Joshua
“what do you think of the author’s suggested alternative strategies to cope with climate related risks?”
Some of the ideas seem like they make sense, but something making sense does not mean it will be implemented.
The construction and maintenance of good infrastructure is the #1 thing that can be done to avoid damage from adverse weather. A very large portion of the world puts very little priority on this issue. It simply doesn’t matter much what else is done if nations don’t to that.
I can ask the politician to stop funding their game. They can go back to modelling the climate in the pub after a few pints of ale.
My supervisor used to tell the research group that if we couldn’t explain the importance of our work to a truck driver in a honkytonk bar in Texas then we should ask ourselves why we wetre doing it and why said truck driver should fund it.
Software has to be proved correct. Not the other way around.
Unvalidated, untested software is just unvalidated untested software.
Anything it says is no better than a wild guess.
“Personally, I’d be happy using the high side estimate.”
I used to have one customer service rep who always estimated longer than expected to get their shipment out in order to never disappoint. I had another rep who would over-promise delivery estimates trying to please the customer on the phone. I set a policy that we always give our customers our true best estimate. I had never realized before that this is not natural human nature. There are always temptations to misuse power by mis-information, (usually for the best of reasons).
Joshua, I can’t address your point because I don’t know. I expect you’re right – there is a lot of nonsense written by skeptics. And by non-skeptics. Pay no attention.
Steven, is this also…wrong?
“Model results that confirm earlier model results are perceived more reliable than model results that deviate from earlier results.”
Rob –
=> “Some of the ideas seem like they make sense, but something making sense does not mean it will be implemented.”
That’s interesting – because I think that a lot of what the author discusses closely resembles what I have discussed with you many times – where I talk about the implicitly subjective simplifications in the “mental modeling” that is unconsciously confused with reality – only for you to tell me that it makes no sense.
At any rate, “surprise-free scenario-planning” is pretty much what I suggest in these threads on a regular basis – only to get in return all sorts of derision and pejoratives.
It’s a good thing I consider all that dreck to be based on implicitly subjective simplifications in my interlocutors mental modeling, or my feelings might get hurt.
:-)
I remember hearing that a couple of decades ago all the airlines, plagued by late arrivals and missed connections, all brought their on-time percentage way way up – within a single year. How? By adding to every arrival time as a buffer.
Cheap trick? No. It was a good idea: turned out that customers would much rather wait around an extra half an hour in an airport than miss a connection.
@nickels says
‘Models are cool, but wrong’.
My understanding is the opposite. They are hot and wrong.
Mother Gaia is stubbornly refusing to cooperate with their high-end Thermogeddonist predictions and has sat on her hands for fifteen years or so.
Mosher writes_ “GCMs can predict. GCMs do predict. Whether or not you can use the prediction is a pragmatic decision.”
Steve- sometimes you seem to be intentionally obtuse in your comments. Do GCM make you better at determining whether any place on the planet will be better off or worse off as a result of AGW at some point in time?
What modelled output from a GCM would lead you to conclude with reasonable confidence that any particular place on the planet will have a worse climate as a result of AGW in say 100 years?
‘Especially the confirmation of earlier projected Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity between 1.5″C and 4.5″C degree Celsius seems to increase the perceived credibility of a model result.’ Huh – I think Nic Lewis would be very interested in seeing some of the “failed” models that produced ECS<2, that apparently never saw the light of day.
Rob –
From the paper:
Scenario planning, like other frameworks that aim to guide decision makers to think about (deep) uncertainties (e.g. Cash et al. 2003; Tang and Dessai 2012), stresses the importance of user involvement during the entire development phase.
If I had a quarter for every time I’ve said essentially that in these threads (only to be insulted in return by my much beloved “denizens”), I could…well…go out for a steak dinner tonight (if the plow ever arrives)….
“They are hot and wrong.”
ha!
I was think as an example about one the papers here a few months back that did a bunch of model runs to try and determine when we would see the CO2 signal pull away from the ‘background’ signal.
What possible sense could such a paper have if its using models as the underlying driver?
The Netherlands, not to be confused with Holland…
‘Holland vs the Netherlands’ on YouTube – http://youtu.be/eE_IUPInEuc
I speculate on why models are tuned to balance TOA radiation. With all the changes in temperature it can never be in balance, not even over 100’s of years,.
Joshua
““surprise-free scenario-planning” is pretty much what I suggest”
And I suggest what you have written is meaningless in regards to the implementation of policy. Just because something is possible does not mean that people take actions in response.
Limited resources force decisions to be made regarding priorities.
So confusing I am surprised they got this far to found their nice little town in West Michigan.
Ahhh, the Dutch jokes I hear. About as good as the Yooper jokes. (U. P) . Thanks for the link.
:)
Another natural bias is lack of comprehension of paleo time-spans leading one to a false assumption in the early 1970s, looking back forty years, that we might be slipping back into ice age, and after the warm 80s eighties dusting off Arrhenius’ Green House Effect with a question mark, then in the warmer 90s with an exclamation point. By 2001 the science was settled.
But meanwhile looking at more and better paleo-reconstructions we get a better perspective of what Earth’s baseline is on her timescale.
I think many more of the climate modeling community need to take not solve paleo climate first. Knowing the mega-influences (causing +/- 3C) may just go a long way to get a start on solving the minor ones (+/1 0.3C).
“I’m not inclined to use this one author’s opinion as dispositive.”
I’d say that’s wise, Josh. And yet none of this is new. The scary predictions we read about on a regular basis in the NYT”s are generally model based.
Yet the models do not seem to be performing well…to be polite.
Therefore:……..
I’ll let you fill in the blanks
Rob –
==> “And I suggest what you have written is meaningless in regards to the implementation of policy. ”
Well, he speaks to some of the practical limitations, and offers some alternatives. I’m not in complete agreement with his analysis.
At any rate…
==> “Just because something is possible does not mean that people take actions in response.”
Right. Some people are absolutely insistent on not taking action (until unrealistic criteria – based on subjective, simplistic mental modeling that doesn’t reflect reality are met).
==> “Limited resources force decisions to be made regarding priorities.”
I love how one day, conz accuse libz of “limited pie” thinking and then the next day talk about how the pie is limited.
