Mike, thank you, this deep reason is news to me. Apparently the dreaded global warming results in less sun energy reaching the surface. With a little more data, that will be a great support for Eschenbach’s thermostat hypothesis.
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by Curious George
↧
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by rebelronin
For me, Climate Etc., is a window into an intellectual and academic world that would otherwise elude me.
The Paris conference illuminates how the climate issue has become the proxy for a grand political debate about the essence of my very existence as a citizen.
I see that academics and intellectuals are quite busy inventing maths to quantify happiness and social welfare benefit.
I hope to be allowed just enough SWF for a happiness ratio of say, umm …
75%.
My existence well modeled.
I tremble.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by mwgrant
Directions without goals defined?
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by sciguy54
Shuler looked at the wrong statistic. Should have looked at death rate per miles driven. In 1992 it was the same for the US, UK, and Canada but higher in Western Europe and nearly 10 times higher in Mexico.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs93/Sec7.pdf
Now that 10% of the Mexican population lives in the US, would you expect the rate to go up here?
According to WHO,the rate in the US remains less than for Japan, about the same as for Belgium and Spain, and slightly higher than for France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Shuler’s post only proves that motivation + statistics = garbage
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by PA
Well, i hope you are right. We are at or below the insolation level needed to drop back into the ice age. The planet has been cooling for 9000 years. Historically at current insolation level it has been colder… much colder.
A little more ice on both ends of the planet and we could be off to the races.
This concern with global warming does not seem to be reality-based. Cooling is a more pressing and potentially harmful concern. We would be well advised to up the CO2 level to 600 or 700 PPM.
Unfortunately the ecology minded folks have so mucked things up that reasonable levels of CO2 (600-700 PPM) might not be possible and 500 PPM is about the best we can hope for.
↧
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by David Wojick
Having a direction and giving directions are two very different things, Arch. I assume you are merely trying to be witty. But the difference between having a goal and having direction can be significant.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Victor Venema
I must conclude that a discussion with David Springer is futile. For the other readers two examples that require little background:
David Springer: "<i>You are talking about things out of pure ignorance. The temperature sensor on radiosondes are kept dry by design. Evaporative cooling doesn’t effect them. Ventilation isn’t a problem at altitude either. Horizontal winds take care of that. As a user these are things you should know. So you’re either dishonest or incompetent. I’d guess some of both.</i>"
The balloon drifts with the wind. That is why the position of the balloon can be used to determine the wind. As a consequence the winds do not take care of the ventilation because there is no net wind. Fortunately the radiosonde swings below the balloon and turbulence may provide some ventilation. Unfortunately icing may limit ventilation again.
I do not know how David Springer wants to avoid the radiosonde getting wet in clouds and having an evaporation error when the radiosonde comes out of the cloud with a strong tropical sun coming from above and below.
<a href="http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/reports/2003-2007/RSO-IC-2005_Final_Report.pdf" rel="nofollow">The right panel of Figure 9.5 of this WMO report shows up to 5°C differences between wet radiosondes when they rise above the cloud top.</a>
<i>The Vaisala sensor had a hydrophobic coating and Vaisala measurements were clearly not affected as badly as the other radiosonde types on emerging from cloud. The heavy rain that occurred from time to time in Mauritius induced faults in certain types of radiosonde, suggesting that some of the radiosonde types had not been thoroughly tested in wet conditions. Radiosonde systems need to be tested for tropical rain conditions and manufacturers should consider whether the application of a hydrophobic coating to the temperature sensor would improve measurement accuracy in these conditions. </i>
As Willard would say: I thank you for your concerns.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by mwgrant
Agreed. They should not be confused
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by -1=e^iπ
@oldfossil – That is true. Even for things like: more consumption is good, killing is wrong, one should not commit suicide, you can find a person that disagrees. However, you can look at the average preferences for humans and you might be able to come up with some moral principles that most people agree with. Most people agree that everyone should be equal under the law, for example.
↧
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by Arch Stanton
Space Race, War on Drugs, War on Terror…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggernaut
Mankind has a love affair with the ‘press’.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by David Wojick
Grant: Normally a goal is a specific end state while a direction is not. Making more money is a direction while making X more dollars is a goal. World peace is a goal while reducing conflicts a direction. Either that or there is no difference and we do not disagree. Your initial comment was cryptic in this regard.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by freeHat
How about not trying to plan several decades in the future-pointless.
Society can mobilize quickly just fine without putting guesswork inside complex equations.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by -1=e^iπ
@ ordvic – But you have to demonstrate that ‘fixing it’ is desirable. What is your moral basis for ‘fixing it’ being desirable for society?
↧
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by Mike Jonas
“An individual may care about more than just their total consumption over their lifetime; they may care about the timing of that consumption. Humans tend to have a preference for present consumption over future consumption and tend to want to smooth consumption over time. [..] the utility of a dead individual is zero”.
So the best policy is to aim for economic growth and improved life expectancy. Access to cheap plentiful energy is crucial for both. Most western governments are aiming for the exact opposite, by attacking the cheapest sources of energy and encouraging expensive and inefficient sources.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by David Wojick
Individual human reasoning is very complex. The multi-group reasoning that creates public policy is orders of magnitude more so. The idea that this reasoning can be reduced to a simple maximization algorithm is metaphorical best, more likely misleading. It hinders understanding.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by popesclimatetheory
MW show me a model of Climate that does work right and can reproduce the climate of the past ten thousand years. Short term correlation does not prove that anything works.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by -1=e^iπ
@ Hutchins – If you want to argue that the utility function should take into account more factors than just consumption, such as freedom, then that is fine. With respect to Bentham defining utility as happiness, it has issues and there are other forms of utilitarianism. Preference utilitarianism is arguably a better way to approach determining the utility function than classical utilitarianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_utilitarianism
↧
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by popesclimatetheory
There is no good reason to repeat 13000 words that are available in another link. That is not your fault, that is to your credit.
It takes a long time to scroll down 13000 words on the browsers in some our mobile apps.
It is much better when you already picked out the related stuff.
Thanks!
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by -1=e^iπ
@ David Wojick – I doubt most policy decisions are made based on some social welfare function. More likely, politicians are making decisions based on subjective feelings.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by edbarbar
“PHIL 200 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC (3)
Minimum of 48 lecture hours plus 16 lab hours by arrangement/semester. Recommended: Eligibility for ENGL 100 or equivalent; and eligibility for MATH 120 or equivalent.
An introduction to symbolic logic with an emphasis on proof systems for propositional and predicate logic
Those guys thought they had proved it. Unfortunately, that was pre-internet, and its so obviously wrong today I can’t find it. In any event, yes, nothing can be “proven.” Even in mathematics, it is not known whether number theory is consistent or not. Just so far no two contradictory theorems have developed, so it looks good.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
