Can we make a good decision under ignorance? Say,
what’s behind the green door?
https://web.viu.ca/conwayg/ZNOTE/Engl067_LadyorTiger.pdf
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by beththeserf
↧
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by mosomoso
So…we’re supposed to know about the big messy physical world, plus all that human nature and bias stuff, before losing ourselves in the intricacies of calculation, determination and decision? Our info has to be complete and more or less right?
If everyone thought that way there’d be no bloody climate science!
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by -1=e^iπ
@ AK – I agree that your policy could be a good way of dealing with the issue of climate change, but good isn’t necessarily best. Oil from oil sands has higher emissions than conventional oil, yet your system wouldn’t take this into account since both conventional oil and oil sands oil aren’t carbon neutral. Pigouvian taxes have a strong economic basis so it will be difficult to convince me of a mitigation policy preferable to a Pigouvian tax. If you aren’t penalizing all sources of CO2 emissions equally (or rewarding efforts to reduce CO2 emissions equally) then why would your proposal result in the greatest emission reduction for a given reduction in economic output?
The other advantage of the Pigouvian tax is that it is just 1 parameter to argue about, which means it is easier to get international agreement and there will likely be less rent seeking activity to reduce the potential gains from implementing a mitigation policy.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas
Re: Dr. Spencer. Gotta love the term “Karlized”.
Better than my “pause in the pause of the pause” due to Nieves.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
I guess Karlized with replace enHansened.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by mwgrant
Long day on the water in the sun? ;O)
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
The transient sensitivity from the data can be shown by plotting CO2 with temperature and matching the gradients. This match is 1 C per 100 ppm and corresponds to an effective transient sensitivity of 2.4 C per doubling. I am not sure what Spencer is doing different, and maybe someone can explain.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1950/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1950/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.3
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by AK
@-1=e^iπ…
I agree that your policy could be a good way of dealing with the issue of climate change, but good isn’t necessarily best.
I wasn’t trying to prove it best (although IMO it’s superior to a Pigouvian tax). Just to get it on the table. After all, there’s no reason to assume the final outcome will be either/or.
Oil from oil sands has higher emissions than conventional oil, yet your system wouldn’t take this into account since both conventional oil and oil sands oil aren’t carbon neutral.
I suspect it would if the extra energy generated and used in extraction was counted in the fraction requirements for “carbon-neutral”.
If you aren’t penalizing all sources of CO2 emissions equally (or rewarding efforts to reduce CO2 emissions equally) then why would your proposal result in the greatest emission reduction for a given reduction in economic output?
Because of the timing. Seems to me the logic you’re using doesn’t really distinguish between value now, and value at some future point.
The primary difference I see is that a Pigouvian tax would create a large, optional, low-value market for “carbon-neutral” energy and/or fuel. The proposal I’m suggesting is pointed at creating a small, mandatory, high-value market. This would provide immediate rewards for implementing immature technology, along with both funding and incentives for pushing development and maturity.
The carbon tax proposal would, AFAIK, just provide a small unit return on current production, because the price it could get would be no more than the difference produced by the tax; which would have to be small because the technology isn’t there to feed the demand a large tax would create.
Thus, investors would have to put up all the development money for quite a while, until economies of scale and/or the rising tax rate make their investment worthwhile.
The other advantage of the Pigouvian tax is that it is just 1 parameter to argue about, […]
Er… I can’t agree with that. Each national (or otherwise) currency would involve its own parameter, along with continuing arguments and rent-seeking around relative exchange rates.
True, means could be set up to work those out, but that’s precisely what I’m trying to avoid with my alternative. And I suspect, even disregarding the risk from the managerial bureaucracy, that it would end up being more complicated than the necessary adjustments around a simple fractional rate with a simple exponential growth rate.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Jim D
The problem is just framing it as economic cost-benefit in the first place. The cost is more than proportional to economic loss. You need measures that take into account numbers of lives impacted. Weighting the cost regionally by inverse GDP per capita would do it. These costs go up sharply with climate change because the lowest GDP regions feel the impact quickly, having little defense or recourse to overseas markets to counter climate change damage or its effects on food production for example. If the cost goes up sharply with climate change the optimal solution tends towards as little climate change as possible. Economists, being money-centric, don’t think about the people perspective at all.
↧
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by AK
@Ragnaar..
I do like the idea of dumping it in the oceans which is low tech and something we can at least look at. Perhaps not to the trenches. Could be the base of a new ocean food chain.
To do that, most of the carbon would have to oxidize. Which would defeat most of the purpose.
Of course, dumping it unprotected into an anoxic trench would actually allow it to “be the base of a new ocean food chain.” There are forms of anaerobic decay (usually based on sulfur, AFAIK) that take place even under anoxic conditions. (The Black Sea is a prime example.)
Between the long time-frame(s), and the fact that most of the released CO2 would enter the oceans at the bottom of the aerobic layer, I suspect the results would tend to have little impact on us at the surface. And it could, indeed, result in the creation of an entire new large-scale ecosystem, resulting in genetic/species diversity that never existed before.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas
Guess so. That’s an apt description! Nice!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by justinwonder
Fifty percent of all auto accidents in Los Angeles are hit and run:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/10/us-usa-losangeles-hitandrun-idUSKBN0LE2Z120150210
Pay up!
If you like your borders you can keep them.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
About the only arrow left in the global warming quiver is sea level rise and that doesn’t seem to be changing much.
“German Geologist: “Sea Level Rise Lagging Behind Projections” …No Detectable Acceleration!” [link]
↧
↧
Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by Jim D
tonyb, here in the US it is obvious what he is referring to as flawed media coverage. These are the anti-consensus, sometimes conspiracy, views by right-wing talk radio and Fox media. It is a disinformation bubble that also espouses mistrust of mainstream media like the major networks and newspapers, and I would bet that most of the blog anti-consensus types also get their “news” from this wing. It’s not just climate, but other issues where they stick together in a minority but with a solid block like self-support group.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
“Glacial cycles transfer ∼5×1019 kg∼5×1019 kg of water between the oceans and ice sheets, leading to accumulation and ablation of kilometres of ice on the continents and sea-level change of ∼100 m.”
A glacial is putting 100 meters from 2/3s of the surface, someplace else. The work involved to do that seems large. Yes it’s cold, but there’s also a lot of potential energy in the ice sheets. Assuming it took heat/work to move all the stuff, the melting would seem to release potential energy, friction I guess, releasing the heat/energy. While water may not have much friction heat it can still do work carving out ice as a meandering river carves its banks. The question is are the ice sheets a quirk of nature of little importance or an example of a defensive life protecting earth?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David L. Hagen
<b>Prepare for The Really Big One</b>
Kathryn Shultz has written a superb gripping technical article:
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one" rel="nofollow">The Really Big One</a>"An earthquake will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest. The question is when."
I had not a clue when hiking the NW coast.
Highly recommend before going to the Pacific Northwest.
Recommend to all friends and family in the region.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
Maybe it is because Spencer decided to ignore land and the poles that were warming twice as fast. He doesn’t say why, but that is not how you compute sensitivity.
↧
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Ragnaar
AK:
My view is that the oceans are actually not teaming with life. Call corn trash to oceans a kind of fish feeding program.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Week in review – science edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
We care about the temperature where we live. Few live at very high latitudes.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
