According to WG3, the mitigation for a 2 C cap is 0.06% of global GDP when annualized. This is about 10% of the noise level in GDP growth. By 2100, the global GDP growth could be 300-900%, and the mitigation cost is 5%. It is hardly a major factor in the global economy or even in its uncertainty. The main limit for the speed of mitigation is technology advancement that determines how quickly we can replace fossil fuels. There has been a lot of exaggeration about mitigation costs that doesn’t stand scrutiny.
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by genghiscunn
Willard, I’ve never written a laissez-faire letter in my life. Faustino
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by genghiscunn
moso, just before the start of the Cardiff test, I said to my wife: “33-4.” Well, at 43-3, Haddin dropped Root. Close. Just before the start at Lords, I said “England would hope for 260, Australia for 200 more; Australia’s aim is far more likely.” My end-of-play summary? “Normal service has been resumed.” If the MCC did deliberately prepare that wicket, it’s a disgrace, after the NZ series and the Cardiff test, there was a long-absent buzz around English cricket, the pitch should have fostered a tight contest and promised a result. As for yesterday’s porridge, it’s often better than fresh. But not as a playing surface.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by mwgrant
Philip Lee
Thanks for your response.
How I would leave to others, but should include factors such as certainty of the need, certainty of the decision consequence, certainty that the decision cannot be postponed, and certainty of engineering factors if any.
To me that and more–I would put things in terms of plurals here and use some different language but you are basically commenting on the sort of things needed the ‘formal’ approach you mention below.
…it seems to me that a formal effort is needed for more than the “science” behind a decision to include the timing of a decision and the factors above.
Yes…uncertainty in timelines for events or landmarks that appear in the different alternative-outcome combinations, time-ordering of events and dependencies impacted, etc. All of this is not trivial, there are and will be gaps in knowledge, there are uncertainties, etc., but there is profit in looking at it, at least IMO. To me the objective would be a good process (vetting?) before the product. It is the journey that counts. Also every effort by all parties has to be made to make it an open, inclusive process.
Just as a matter of completeness: Do I think it is possible to start on this path now after so much has poisoned the atmosphere? Well what I think or anyone else thinks about that is not relevant to solving the real problem. Of course, how people act is another matter.
mw
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by mwgrant
genghiscunn – sorry about the name typo.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by George Turner
I would be building deeply submersible high-performance concrete shelters with submarine hatches (or really thick revolving doors), tied to anchors with steel cables and kept from tipping during the earthquake by splayed steel I-beam legs.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by beththeserf
Oh I am synical here, agree with Justin, lover understands
the nature of the princess and chooses door on left. No
Socrates situation this.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Don Monfort
It’s really a shame that our ancestors didn’t know about the evils of CO2, before we got hooked on steam and then the internal combustion engine. We could have preserved our bucolic, pastoral lifestyle with all the benefits of fresh air and death before rheumatism set in. And we wouldn’t have had to feel guilty about the polar bears.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by climatereason
Latest news from Lords from our reporter who used to be a climate statistician. He tells us the figures are robust but won’t release his data as he says Beth and Mosomoso will just try to disprove them.
Adjusting for the high levels of co2 found over Lords, Australia scored 107 all out. This co2 adjusted score fits all known parameters and has been smoothed and homogenised.
In reply England has scored a magnificent 676 for 1.
Our models predict a shattering defeat for Australia. If you dispute this you are anti science.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
As regards the Heathrow record temperature as far as I am concerned what is more at question is using such a site in the first place for taking reliable temperatures let alone using it as a basis for a record temperature.
Here is the position of the Heathrow sensor
http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/search?site=EGLL&Get+information=Get+information&lang=en
Its actually a bit closer to the perimeter fence.
Records have been compiled here only since 1948, since when Heathrow has grown exponentially from a small RAF basis with a few small buildings in a semi rural location, to a huge piece of concreted infrastructure with numerous large buildings, any amount of vehicles and housing development right up to the perimeter fence.
As far as the temperature itself goes, it was by no means a record everywhere in the UK. The heat was caused by a short lived plume of heat coming from Morocco and Spain and mostly affecting the Central and Eastern part of the country. Here in the South West we were wandering around in light sweaters wondering what all the fuss was about.
These heat plumes are fairly rare and therefore don’t always get captured by instruments or observers. They don’t fall into the category of heat waves due to their short lived nature but are either heat bursts (very short lived) or flash heats.(lasting several days) Taking these into account the extent of natural variability is far greater than we currently imagine.
Here is a well authenticated one from Portugal in 1949 during a heat wave which enveloped most of Europe and probably reached 100F in England although 2003 is quoted as the first time this happened.
The temperature is said to have risen some 50F in two minutes then abated.
I hope to be writing an article on this shortly
tonyb
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by beththeserf
tony b, it is the fate of a serf ter question philosopher
kings, et Al, who say ‘ Trust me!’ U yerself, historical
heretic, sayeth that in cli-sci there are known knowns,
known unknowns ‘n, (gasp) unknown unknowns!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/little-ice-age-thermometers-%E2%80%93-history-and-reliability-2/
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
Was – it – ever – about – the – science – ? – ?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by kcom1
I lived in a tropical rainforest in Africa. Polygamy was all over the place.
Next argument!
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by justinwonder
Lee Smolin is an interesting character, from the Wikipedia page for Lee Smolin:
“Smolin’s 2006 book The Trouble with Physics explored the role of controversy and disagreement in the progress of science. It argued that science progresses fastest if the scientific community encourages the widest possible disagreement among trained and accredited professionals prior to the formation of consensus brought about by experimental confirmation of predictions of falsifiable theories. He proposed that this meant the fostering of diverse competing research programs, and that premature formation of paradigms not forced by experimental facts can slow the progress of science.”
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
JimD, “The limited ocean surface temperature is not independent of these other areas that add up to almost half the surface area.”
Doesn’t really need to be independent. If you are comparing SST observations to SST model estimates. And I believe it is closer to 35% than 50% of area.
The good thing about SST and masking to 60S – 60N.is that you can compare absolute temperatures from which you can estimate an effective energy.
The model mean runs about a degree lower than the observations 60S-60N. If you include more of the polar regions you get into more sea ice versus ocean uncertainty.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
oops, tas oceans runs about a degree lower.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
Is Spencer using an ocean world as an approximation to the real world (I don’t know), and wouldn’t CMIP5 be a better approximation because at least it has these other surface types and atmospheric and ocean flows, weather, latitude variation, etc?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David L. Hagen
timg56
Lived there 3.5 years. I agree on "expend resources on hardening infrastructure" (especially vs wasting $ on climate). <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=bangladesh+cyclone+shelters&num=20&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS578US578&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB4QsARqFQoTCKb9tN3g5cYCFYqXgAod8OsItQ&biw=1536&bih=735" rel="nofollow">Bangladesh is now better prepared for cyclones </a>than the Pacific Northwest is for this tsunami/earthquake.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
JimD, “Is Spencer using an ocean world as an approximation to the real world (I don’t know)..”
That particular simple energy balance model he is using is ocean with heat uptake (to 2000 meters).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-2014-APJAS1.pdf
It really represents the majority of energy so if you want a “global” surface temperature sensitivity you would need an amplifying factor for anomaly which doesn’t represent energy all that well.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by -1=e^iπ
Hi Peter Lang,
I’m not very familiar with DICE and RICE models, but I did decide to read the 2013 manual this afternoon (http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/DICE_Manual_100413r1.pdf). From what I can tell, the social welfare function is very similar, although the one used in DICE/RICE is a rough approximation for the one I am suggesting. They are identical if all individuals in society have the same level of consumption.
The one I suggest takes sum of the utility of each individual’s consumption, where as the Nordhaus social welfare function takes the utility of the average level of consumption and multiplies it by the number of people. Given that poorer people generally live in more equatorial regions, so might be more adversely affected by climate change than someone living in a polar region, I would expect that the difference in the social welfare function would result in a slightly higher carbon tax than calculated by Nordhaus. On the other hand, the 2013 models use an ECS of 2.9 C (which might be on the high end based on recent results) and don’t take into account the CO2 fertilization effect, so I have no reason to believe that the DICE/RICE results are biased in any particular direction.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
