Pete,
Interesting. These experiences with historical evaluations of success and failure are excellent. Thank you.
Pete,
Interesting. These experiences with historical evaluations of success and failure are excellent. Thank you.
r u certain of that?
I’ll reiterate what I said in an earlier comment. I don’t remember what I did or whether I actually saw this (maybe I’m confusing a memory and a dream). But, I seem to recall looking at volcanic activity once and seeing one period where there were almost no major volcanic eruptions (VEI 4+) and an increase in VEI 3 eruptions for a significant period which I think coincided with the maunder minimum/LIA.
Yes, that’s a very interesting point, one which I’ve pondered for a long time
My (tentative) conclusion ? We are hard-wired for free-floating guilt through evolutionary selection. The advantage of this seems to be a way of ensuring some sort of social coherence. Those relatively few who don’t share this trait are described as “beyond the pale” (ie. tossed out from the collective protection of the tribe)
Certainly, the power of free-floating guilt is undeniable. It has been constantly and easily exploited by politicians/priests for about 4 million years. If one carefully observes an active chimp colony for 30 minutes or so, the force of guilt as a control agent becomes apparent – so it seems to be a basic primate trait, not just homo sapiens
Manipulation of this trait is easily seen in activist climate change propaganda. Think of the grandchildren, don’t you care about the polar bears, you’re trashing the planet, you only think of your own sinful comfort … on and on
Pete, thanks for sharing the experience.
You say “The problem, however is not necessarily a reflection of cognitive bias…” Not cognitive bias in the estimation process, perhaps; but a behavioral game theorist would call the winner’s curse ‘portion’ of the firm’s problem a cognitive bias in strategic reasoning (because it is a failure to appropriately condition likely value on the event ‘I have won the auction’). I don’t know the extent to which the petroleum engineer is involved in the preparation of bids; if it is ‘not at all’ then they are not responsible at all for the winner’s curse portion of any loss to the firm.
I would think that, in practice, it would be hard for a firm to parcel out responsibility for a bad result (was it the estimates from the engineers, or poor ‘curse-prone’ bidding on the part of the managers, or some mix of both) which, in turn, would make it that much more difficult to ‘de-bias’ your own estimation behavior on the basis of experience.
This has got to be one of the trickiest economic decision environments on the planet, that’s for dang sure.
Thanks for responding Pete. The climate debate shows bias on both sides of the AGW hypothesis but I agree that this is more problematic with the warmists.
Your mention of Jonathan Haight’s work is most interesting I have not as yet read any of books or articles. Your description reminds me of Richard Dawkins and his suggestion that this type of behaviour is part of human’s genetic makeup and the way our environment has been permeated by this.
Humans certainly seem to be quick to make decisions (too quick IMO) and very slow to admit any errors of judgment in the wake of such decisions.
Using the logic of the PNAS article, given confirmation and disconfirmation biases that underlie motivated reasoning, the length of the hiatus, has given way to the fact of the hiatus, which is now being transformed into the weight to be given the fact of the hiatus, according to what does and does not support existing viewpoints. In other words, the scientific method is deader’n’a’doornail!
529 according to Amazon, in recommended font. Do not dispair. Lots of pictures make the book file size large and page count very deceptive. The essays are to be sipped and savored, like wine. Not read through all at once. Regards, Brandon.
Moderator
I’m just wondering why you delete my replies to other commenters here, because this form of censorship is hardly scientific. JimD, for example, writes a lot of garbage which cannot be supported by valid physics and, in that he attacks what I say, it would seem I should have right of reply so that your readers are not misled by even more incorrect science.
Maybe you could answer how you think water vapour can jack up the surface temperature and at the same time reduce the magnitude of the temperature gradient and somehow maintain radiative balance. Or tell me why empirical data proves water vapour cools, as I have explained with correct physics.
There’s a dedicated thread on The Air Vent where my comments stick and no one has successfully argued against them, not even Jeff Condon himself. I guess your readers could go over there to debate me if you keep deleting my responses here.
PS I keep screen captures of deleted comments and these will appear next year on a new website I’ll be promoting.
No you don’t get 255K because it is the greenhouse gas water vapour which creates clouds – in case you didn’t remember that spanner in the works.
I’m a skeptic and libertarian, and I’ve bought about 15 LED bulbs. Two of the $7 died within a few months. Another smaller one over the vanity went to half powers for some reason. So, I’m sure Marshall will blame this on my politics, but I don’t believe I’ll be getting any more expensive LED bulbs until I can be sure I get the promised 25 years.
And frankly, if anyone want me to read a book about how stupid I am, they will have to comp me one, even if it’s the electronic version. If someone does that, I’ll read it on Dr. Curry’s recommendation.
Otherwise, I’ll just have to live my stupid life with my political, not scientific, motivations. Right.
repetitive and long and incorrect. Yes let people go to Air Vent or your own blog to discuss
So is the impending takeover of us by our UFO overlords.
Yes well put some of that most prolific of all GH gases, water vapour, in the gap between double glazed windows and note how it reduces the insulating effect, just as it does in the troposphere as it helps thermal energy escape upwards in the troposphere far faster than it can by convection.
We would alternately fry and freeze – assuming no ocean and concomitant water vapor.
From the article:
The moon has a very thin atmosphere, so a layer of dust — or a footprint — can sit undisturbed for centuries. And without much of an atmosphere, heat is not held near the planet, so temperatures vary wildly. Daytime temperatures on the sunny side of the moon reach 273 degrees F (134 C); on the dark side it gets as cold as minus 243 F (minus 153 C).
http://www.space.com/55-earths-moon-formation-composition-and-orbit.html
i replied before but there’s censorship evident on this climate blog as much as there is on SkS. That really downgrades JC’s blog IMHO and I’ll make a feature of the censorship on my new website next year.
tonyb, CET is a great example of why volcanic forcing is such a PITA. You would only “see” a radiant forcing impact in the summer months and there is no consistent “sensitivity” because so much of the climate is ocean/amo drive. At least with just the summer months there are fewer temperature leads volcano situations. Then in the later summer/early winter you can actually get warming instead of cooling depending on how the ash impacts snow and sea ice albedo. Even then some ash can actually insulate glaciers.
Tony
Thought the baubles are safe in the Tower of London.
Richard
I am reading Rud’s new book (great stuff here) along with The Undocumented Mark Steyn (supporting the lawsuit and really enjoying the book) and Pascal Bruckner’s The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse (Donna LaFramboise recommendation………not an easy read). I plan to add Pielke Jr’s book when available on Kindle.
“Research shows that among people who think the world is fair, apocalyptic messages reduce belief in climate change, because climate catastrophe seems so unjust.”
So something or someone with the vague tag “research” has been push-polling for useless data using terms sufficiently diffuse and subjective as to be pointless when not meaningless. And they were paid to do it? And George Marshall or the WaPo gets around to not just reading but actually quoting this slop?
“And they should develop a language of forgiveness, so people can deal with their green guilt rather than turn to denial. ”
The above was not written in Phnom Penh in 1978, but in this August’s WaPo.
“He visits with fellow environmentalists, with psychologists and policy analysts, and with political opponents — even sharing a few laughs in the lair of 40 Texas tea partyers — to try to understand just why people are so prone to deny or ignore climate change.”
I’ve never met anybody who denies that climate changes. But I haven’t been to any of them thar “lairs” lately.
It’s beyond patronising. It’s matronising.