and/or arguing against any need for cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.
Notice that the offenders need only have commited one of the various infractions listed. Is this not just a teeny weeny bit scary to you? And can you see why some scientists might be offended by this? Is this how science is done? Really?

and speaking of scary...here's Paul Higgins, Associate Director of the American Meteorological Society Policy Program who appeared at Al Gore's scare-a-thon just a few days ago. By all means, though, let's not get bogged down in metrics.

Sulla the Dictator 09-15-2011 06:49 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 225738)
I found this on the web.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/574

There will never be conclusive evidence proving that FDR did nothing to prevent an attack by Japan. But there is good reason to believe that Roosevelt thought that only an act of aggression against the United States would jolt the country into the European war. Remember things looked pretty desperate in 1941, and the US was still sitting on the sidelines.

I know the theory. It is factually true that FDR was trying to provoke the Japanese into some sort of action similar to the Lusitania; as I said he had cruised some naval vessels in Japanese waters in the hopes that they would fire on them. However, sacrificing the entire Pacific battle fleet would be a HUGE sacrifice, and unnecessary too. If the battle fleet were ready for the attack, repulsing a Japanese attack would do the trick as well as losing the ships to one.

Quote:

Whether or not "there were cheaper ways to go to war with Iraq," there were no reasons, under international law, to invade Iraq, overthrow its leader and occupy the country.
That is true if you consider violations of United Nations resolutions to be meaningless. Are we all on board with that?

Quote:

9/11 provided the necessary cover for the neo-cons. I doubt that the American people would have been as staunchly behind their president if they had not been deliberately misled into believing that Iraq was somehow related to 9/11 and that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US---remember all the absurd propaganda about weapons of mass destruction?
No, I remember a pretty uniform consensus on weapons of mass destruction by even European intelligence. Lets not conflate nuclear weapons with all weapons arguing this matter in hindsight.

whburgess 09-15-2011 07:37 PM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 225786)
The argument here seems to be that the material compensation awarded to soldiers is not equal to the task of rewarding those soldiers service to the country. If it were not for an exogenous factor, their patriotism making them think being a soldier is a worthwhile endeavor, there would be far fewer soldiers. Ergo soldiers are under-compensated. This is counter to traditional labor market theory. LMT states that total compensation, in the case of voluntary employment, must be greater (POV; worker) then the labor. Otherwise the worker would go somewhere else.

What matters is total compensation. Not material compensation. One can't say soldiers are under-compensated because of the exogenous factor of their patriotism then one can say teachers are underpaid because of the exogenous factor of their love of children. Whatever gap exists between the service they provide and their material compensation is made up for by their good feelings about their chosen profession. Times when one wants more or higher quality of soldiers/teachers is the only time to talk about adjusting compensation.

Edit: Just watched your link. The "already compensated" remark seem to be congruent with my post. Which makes sense this is how Glenn would see it as he is an economist.

Good elaboration, I think. I'll just add that soldiers in combat (its my understanding to qualify for the presidents program they have to have been in combat) have risked their lives.

Starwatcher162536 09-16-2011 01:33 AM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 225794)
believers and non-believers...sounds almost religious.

Meaningless semantics.

Quote:

So what do the other studies say the consensus is? What do all these scientists agree is absolutely true? And what is the overall question that matters most?
The things one could say are absolutely true without any real doubt aren't particularly relevant to public policy considerations. A rough paraphrase of the conclusions of the IPCC, which received over 95% support in the Anderegg study you mention, is that there is a 90% chance that the majority of the warming in the latter half of the 20th century is anthropic in origin. That anthropic warming breaks down into being about 80% emissions related and 20% land use related. That if the preceding is true then stabilizing emissions at 450 ppm in 2100 where end up causing a total level of anthropic warming of between 2 and 6 Celsius warming with a best guess of 3 Celsius warming and that this will cost world GDP about 3-5% annually.

Quote:

PS. I just found this list of blacklisted skeptics. There seem to be nearly 500 of them. Not insignificant, I daresay and the credentials aren't all that shabby either. I think the guy who authored this list was associated with the Anderegg study.

The list was compiled this way...

Notice that the offenders need only have committed one of the various infractions listed. Is this not just a teeny weeny bit scary to you? And can you see why some scientists might be offended by this? Is this how science is done? Really?
So aggregating those into one list that have signed a skeptic petition is scary? Is "blacklisting"? It's not like anyone is going through their trash or e-mails trying to maintain party orthodoxy. All of these people came out as climate skeptics in a very public way, at least assuming the characterization of the petitions is accurate. So one would presume they want to be known as a climate skeptic. Looking through the list I recognize some of the names, so these people are still getting papers accepted into the peer-reviewed journals.

When these climate skeptics signed the aforementioned petitions they were putting the weight of their name and professional record behind the petition. It's not beyond the pale to mention in response that those that signed these petitions relevant standing is less then those who align with the consensus. You can argue with the methodology. You can argue the chosen metrics don't accurately capture professional prestige. Arguing the line of response itself is wrong is stupid.

So ... what the hell is you point?

badhatharry 09-16-2011 02:24 AM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Quoting Starwatcher: A rough paraphrase of the conclusions of the IPCC, which received over 95% support in the Anderegg study you mention, is that there is a 90% chance that the majority of the warming in the latter half of the 20th century is anthropic in origin. That anthropic warming breaks down into being about 80% emissions related and 20% land use related. That if the preceding is true then stabilizing emissions at 450 ppm in 2100 where end up causing a total level of anthropic warming of between 2 and 6 Celsius warming with a best guess of 3 Celsius warming and that this will cost world GDP about 3-5% annually.
So the majority would mean more than 50%? So there is a 90% chance that over 50% of the warming is due to human activity and 80% of that over 50% is due to emissions? The warming in the last century has been just over 1 degree Fahrenheit. I wonder what are the other (possibly 49%?) reasons for warming...things like natural variability?

Does climate sensitivity play into the calculation of what warming will be in the future? From what I have read that is an essential part of the methodology. I think one of the ways the hockey stick calculations of Mann et al were used was to calculate climate sensitivity and predict future warming. I have also been given to believe that there are other calculations which have been made which correlate with Mann's. So, is the way climate sensitivity is calculated now settled science or are they still working on that? In other words, how certain is it that anthropic warming will cause 3 degrees Celsius warming if emissions are stabilized at 450ppm in 2100?

How did the cost end up being 3-5% annually? This seems more than a little speculative. Has anyone taken into consideration that warming might have beneficial economic ramifications? Also does the 3-5% cost take into account what it will cost to change and abide by the proposed emissions standards?

Quote:

So aggregating those into one list that have signed a skeptic petition is scary? Is "blacklisting"? It's not like anyone is going through their trash or e-mails trying to maintain party orthodoxy. All of these people came out as climate skeptics in a very public way, at least assuming the characterization of the petitions is accurate. So one would presume they want to be known as a climate skeptic. Looking through the list I recognize some of the names, so these people are still getting papers accepted into the peer-reviewed journals.
Some people who were put on the list were annoyed because they felt their opinions were being misrepresented. However, when you say they came out in a very public way that sounds rather censorious. Some of them simply voiced skepticism about some aspect of the IPCC statements. It would seem that some scientists would want to stay off such a list at all costs if it is in their $$$interest to please the IPCC and might be dissuaded from making any skeptical statements. I know that scientists aren't always motivated by such base reasons but this whole thing is awfully political.

Anyhoo...this guy certainly was impressive.

Florian 09-16-2011 04:21 AM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
I have nothing more to say on Pearl Harbor. I am only interested in the facts. I am not terribly impressed by arguments that proceed on the assumption that such and such could not have happened because (1) there was a better course of action for a leader to take; (2) what happened was morally objectionable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225799)
That is true if you consider violations of United Nations resolutions to be meaningless. Are we all on board with that?.

The violations did not constitute a justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Quote:

No, I remember a pretty uniform consensus on weapons of mass destruction by even European intelligence. Lets not conflate nuclear weapons with all weapons arguing this matter in hindsight.
There were doubts at the highest levels in Britain and France whether Saddam Hussein had "wmd," and more importantly, whether he had the means or the intention to use them. The UN inspectors were also pretty explicit in saying that there were none. In any case, under international law, a preventive war can only be justified if it is thought that an attack is imminent.

Starwatcher162536 09-17-2011 02:48 AM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 225833)
So the majority would mean more than 50%? So there is a 90% chance that over 50% of the warming is due to human activity and 80% of that over 50% is due to emissions? The warming in the last century has been just over 1 degree Fahrenheit. I wonder what are the other (possibly 49%?) reasons for warming...things like natural variability?

Yes, yes, & yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 225833)
Does climate sensitivity play into the calculation of what warming will be in the future? From what I have read that is an essential part of the methodology. I think one of the ways the hockey stick calculations of Mann et al were used was to calculate climate sensitivity and predict future warming. I have also been given to believe that there are other calculations which have been made which correlate with Mann's. So, is the way climate sensitivity is calculated now settled science or are they still working on that? In other words, how certain is it that anthropic warming will cause 3 degrees Celsius warming if emissions are stabilized at 450ppm in 2100?

Climate sensitivity is how much the globe average will warm given some radiative forcing. In common parlance this is converted to how much the world will warm for a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 as this is considered the most relevant for purpose of policy considerations. Linking CO2 to radiative forcing within an error of a few percent is relatively easy. As I said before the climate sensitivity is currently thought to be between 2 and 6 Celsius with a best guess of 3. That it lies within 2 and 6 Celsius is 90% confident. The lower end is thought to be more probable then the higher end. I don't know anything more specific then that on the relative likelihood of different regions within that 2 and 6. Historical reconstructions of temperature like Mann's, hereby referred to as "paleodata" is what makes us think climate sensitivity is no less then 2 Celsius. Climate models are what makes us think it is no more then 6 Celsius. The preceding is naturally a simplification but is accurate enough for the level this conversation is at. I'm not really sure what "settled science" means. I prefer thinking of it as there is a 10% chance that climate sensitivity is either lower then 2 C or higher then 6 C. Naturally this would make it either more or less costly.

We should assume it's right when discussing policy decisions as that 10% chance of being wrong is more likely to make this a more severe problem then currently thought. My thoughts on this explained in the following post ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536
A little bit of backstory; Climate Models are the Frankenstein of Climate Science. They are the synthesis of vast swaths of little bits of knowledge. This synthesis is done since the big questions such as "How does temperature relate to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide?" cannot be answered by individual studies looking at say the trend in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor content. Trying to would be like trying to tell what a picture is when only looking at a few pixels. Now once all these little bits of knowledge (let's call them parameters) are synthesized we have a crude climate model. Now this crude climate model isn't very useful as the varying levels of uncertainties in the individual parameters combine in such a way that the uncertainty in the crude climate model leads to predictions that are "wider" then the conditions the Earth has ever experienced. As a tool of prediction this crude climate model is useless. Luckily though the story does not end here. It turns out in many cases certain segments of the possible range for some parameter is mutually exclusive with certain segments of the possible range of some other parameter. That is to say we may have one parameter that can be anywhere from 1-100 and we have another parameter (that we have more confidence in our ability to predict) that can be anywhere from 1-20 and through scientific knowledge of the Earth system we know if the second parameter is less then 20 the first parameter must be less then 40. When the uncertainty of a model is lessened like this it is called "tuning the model". Tuning the model also saves much computer processing time because it eliminates how many times a model needs to be run (All model predictions you see are an average of many many model runs in which the inputs & parameters values are slightly adjusted).

Synopsis so far; There are correlations in the parameters that make up climate that let climate scientists get more narrow model outputs by only choosing "parameter sets" that are "Earth-like". Hang on now, long-winded as I can be sometimes I am almost to my point.

Now this "tuning" is, wait for it now, subjective. This coupled with the wide uncertainties in such things as aerosol forcings (to keep this mildly related to earlier posts) and the close agreement of various climate model outputs led some women (don't remember her name offhand) in the mid 90's to question if the models were being "over-tuned". That is to say the models close agreement was not a function of their robustness but instead a result of them copying each other. This lead to something called "perturbed ensemble model physics". What this PEMP is is really just not tuning the model at all and running it for what can be tens of thousands of times varying the parameters (even with non earth like parameter-sets) a little each time. Many things can be learned from PEMP's, but what we are concerned with here is that PEMP's suggest how our estimate of climate sensitivity to perturbations in carbon dioxide concentrations changes as we add bit upon bit of uncertainty. Probably the most well known PEMP was done by climateprediction.net. What did they find? That with a huge increase in uncertainty in a litany of things the climate sensitivity changed from 2-4.7C per doubling of CO2 to 1.7C-11C per doubling of CO2.

So whenever I hear people questioning climate models veracity in the public discourse, I always want to say "You know this makes the problem of climate change MORE urgent not less, right?".

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 225833)
How did the cost end up being 3-5% annually? This seems more than a little speculative. Has anyone taken into consideration that warming might have beneficial economic ramifications? Also does the 3-5% cost take into account what it will cost to change and abide by the proposed emissions standards?

The IPCC's fourth assessment is broken into three parts that roughly can be though of as the science of why we think what we think we know, the net costs of climate change, and potential mitigation strategies and their associated costs. It's widely acknowledged the costs and mitigation parts are more speculative then the science part. I've only read the science part so I don't know how the other two parts are calculated.

..and no, the 3-5% which I believe is calculated with a sensitivity of 3 Celsius only takes into account the direct costs of climate change itself at the year 2100 under a business as usual (no emissions control) scenario. I don't remember what their estimate of what it would cost to stabilize CO2 at 450 ppm nor what the costs of Global warming would be at say 2 C or 5 C off hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 225833)
Some people who were put on the list were annoyed because they felt their opinions were being misrepresented. However, when you say they came out in a very public way that sounds rather censorious. Some of them simply voiced skepticism about some aspect of the IPCC statements. It would seem that some scientists would want to stay off such a list at all costs if it is in their $$$interest to please the IPCC and might be dissuaded from making any skeptical statements. I know that scientists aren't always motivated by such base reasons but this whole thing is awfully political.

I don't have anything else to say on this I have not already said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 225833)
Anyhoo...this guy certainly was impressive.

I don' know who this guy is or feel the need to defend him (Didn't watch it).

badhatharry 09-17-2011 09:58 AM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 225947)

..and no, the 3-5% which I believe is calculated with a sensitivity of 3 Celsius only takes into account the direct costs of climate change itself at the year 2100 under a business as usual (no emissions control) scenario. I don't remember what their estimate of what it would cost to stabilize CO2 at 450 ppm nor what the costs of Global warming would be at say 2 C or 5 C off hand.

I misunderstood. I thought 450ppm was the mitigated amount the IPCC is striving for. I'd imagine that amount is higher than the emissions which are currently present due to say, population growth?

Quote:

Climate sensitivity is how much the globe average will warm given some radiative forcing. In common parlance this is converted to how much the world will warm for a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 as this is considered the most relevant for purpose of policy considerations.
Yes I think I understand somewhat what climate sensitivity is. I was just wondering if they are continuing to study the various climate forcings or if the figures you have cited are pretty much a done deal as far as predictions. 10% chance of being wrong sounds awfully confident.

As for the other post you wrote...I don't have time to read it right now, but will.

badhatharry 09-18-2011 12:55 AM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 225947)
I don't have anything else to say on this I have not already said.

Well you asked me why it was called blacklisting. I tried to explain my view in answer to your question.

Quote:

What did they find? That with a huge increase in uncertainty in a litany of things the climate sensitivity changed from 2-4.7C per doubling of CO2 to 1.7C-11C per doubling of CO2.

So whenever I hear people questioning climate models veracity in the public discourse, I always want to say "You know this makes the problem of climate change MORE urgent not less, right?".
I looked for some info on PEMP and climatepredictions.net. I didn't see anything about what they found. From what I can see the calculations are ongoing.

Quote:

Once we find a variety of not-outrageous models, we will select these to run more realistic simulations from 800 AD towards the near future. Such runs still include the setup with the extreme scenarios, and some of the models that survived the spin-up period will probably go wild. We also noticed that the current Famous model is perhaps somewhat less stable than other models we have been using. In any event, we compare model's outputs with observational data and evaluate the goodness of each model run. The goodness measure will be used to illustrate the range of plausible future.

Starwatcher162536 09-18-2011 02:37 AM

Skeptics should be the truly worried ones
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 226034)
Well you asked me why it was called blacklisting. I tried to explain my view in answer to your question.

The above has my acknowledgement. What I meant was that I view your reaction to this as "scary" and "blacklisting" as both ludicrous and histrionic, obviously you disagree, and it appears neither of us have anything substantive left to say on the subject.

Quote:

I looked for some info on PEMP and climatepredictions.net. I didn't see anything about what they found. From what I can see the calculations are ongoing.
This is something that is done over and over using different specific models. It's doubtful they will ever not be ongoing. The specific conclusion I was referring to can be found here. I googled for a few moments but couldn't find any in depth non-technical explanations for PEMP's. Anyways; My overall point in the previous post is that I don't have to take these high end climate sensitivities seriously when considering policy proposals as I believe we know enough to, if not rule them out completely, conclude they are very unlikely. A true honest climate skeptic, defined by me as just someone who doesn't think we know as much as we think we do, can't do this though. They have to take these upper end estimates seriously as they become a real possibility when we have lower levels of knowledge about the climate system.

Really, unless one has some sort of strangely heightened discount rate when thinking on what this generation owes future generations or believes the state shouldn't meddle in the markets consequences be damned, climate skeptics should generally be advocating for more radical policies aimed at mitigating climate change then the consensus affirmers as according to their beliefs of our knowledge level the median outcome of climate change is worse then what consensus affirmers believe the median outcome will be.

Starwatcher162536 09-18-2011 02:41 AM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 225956)
I misunderstood. I thought 450ppm was the mitigated amount the IPCC is striving for. I'd imagine that amount is higher than the emissions which are currently present due to say, population growth?

You're going to need to restate this. I can't parse it.

badhatharry 09-18-2011 10:02 PM

Re: Skeptics should be the truly worried ones
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 226064)
The above has my acknowledgement. What I meant was that I view your reaction to this as "scary" and "blacklisting" as both ludicrous and histrionic, obviously you disagree, and it appears neither of us have anything substantive left to say on the subject.

Sorry about that. However I do think I had something substantive to say whether or not you agree it was.

Quote:

Anyways; My overall point in the previous post is that I don't have to take these high end climate sensitivities seriously when considering policy proposals as I believe we know enough to, if not rule them out completely, conclude they are very unlikely. A true honest climate skeptic, defined by me as just someone who doesn't think we know as much as we think we do, can't do this though. They have to take these upper end estimates seriously as they become a real possibility when we have lower levels of knowledge about the climate system.
I have read about the problems surrounding uncertainties and there are many ways of interpreting the problems. I know very little about math beyond algebra. I'll have to look into what you are saying about the necessity that skeptics must take the position you have lined out.

Quote:

climate skeptics should generally be advocating for more radical policies aimed at mitigating climate change then the consensus affirmers as according to their beliefs of our knowledge level the median outcome of climate change is worse then what consensus affirmers believe the median outcome will be.
maybe, maybe not.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.