tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post3256205790153544331..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: The costs of uncertaintyJames Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-3076624207722964582012-06-19T11:13:49.263+01:002012-06-19T11:13:49.263+01:00Human decision-making isn't rational. It may b...Human decision-making isn't rational. It may be easier and cheaper to fix things if it's agreed there's a high sensitivity than if there's a low one. Extreme crises (e.g. wars) usually make it easier to push through extreme social changes. <br /><br />Supposing very strong evidence of a 5 degree sensitivity emerged tomorrow. My guess is that almost everyone would get behind a rapid transition to nuclear power in virtually all industrial countries. Even in post-Fukushima Japan, people might accept nuclear - with its attendant risks - if the alternative is imminent extreme climate change.<br /><br />With lower sensitivity there's more room for argument. There are - or there seem to be - more options. People talk about investing in green technologies we haven't invented yet, and suggest plans based on the assumption that these technologies will of course work and be economic. That feels like the energy policy equivalent of climate skepticism (i.e. the belief that climate sensitivity is very low). <br /><br />The bottom line is this: the hydrocarbons of the industrial revolution finally enabled humans to escape the Malthusian Trap. If we're going to stop using them and not return to Malthusian scarcity, we need replacements with comparable or better energy density. Unfortunately, many people who correctly oppose global warming denial also engage in energy density denial.georgesdelatourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03548858896924613970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-21384853032962504862012-06-18T21:43:17.147+01:002012-06-18T21:43:17.147+01:00James,
More than 15 posts were deleted from a dis...James,<br /><br />More than 15 posts were deleted from a discussion between me and Ben Pile and between Ben Pile and whom we could consider his sidekick. Only another commenter contributed a comment, to introduce the appeal to ignorance.<br /><br />In fact, the comment about "simple mediocrity" of the latest comment in the thread related to a discussion about comments that were written before that. <br /><br />Mr. Pile was wise enough to delete all his comments refering to me. His badhominems, however satisfying were they in the heath of the moment, would not have impressed the historians and the philosophers looking to ponder on the legacy of the climate resisters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-18464669144432791162012-06-18T14:02:21.682+01:002012-06-18T14:02:21.682+01:00willard, is it just your comments that went, or wh...willard, is it just your comments that went, or what? I haven't had much time to keep up over the last few days.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-28277555443399942542012-06-17T06:19:41.840+01:002012-06-17T06:19:41.840+01:00By the way Frontier, the thread you guys keep losi...By the way Frontier, the thread you guys keep losing is that "Since uncertainty costs money, there is no benefit to the skeptic/incredulous or ignorant mind to argue that there is more uncertainty than actually exists."<br /><br />On the other hand, when you see an activist fanning the flame of uncertainty (it's pretty common to see them argue the uncertainty in climate sensitivity is larger than being reported) they are doing so because they are sensible enough to understand this greater uncertainty works on the behalf of their rhetoric.Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-37131367031221431732012-06-17T03:50:53.937+01:002012-06-17T03:50:53.937+01:00Well, now that's interesting.
Here's what...Well, now that's interesting.<br /><br />Here's what Ben Pile promised:<br /><br />> You can go away, and you [sic.] posts will remain.<br /><br />http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/25231421098<br /><br />I did go away. All the thread after my first comment has been deleted. <br /><br />At Judy's, WebHubTelescope recalled an interesting conversation at the Oil Drum:<br /><br />http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9212<br /><br />Following is appearance there, Ben Pile tweeted:<br /><br />> And so, inevitably, @TheOilDrum removes my comments. Intellectual cowardice is not running out, even if the oil might be.<br /><br />The uncertainty of Ben Pile's assertion seems to have dropped down a bit. <br /><br />By chance I keep copies. I could repost the interesting bits of our exchange, if you're interested, James. For instance, there is an intriguing argument from ignorance that emerges at the end:<br /><br />> [What if the “expected costs of adaptation and mitigation” are utterly wrong] is the important point, and one which you know (but our assailant [yours truly] doesn’t seem to have bothered trying to understand) is explored often here.<br /><br />http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/06/reinventing-precaution.html#comment-65131<br /><br />Appealing to ignorance is not skepticism. We need another distinction than incredibilism.<br /><br />What if we did improve the world for nothing? What if nothing exists? What if only the comments that Ben Pile deleted exist?<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />willardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-4302672040886163402012-06-16T16:48:35.299+01:002012-06-16T16:48:35.299+01:00Frontiers, the effect of uncertainty on cost has n...Frontiers, the effect of uncertainty on cost has nothing to do with CAGW, other than as an application.<br /><br />Uncertain has costs associated with it. <br /><br />There are even textbooks on the topic. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Probability-Methods-Cost-Uncertainty-Analysis/dp/0824789660" rel="nofollow">This one never even mentions global warming.</a><br /><br />Grapple with that, the come back about defenses of climate extremism if you wish.Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-56473277095348606412012-06-16T11:59:55.986+01:002012-06-16T11:59:55.986+01:00This latest defense of AGW extremism- that those w...This latest defense of AGW extremism- that those who point out how uncertain it is are somehow wrong. And that uncertainty drives decisive expensive action like those demanded by the AGW community is a silly defense.<br />It is the unwarranted certainty of AGW believers that is the real problem. It is unwarranted certainty that has driven stupid ideas like massive subsidies for windmill and solar power. It is unwarranted certainty of doom that has scared people worldwide with stories of AGW. It is unwarranted certainty in AGW predictions which has led people to ignore evidence that in fact the climate is not doing anything dramatic or dangerous.Frontiers of Faith and Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00095611649863210737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-759950735528005292012-06-15T15:55:46.655+01:002012-06-15T15:55:46.655+01:00Geoff,
Thank you for your last comment. And I me...Geoff,<br /><br />Thank you for your last comment. And I mean it. As I did the last times I told you.<br /><br />On the Internet, I try to mean what I say. We do not have all the cues we have when we have faces and gestures and voice. I do not always succeed, but I do try to make sure the conversation gets going anyway.<br /><br />I do acknowledge that your reaction is natural: there's so much non-conversations going on on blogs to dispute that fact. More so that now you are telling me that you feel victimized by the expression "appeal to incredulity". I am truly sorry you feel that way.<br /><br />I do not know any other way to express what I see what I <b>read</b> so much disbelief. I try not to read into others' mind. I did not meant it any other way that the usual way in argumentation theory. That's the effect that your sarcasms have on me.<br /><br />Please consider that you're here asking why people can't understand Ben Pile, when he himself editorialize so much about the rationality of environmentalists and when you deride the seriousness by which formal guys consider what you say is a platitude.<br /><br />Both James and you agree about that. Both James and you disagree about what this implies. <br /><br />This conversation would benefit from sticking to that single point.<br /><br />But I do accept your offer to leave it at that. <br /><br />Thank you for making me realize the distinction between incredulity and skepticism. I never thought about it this way. Even if it only applied to tone and manners, it's an important discovery for me.<br /><br />Please consider that James is almost welcoming 5C: so he might not be as tainted as other irrational enviros...<br /><br />Goodbye,<br /><br />willardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-49448017335071824302012-06-15T15:25:43.116+01:002012-06-15T15:25:43.116+01:00neverending
The first question of mine was rhetor...neverending <br />The first question of mine was rhetorical, a result of being insulted by Annan. The second was an ironical observation on the mode of reasoning favoured here. The third wasn’t a question, but an attempt to correct the prevalent assumption that the critics of Landowsky can’t understand statistics... and so on<br /><br />And on and on and on. All to attempt to prove that a commenter on a blog that criticised an Australian psychologist who had wandered into the realms of statistical musings on mitigation (a blog that had been much praised by J Curry, I’ve just discovered) is arguing from incredulity.<br /><br />It’s incredible.<br /><br />I can’t believe that someone of your obvious intelligence and erudition can waste their time tryng to analyse the psychological sources of my disbelief. I came here to discuss Landowsky. You want to talk about my incredulity.<br />A few hours ago you said: “While I readily concede that precisely refuting this pile of angered talking points takes time, it is by no means impossible to do” as if you were prepared to keep up your Socratic sniping for ever. Now you ask me: “what the hell do you think you're doing here?”<br />Hand-wrestling with a hagfish in a lunatic aquarium. <br /><br />Shall we just leave it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-48839620223782606612012-06-15T13:47:41.247+01:002012-06-15T13:47:41.247+01:00geoffchambers,
Here's the first question you ...geoffchambers,<br /><br />Here's the first question you ask on this thread:<br /><br />> TomFP was making a interesting point about primate behaviour. What are you doing? <br /><br />Here's the second question you ask:<br /><br />> Do commenters here really believe that formulating statements about climate change in terms of T and T+t and dt adds information ? To normal human beings it looks like theologians arguing in Latin in order to impress the mathematically challenged masses. It’s not working, is it? <br /><br />Here's the third:<br /><br />> Your dismissal of Ben’s critique of Landowsky and of the comments which follow rests on the assumption that Ben (and we in the peanut gallery) can’t follow such advanced mathematical reasoning. This assumption is wrong. We’re not challenging your equation, or your point about the average of T+t and T-t being greater than T for a concave function. We do wonder - at great length - why you do it.<br /><br />Does this sound like scepticism as portrayed in #6?<br /><br />I believe this simply shows incredulity toward people who take seriously a formal argument, and take the time to explain it.<br /><br />This incredulity is expressed here:<br /><br />> Some think the algebra is a cover for a secret plan for world domination; others think you’ve found the formula to turn base modelling into gold; others that you’re just deluded practitioners of post-modern numerology. <br /><br />How to came up with a statement like:<br /><br />> [L's] argument is logically false and incoherent.<br /><br />without challenging the premises or the inference of the argument is left as an exercice to the reader.<br /><br />***<br /><br />These questions have nothing to do with the argument. Reading back the thread, I find back that your first argument against the argument itself is the thought experiment I mentioned in my first comment here. Please recall your first reaction:<br /><br />> didn’t “appeal to any thought experiment”.<br /><br />After I showed you where we can read this thought experiment, you finally conceded that I can read. This was progress, and interesting considering the first questions you asked on the thread, and more so the editorial comments at the end of your latest comment about how it sucks when people who disagree with you look irrational.<br /><br />You then followed with your interpretation of L's argument:<br /><br />> Since his first argument about fat tails and “we expect it to be worse than we expect it to be” is based on a logical absurdity, all the rest of the argument here about concave cost functions is irrelevant.<br /><br />I do believe that this argues from incredulity: it rewords L's argument in the most absurd way and then asks who on earth can seriously believe that.<br /><br />Please recall the conclusion about your bra thought experiment:<br /><br />> As a lifestyle choice it has its attractions. So does catastrophe-based environmentalism. As an example of rational thought, it stinks.<br /><br />Again the incredulity, and again an editorial comment about rationality.<br /><br />Now, could you really consider that it *does* look like you're arguing from incredulity?<br /><br />***<br /><br />I'm sorry I did not get your irony mark. I really thought you knew what you were writing. Perhaps we could then ask your question: what the hell do you think you're doing here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-66660633145860436012012-06-15T11:08:36.991+01:002012-06-15T11:08:36.991+01:00TLITB, there's no need to necessarily express ...TLITB, there's no need to necessarily express things in terms of some theoretical far distant equilibrium state. The argument applies just the same to shorter term changes: let's say we expect a warming of 0.2C/decade over the next 3 decades. This outcome would incur a particular cost (not excluding the possibility that it is a a "negative cost", ie net benefit). If instead we have uncertainty such the warming might be 0.15 or 0.25, then this uncertainty will increase the expected cost.<br /><br />Lots of economic analysis also considers the "wait and see" option, and all of it that I'm aware of finds that it's better to take some action now. Here's one that comes to mind:<br /><br />http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5695/416.summaryJames Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-47603833395890855612012-06-15T08:11:10.253+01:002012-06-15T08:11:10.253+01:00neverendingaudit
Pretending to believe that my a...neverendingaudit <br />Pretending to believe that my argument is entirely based on my emotional reaction wont work. Here is our previous exchange:<br /><br />neverendingaudit: “...consider the fact that what you're saying so far sounds a lot like an appeal to incredulity”. <br />Me: “YES! That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying! (though some call it scepticism). <br />Seriously, [...]”<br /><br />It’s pretty clear I think that the bit with the capital letters and exclamation marks just before the word “Seriously” wasn’t meant seriously. You pretend to think it is. The only possible reaction I can have to such a tactic is anger, irony, derision etc. This will confirm you in your conviction that your opponents’ arguments are emotional. You win. <br /><br />And you think that’s clever. <br /><br />You then call Landowsky’s disagreement with the conventional wisdom “a clash of intuitions”, accuse Ben of basing his argument on anger, and, out of nowhere, bring in the “argument from ignorance”.<br /><br />Why not just come out and say it? Everyone who disagrees with you is irrational, motivated by one or other of the seven deadly sins, and probably possessed by the Devil. Is this some kind of exorcism?<br /><br />Your characterisation of “true” scepticism (point 6) describes <i>exactly </i>what I have been doing in the thread above. I have asked on what basis Landowsky’s proposition is asserted, questioned the choice of assumptions, and asked how the conclusions follow from the assumptions. I’ve also asked for some clarification of part of the argument (though nobody has replied).Your turning the comparison between incredulity and scepticism into an incomprehensible alphabet soup serves only to obscure your own argument.<br /><br />You haven’t begun to answer my criticisms of Landowsky.<br /><br />I was fascinated by this exchange above in the thread:<br /><br />TLITB said...<br />Lewandowsky concludes: “There is only one way to escape that uncertainty: Mitigation. Now”<br />Steve Bloom said...<br />TLITB, Ben Santer has noted that a good analogy here is beating up little old ladies. We'll have done enough to mitigate when the mitigation is complete.<br /><br />Ben Santer’s known propensity for fantasising about meeting people in dark alleys and beating the crap out of them led me astray for a moment. I really thought that Santer and Bloom think that mitigation is like beating up old ladies, and that you have to go on doing it until it’s done. <br />Is he trying to say that emitting CO2 is like beating up old ladies, and we have to go on cutting emissions until there’s none left? Have I got that right? Is that what passes for a nice knock-down argument here in Wonderland?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-40958517812909740512012-06-15T07:47:10.234+01:002012-06-15T07:47:10.234+01:00BTW My last comment was a response to James Annan ...BTW My last comment was a response to James Annan at 15/6/12 8:19 AMTLITBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07639419243076322855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-34220248092891674422012-06-15T07:38:11.248+01:002012-06-15T07:38:11.248+01:00“A 4C rise (if the sensitivity is really 4C) will ...“A 4C rise (if the sensitivity is really 4C) will only appear many years *after* doubling of CO2, due to the thermal capacity of the system”<br /><br />Thanks for the response.<br /><br />I know there was some revision of the 5 degree figure and it was later considered too conservative a cut-off for being "catastrophic", but even so, when we talk of doubling aren't we required to add in the temp rise already experienced since the pre-industrial period - that’s why I used 4 degrees assuming we had already observed travelling about 1 degree down the road.<br /><br />I admit I had assumed this was referring to an affect that was observable in corresponding time. Now you mentioning that time *afterwards* is to be considered I wonder how that changes the considerations in the mathematical exercise, for instance, I know of Carl Wunsch the ocean guy, and that he talks of centuries before heat is cycled – that’s the only place I think heat can be hidden, in the oceans.<br /><br />But that is a side point - I guess my main point is that the exercise by Lewandowsky, whilst it could be considered interesting in helping grounding the requirement for engendering alarm in the minds of people not pre-disposed to it currently, suffers from not being something static that can be considered cast in stone to be used as a permanent benchmark. <br /><br />I admit to following the thought process only so far before I realise my motivation is diminished by my overwhelming feeling of the limitation of its application to reality. It seemed that the math can only be observed not applied. So when I cut to the end of the study and see Lewandowsky concludes: <br /><br />“There is only one way to escape that uncertainty: Mitigation. Now”<br /><br />I then respond and think; well that's not going to happen is it?<br /><br />Just considering the usual suspects in the developing world who are not plugged into the discussion at this abstract level who will be outweighing mitigation for at least (here I pluck a figure out of the air) - a decade. We can't help the super tanker stop for at least a decade before we can start the process of mitigation and so then we will have almost certainly moved 10 years beyond Lewandowsky’s "Now". So at least we must have different information about the PDF by then.<br /><br />I think whether anyone likes it or not the whole math exercise here can only have use as a “wait and see” and not really a promotional tool for a “start and do”.TLITBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07639419243076322855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-80289088356754102212012-06-15T05:37:09.120+01:002012-06-15T05:37:09.120+01:00Sure, Willard, but by then the recipient is pretty...Sure, Willard, but by then the recipient is pretty much guaranteed to not be listening.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-44375943058148269372012-06-15T03:03:22.655+01:002012-06-15T03:03:22.655+01:00Tom Fiddaman,
I understand why you say:
> Bec...Tom Fiddaman,<br /><br />I understand why you say:<br /><br />> Because he lacks a model, Pile can say all kinds of internally inconsistent things, and make attributions about Lewandowsky, which cannot be precisely refuted. <br /><br />but I believe that's false. Take for instance:<br /><br />> All other things being equal, things are the same, no matter no matter what we think about them, or how certain we are about what we think about them. <br /><br />Summoning Bishop Butler's "Every thing is what it is, and not another thing" with the addition of a ceteris paribus clause ("all things being equal") and introducing the always interesting concept of sameness lead to interesting ontological quandaries.<br /><br />There is also this interesting analysis:<br /><br />> This part of the sentence puts the degree of uncertainty into a necessary (i.e. it cannot be otherwise) relationship with what we have anticipated, and the outcome of events. The condition of uncertainty itself multiplies the anticipated result, to yield an impact of greater magnitude. This is an absurd claim, because the condition of uncertainty has no bearing on things.<br /><br />Pile reads necessity in a very strong sense, i.e. metaphysically, and then finds out that it makes no sense. <br /><br />These examples should show that Ben Pile is recycling the Chewbacca defense, as explained by WebHubTelescope over there:<br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2012/05/26/doubt-has-been-eliminated/#comment-204076<br /><br />While I readily concede that precisely refuting this pile of angered talking points takes time, it is by no means impossible to do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-39254782702359352592012-06-15T00:19:51.909+01:002012-06-15T00:19:51.909+01:00TLITB, we might reasonably expect uncertainty (at ...TLITB, we might reasonably expect uncertainty (at least regarding the global mean change) to decrease gently over the coming years/decades. There's little prospect of a rapid breakthrough, and global mean is only one aspect of the change anyway.<br /><br />A 4C rise (if the sensitivity is really 4C) will only appear many years *after* doubling of CO2, due to the thermal capacity of the system.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-81949283276036418312012-06-14T15:08:49.082+01:002012-06-14T15:08:49.082+01:00Geoff,
Thank you for your openness.
Since you ar...Geoff,<br /><br />Thank you for your openness.<br /><br />Since you are arguing from incredulity, here is a proposal to reconcile your position with J's this way:<br /><br />1. You do not need to directly argue against L's argument. All you need is to claim that L's conclusion is incredible. In that case, all you need to hold is that L's conclusion is so incredible that something must be wrong with the argument. I believe that you are hinting at the gap between knowledge and reality.<br /><br />2. You do not need to underline that L's argument is not pure maths. Looking at L's argument shows this is obvious. The two premises are: (1) a convex function borrowed from economics and (2) a data model based on climate projections. These are quasi-empirical premises: the first is a conventional, the second is simulational. The math lies in the application of the function to the model, which L claims is simple. <br /><br />3. Here L questions the intuition according to which "we shouldn't take actions which have a high severity the other way”, as some political talking head said, if we believe L's report. L basically claims that, taken at face value, this intuition makes no mathematical sense.<br /><br />4. I believe we can concede that L is perhaps going a bit too far in his evaluation of his argument. But that does not touch his basic point. This basic point seems to agree with his own intuition about decision under uncertainty.<br /><br />5. So far we mainly have a clash of intuitions.<br /><br />Pile's argument seems to amount to say that L's intuition rests on the precautionary principle. His argument against the PP amounts to say that the principle does not apply to itself. This reflexivity argument is an old tack in philosophy: if it was that strong, relativity theory would be incoherent, since relativity can't apply to itself. And that's notwithstanding the fact that if you hold PP, you don't even need L's argument!<br /><br />Please think about that. Ben's argument is a pile of angered talking points.<br /><br />6. Skepticism looks a lot like arguing from incredulity. But an important difference is that skepticism is an overall principle which guides our epistemic practices, while arguing from ignorance is, well, an <b>argument</b>.<br /><br />Here's another way to illustrate the difference:<br /><br />L claims that P. G claims that P is incredible: G can't believe that P. Therefore G concludes that P can't be true, plausible, the result of some formal sleight of hand, or whatnot.<br /><br />Contrast this with:<br /><br />L claims that P. G asks on what basis is P asserted. L offers an argument: a conclusion C following some assumptions A. G can question the choices of A. G can ask if the conclusion follows from A. Or G can simply ask how to interpret C.<br /><br />In the first instance, we have an incredulous chap who simply can't believe anything his interlocutor says.<br /><br />In the second instance, we have a skeptical chap who forces his interlocutor to come up with the best argument the exchange can produce.<br /><br />Which process do you prefer?<br /><br />Incredulity arguments generally lack credibility, because they have the curious tendency to be backed up by other arguments from incredulity. <br /><br />7. Even if the incredulity is justified, an argument stays on the table as long as it's not replaced by a better one. Therefore, we need another quasi-empirical counter-argument. <br /><br />8. To return to your bra example, I would personally dislike more risks, unless I can make sure that enough people like you will take care of the right side of the distribution.<br /><br />I hope I am not teaching you anything here, except perhaps for #8.<br /><br />Bye,<br /><br />willardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-66869109110351411572012-06-14T07:57:38.732+01:002012-06-14T07:57:38.732+01:00Steve Bloom said...
"We'll have done enou...Steve Bloom said...<br />"We'll have done enough to mitigate when the mitigation is complete."<br /><br />It is impossible to argue against that.<br /><br />Don't worry I am not arguing against mitigation, but I can hardly ignore that no matter how rigorous the math, it isn't always a sure driver of policy; (I am not saying Lewandowsky says it is either). Sometimes we have to just use math as an observational tool. So my question about observation feeding back in to the certainty, or lack of it, discussed by Lewandowsky remains.<br />The premise of uncertainty heightening the demand for certain actions has to be limited by relevant information becoming available doesn’t it? Surely we can all agree that a 4 degree increase is not going to appear only at the last year before doubling?TLITBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07639419243076322855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-26463764517674091562012-06-14T07:38:22.596+01:002012-06-14T07:38:22.596+01:00TLITB, Ben Santer has noted that a good analogy he...TLITB, Ben Santer has noted that a good analogy here is beating up little old ladies. We'll have done enough to mitigate when the mitigation is complete. Note that we're already committed to plenty of adaptation along the way.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-84593217646504367202012-06-14T07:23:29.741+01:002012-06-14T07:23:29.741+01:00Lewandowsky concludes: “There is only one way to e...Lewandowsky concludes: “There is only one way to escape that uncertainty: Mitigation. Now”<br /><br />Does anyone have an idea how long this categorical recommendation will hold for? Is there a number for the years elapsed after this recommendation before observations start to set the expected value for doubling with more certainty and this statement could be revised?TLITBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07639419243076322855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-46220457540903360312012-06-13T23:23:36.025+01:002012-06-13T23:23:36.025+01:00Geoff, the 'things are more likely to be worse...Geoff, the 'things are more likely to be worse, rather than better, than expected' was drawn from the first figure in the first article, not the four Monte Carlos. Like much in the series, it's clumsily worded but the underlying message isn't controversial - indeed it's pretty much tautological. What he means is that with a fat-tailed distribution the actual value is more likely to be greater than the mode than smaller than the mode (the most likely single value). That could almost work as a definition of a fat-tailed distribution, so he's just saying that skewness is skewness.<br /><br />Are estimates of climate sensitivity fat-tailed? It seems so.<br /><br />So is his statement correct? Yes - although not if, as so many insist, he was using the mathematical meaning of 'expectation' (the mean). But he wasn't. In this instance, 'expectation' meant the mode.Vinny Burgoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13830703358571312302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-24627027548067570932012-06-13T22:54:00.334+01:002012-06-13T22:54:00.334+01:00Steve Bloom
You misquote me. I didn’t say: “"...Steve Bloom<br />You misquote me. I didn’t say: “"So you now no longer know whether doubling CO2 makes temperatures go up or down." I said (in reply to James): “If you don’t use a skewed distribution, and hold the mean at 3°C, increasing uncertainty means you get a fat tail at both ends. So you now no longer know whether doubling CO2 makes temperatures go up or down.”<br />Not the same thing at all.<br />This kind of argument is boring boring boring. Most of us grew out of it in High School. Some of us (most of the commenters here I imagine) went on to PhDs and successful scientific careers. Others, like me, (I haven’t opened a maths book for fifty years) just shake our heads and wonder what’s the point of it all. <br />No need to “dissect my claim” about the IPCC and overall negative feedback. Just go and look.<br /><br />neverendingaudit <br />“...consider the fact that what you're saying so far sounds a lot like an appeal to incredulity”. <br />YES! That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying! (though some call it scepticism)<br /><br />Seriously, there’s something I don’t understand. I’m not sure why Landowsky’s “uncertainty” graphs can’t leak off to the left as they leak off to the right. It’s pure ignorance on my part, and I’d appreciate some enlightenment . Is it a function of his lognormal distributions? Or is it an empirically derived assumption from the original Roe and Baker climate sensitivity graph? Or has he just arbitrarily decided that sensitivity can’t descend below a certain value? I’d really appreciate some expert advice on that point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-84369454540332420022012-06-13T21:52:48.855+01:002012-06-13T21:52:48.855+01:00Geoff,
Thank you for your response.
I'll tak...Geoff,<br /><br />Thank you for your response.<br /><br />I'll take a peek later, more so that I notice that your example about women breasts might help me understand your position.<br /><br />But please do consider the fact that what you're saying so far sounds a lot like an appeal to incredulity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-4687560585898022242012-06-13T21:50:12.877+01:002012-06-13T21:50:12.877+01:00So first he says: "So you now no longer know...So first he says: "So you now no longer know whether doubling CO2 makes temperatures go up or down."<br /><br />I objected, saying we do know that.<br /><br />Then he says in response: "(T)he IPCC envisages the possibility of feedbacks to CO2 warming being negative overall."<br /><br />Oops. Sloppy, sloppy.<br /><br />With someone else, it might be worth dissecting the second claim, but not this guy.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.com