This has been an almost completely neglected side of the debate. Richard Tol is gradually coming to terms with the fact that any warming is good and any cooling bad, net. There is ample evidence in paleontology of the benefits of warming and detriments of cooling.
A warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life.
Our risk is far greater to the cold side than to the warm side. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
==================
Judith,
I like the frequency of posts as you have them now. I like the Week in Review pretty much as it has been but it is getting to include perhaps too many links. My interest is in policy relevant posts – especially relating to: energy, economics, improving human well-being globally and climate science that has policy relevance (especially damage function, climate sensitivity and abrupt climate change). I really like excellent invited posts you sometime have like those of Planning Engineer (electricity system), Michael Cunningham (Stern Review and the one yet to come? on discount rates … hint :) ).
I have three suggestions for future posts:
1. What science needs to provide for rational policy analysis
2. ‘Wicked mess’ versus ‘Pareto’s Principle’
3. Systems Engineering and Project Management approach
1. What science needs to provide for rational policy analysis
Explain how science can provide the inputs needed for rational policy analysis. I’d suggest pdfs for the following would be a significant contribution:
• time to the next abrupt climate change event
• direction of the next abrupt climate change (to warming or cooling)
• duration of next abrupt climate change event
• magnitude of the total change
• rate of change
• damage function
2. Wicked mess versus Pareto’s Principle
2.1 Wicked mess
Extremely complex, it’s all too hard…. etc.
2.2 Pareto’s Principal (or the 80/20 rule):
• “for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes”
• “vital few and trivial many”
• “The 80/20 Rule means that in anything a few (20 percent) are vital and many (80 percent) are trivial.”
• “20 percent of the defects cause 80 percent of the problems”
• “The value of the Pareto Principle for a manager is that it reminds you to focus on the 20 percent that matters.”
• Simplify the problem to the doable bits that can provide the largest benefits
• Find and fix the a small number of key inputs/issues that, once fixed will fix a large proportion of the consequences
• Find an implement the fixes that will give the greatest return for money, time and effort invested.
Example:
Consider India as an example of the problem that will confront virtually all of the developing world as they strive to catch up with the developed world over the course of this century. Refer to these two articles:
Briefing: India’s energy and climate change challenge: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/briefing-india-energy-and-climate-change-challenge/
India to Rich World: Give us Cash and We’ll Cut Emissions Faster: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-26/india-to-rich-world-give-us-cash-and-we-ll-cut-emissions-faster
rich nations should finance climate technologies just as they backed moves to provide life-saving drugs to the poor.
The USA can lead the developed nations to compete to develop low cost, small, nuclear power plants for developing nations. This will save lives and get power to the poor faster. For those concerned about GHG emissions, this can do more to reduce the rate of growth of human caused global GHG emissions than any other single policy. And it can be done at no net cost. It’s just a matter of removing the impediments (mostly caused by unjustifiable regulations) that have massively increased the cost of nuclear energy and stalled progress for decades. Once the spotlight is put on the unjustifiable regulatory impediments that have been placed on nuclear energy – such as the allowable radiation limits being set two to three orders of magnitude below what is justified based on best available evidence – the public begin to rethink the basis for their concern about nuclear power.
Addressing this is an application of the Pareto’s Principle.
3. Systems Engineering and Project Management approach
Treat policy design and policy implementation as a project. Analyse the requirements and design the solution using Systems Engineering processes.
Suggestion: Invite some high level systems engineers and project managers to provide posts.
3.1 Requirements
1. Economically rational
2. Nearly every sovereign state must be better off over the short and medium term
f. Increase the rate that human well-being is improving
g. Lift people out of poverty faster
h. Better access to fresh water, food, energy, communications, health, education, etc.
i. Reduce toxic pollution
j. Reduce inequality
3.2 Project Management
“A project is a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service or result.” [Project Management Body of Knowledge]
Designing and implementing a policy is best treated as a project and managed using formal systems engineering and project management processes.
3.2.1 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
“A deliverable oriented grouping of project elements that organises and defines the total work scope of the project. Each descending level represents an increasingly detailed definition of the project work. ” [Project Management Body of Knowledge].
Since the slack term “climate change” can mean whatever you like, I guess the rest of the argument can consist of…whatever you like! Climate is nothing but change, so whistle Dixie or shovel statistics…it doesn’t matter.
Amazing, after all the bile-tinged water that’s gone under the bridge for two solid decades, still no precise term for whatever it is we are supposed to “tackle”. Now, how could that be? It’s like people just want a climate industry, old guard, new guard, hot or lukewarm. Pick a side, niggle the other side…but don’t cruel the game itself.
Incidentally, if I move to the tropics and find my roof isn’t pinned I won’t read a treatise on risk. I’ll pin the roof.
Very apropos topic as no one has ever been killed by an average global temperature of 15°C, which is a made-up number.
No doubt, the models are wrong, on the high side :
MODEL: IPCC5 (RCP8.5): 4.2C/century
MODEL: IPCC4 Warming High: 4.0C/century
MODEL: Hansen A: 3.2C/century ( since 1979 )
MODEL: Hansen B: 2.8C/century ( since 1979 )
MODEL: IPCC4 next few decades: 2.0C/century
MODEL: Hansen C: 1.9C/century ( since 1979 )
MODEL: IPCC4 Warming Low: 1.8C/century
———————————————————————
Observed: NASA GISS: ~1.6C/century ( since 1979 )
Observed: NCDC: ~1.5C/century ( since 1979 )
Observed: UAH MSU LT: ~1.4C/century (since 1979 )
Observed: RSS MSU LT: ~1.3C/century (since 1979 )
Observed: RATPAC 850 millibars: ~1.3C/century
Observed: RATPAC 500 millibars: ~1.2C/century
MODEL: IPCC5 (RCP2.6): 1.0C/century
Observed: RATPAC 300 millibars: ~1.0C/century
Observed: RSS MSU MT: ~0.8C/century (since 1979 )
Observed: UAH MSU MT: ~0.5C/century (since 1979 )
I can point to reasons why trends should even be declining:
decelerated forcing rates and decelerating CO2 emissions.
No reason to believe in increasing rates.
Perhaps the greatest tail risk should be embarrassment of modelers.
People do not reason probabilistically so this is all beside the point. Reasoning predates probability math by eons. In human reasoning there is a threshold of risk,such that anything that is sufficiently unlikely is simply not acted upon. This is necessary because there are innumerable unlikely risks, far too many for acton.
If someone said they could not stand up lest they fall down we would correctly judge them to be nuts. For skeptics, ruin or climate catastrophe falls into this category of ignorable risk.
I agree HarldW. 2C is way to much. Why not 0C – lets go all the way back to 280 ppm!
That is clearly the only safe level – we should go back to what it was before people were on the planet.
(Just kidding)!
After a generation? This means the proposals to take urgent action are meaningless. I got the feeling you guys are wearing blinkers and never bother to check what happens with this or that proposal. The arm waving and the dream states are starting to get a bit tiresome. And the 21st century doesn’t have any business as usual.
That’s right, David. I spent a lot of time in the risk business, and I was taught not to play if the big win probabilities were too low to quantify properly, or if the people making the risk estimate had a poor track record. In this case playing involves plunking dozens of trillion dollars to get an extremely low probability win. I’m afraid mr Taleb has the game setting bassackwards.
Are you sure you know today’s average surface temperature? I understand the climate models are initialized with very wide ranging values? This tells me the actual temperature at any point in time is a bit of an unknown.
Maybe sunday discussion thread on how to organize the posts for reference.
Dr. Curry,
This sentence of yours is an expression for one of the concepts I most like to ruminate about: The Law of Unintended Consequences: “These unintended consequences may generate new vulnerabilities or strengthen the harm one is hoping to diminish.” To bring it out of the realm of the theoretical, I’d like to rip it from the headlines, so to speak, by mentioning that there are 150 human beings pulverized in the Alps that sadly illustrate the importance of this issue.
After 9/11, in response to a danger, hijackers entering the cabin and crashing the plane, the cabin was turned into a fortress. A fortress that apparently allowed a co-pilot to lock out the pilot and take 149 innocents on his demented suicide run. Perhaps, he could have accomplished his evil goal without these precautions, but they certainly made it a lot easier and surer.
Now the response of having a flight attendant enter the cabin when one of the pilots leaves is offered as a solution. When a suicidal flight attendant (probably less psychologically stable on average than pilots) disables the only remaining pilot, (caustic in eyes?) locks the door and uses the skills they picked up off the Internet to crash the plane, we’ll go looking for another solution. And another. And another.
I may be overly optimistic, but I thought the passengers’ actions with Flight 93 solved the problem to a great extent. Lulled into inaction by numerous previous hijacked flights to Havana, everybody was told to relax if hijacked. “You’ll have a great story to tell the grandkids.” With 9/11 seared into our consciousness it’s now “Let it roll.” Most of us would rather die fighting on our feet, than whimpering in our seats, box cutters or not. Who knows maybe facial razor scars will become sexy, showing the Law of Unintended Consequences cuts both ways.
Apparently, NASA knows.
Mark Silbert, Judith, maybe there is some nuance I missed, but it seemed pretty clear to me. The first chapter of the book laid out five points. The first point was CO2 levels are rising due to human activity. The book accepted that point as true. The second point was increased CO2 will lead to increased global warming. The book said that point was false. A quote I copied down was:
This shows that the theory that CO2 emissions of human origin drive global warming (and climate change) must be rejected.
I also remember the chapter saying any increase in CO2 levels from where we are now “will have an insignificant effect.” That seems a clear denial of global warming to me. I don’t see how one claims we could reach 1200 PPM of CO2 (much less whatever levels of other greenhouse gases) without there being any meaningful effect without denying global warming.
Is there some other interpretation you’d suggest? I’d be happy to hear it if so. I can even re-download the preview of the book to check. I just don’t see why my interpretation should be remarkable.
By the way Mark, I hope you enjoy my book!
Here’s Exxon’s take:
To be sure, they credit OECD carbon dioxide restrictions but efficiency, natural gas and aging are what have led the slowdowns to date.
Declining emissions but increasing removal rate mean significant slowdown in forcing ahead.
risk management versus PP to avoid possible catastrophe or ruin.
I could leave the house and play golf today.
risk of meteorite hitting me at home [stationary target] v 5 K trip to GC.
Risk of being struck by lightning*, golf ball [low] or car accident [very windy road, trees close to road and a poorly used train line. etc.
Black Swan events occur. A close friend was out riding a pushbike with friends, flat tire to change, well off road, near a bend, 20 cars an hour, clear visibility, yellow top, middle of day.
A car missed the bend and took her out instantly, missing her 3 companions.
I still regret a decision not to go riding that day, as if it might have made a difference.
People have a right to make their own decisions, fear and greed are major drivers and we run in herds.
AGW fear mongers are also fearful lest we forget. It is hard to watch people make decisions on fear rather than logic but it is understandable. Fright and flight only lasts so long and when the sky does not fall logic returns. Perhaps not in our lifetime.
* have been struck by lightning x1 on a golf course but not by a golf ball
Mosomoso,
I agree with most of your comment. I feel the article was fairly well balanced. it presented the advocates’ argument first and then showed what’s wrong with it. Dr Mark Harrigan’s comment goes much further in explaining the issues.
I don’t agree with this sentence in your comment: “The potential of solar in a lot of contexts is huge.”
I doubt that is true. Solar is not sustainable. it requires far too much non-renewable material and do much energy. Therefore, t is not sustainable. it is never likely to be. it cannot survive without either fossil fuels or nuclear. If you haven’t read this before, I think you’l find it very interesting: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
Also read John Morgan’s response to critiques here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/#comment-350520
Other than a meteor strike, “black swan” events may unfold over hundred’s of years and in any event there may be nothing to be done but live or die –e.g.,
Megadroughts lasting a century or two are known to have occurred in what is now California over the last 3,500 years. Droughts of similar severity have also been implicated in the downfall of the empire of the Maya in Central America a millennium ago; the Akkadian empire (the world’s first) in Mesopotamia 4,200 years ago (that drought lasted 300 years) and several pre-Inca cultures in South America. ~William. Stevens, “Persistent and Severe, Drought Strikes Again,” NYT, April 25, 2000
