Global warming

[CapelDodger]

I'll agree with you on one principle, that the solution to global warming needs the input of more than just politicians and climate scientists. We do need to ask the questions, how do we do it and how do we pay for it. Economists and engineers are part of the solution.

There's no shortage of economists to propose grandiose schemes (politicians love those) but there's not many that take account of how many engineers are available. They're not like yards of concrete, after all.

A nephew of mine, a very smart lad, is going into engineering and I'm well pleased. Any parents out there should impress on their offspring that engineers are going to be like gold-dust in coming decades, name your price. Whatever happens there's going to be an infrastructure boom the like of which hasn't been seen since the 60's.

 

[CapelDodger]

Can you make what you are trying to say a bit clearer?

I could dumb-down, but I don't do that.

I probably know what you meant, and assume you are referring to Nordhaus's critique of Stern. By the way, Stern's an idiot. I've never read such a piece of garbage as the Stern Report. Your government should have refused to pay him for that work (except that his conclusions were what they told him they wanted, I presume).

(You'll appreciate by now how little weight your opinion carries.)

Your presumption is paranoid. Pure and simple. Your judgement of the Stern Report wasn't arrived at directly, it was via Nordhaus which was the safe route pointed out to you. You transparently lack the ability to crtique the Stern report, or even understand much of it.

Far from being unremunerated, Stern is going to Bali (may well be there already). Getting back to your paranoia, what is it you find so scary about the UK gummint? Why did they order Stern to produce a coherent and widely convincing report on the economic consequences of AGW that confirmed the AGW consensus and recommended action? Why have they taken him along to Bali? What is the UK gummint's motivation? To get at you?

Why the Bali Conference at all? Because "Stern's an idiot"? You should take care what words you introduce into the general discourse.

To expand on my original comment, it regarded Nordhaus's reference to "today's" interest and discount rates back in May 2007, which will (mark my words) prove to be a cyclical peak and so not representative of the medium-term (measured in decades, not "today"). The fever broke over the summer.

Stern does nothing so idiotic, of course; he bases his discourse on longer-term averages. There's far too much noise for "today" to be fed into a useful equation.

 

[mhaze]

Your presumption is paranoid. Pure and simple. Your judgement of the Stern Report wasn't arrived at directly, it was via Nordhaus which was the safe route pointed out to you. You transparently lack the ability to crtique the Stern report, or even understand much of it.

Nonsense, poorly contrived at that.

Care to summarize the fist 20 pages of Stern?

 

[lenny]

Care to summarize the fist 20 pages of Stern?

happy to, but while i am doing that, can we take up your offer to discuss Armstrong?

back to Armstrong, Are forecasts by scientists scientific forecasts?
numbers in brackets are page numbers to version 69 of the paper.

 

[mhaze]

happy to, but while i am doing that, can we take up your offer to discuss Armstrong?

Well, don't waste your time on Stern.

Sorry for the late reply, I've had a bit of work.

1. Where do you get version 69? I've got several versions, but don't see any such numbering. Send me a link or we could just use the published copy in E&E for reference, then I can reference your quotes directly.

2. Regarding your assertion that Armstrong fails in applying principles that

his "examples" confuse examples of good practice when forecasting physical systems with good practice when forecasting social or economic systems.
​

You appear to be asserting here that the climate models are predictive of physical systems, and that Armstrong fails by applying forecasting that is intended for social or economic systems. Is that right?

Here is the matter as I see it. Yes, the climate models should be models of physical systems. "Should be" is not the issue. Armstrong simply asks, "What's in Chapter 8?"

If you've read the article you understand it's a bit more involved than that - he did a survey and asked people, and was led to Chapter 8 as the authoritative source, then determined Chapter 8 was proper for analysis.

Accordingly, we have to grapple with the logic or lack of in Chapter 8 in making it's case. Armstrong said it was poorly written, as I recall. The following quotes are quite relevant -

We are not suggesting that climate change cannot be forecast, only that this has yet to be demonstrated. We expect that such methods as the naive model with drift, rule-based forecasting, well-specified causal models, and combined forecasts might prove useful. All of these methods are discussed in Armstrong (2001). To our knowledge, none of these methods has been examined to date.
Others are invited to provide audits of Chapter 8 or other studies relating to climate forecasting. Audits should also be done for other studies in an attempt to find climate studies that do not violate evidence-based methods for forecasting.

​

As an example, JREF could use Armstrong's forecasting software to example various issues.......

Note that Armstrong has put out another paper, this time on our ever cherished (At least to Warmers) subject of Polar Bears, and has started digging into the sea level rise issue for a third paper, apparently. These are known areas where seeming bad science / bad forecasts dominate, as may be noted by the often seen quip that if if a AGW believer has trouble in an argument, he tends to "run for the ice and bears" (translating, he goes to a place where nothing can be proven or disproven authoritatively).

 

[mhaze]

I could dumb-down, but I don't do that.
(You'll appreciate by now how little weight your opinion carries.)

Your presumption is paranoid. To expand on my original comment, it regarded Nordhaus's reference to "today's" interest and discount rates back in May 2007, which will (mark my words) prove to be a cyclical peak and so not representative of the medium-term (measured in decades, not "today"). The fever broke over the summer.

Stern does nothing so idiotic, of course; he bases his discourse on longer-term averages. There's far too much noise for "today" to be fed into a useful equation.

And what were those long term discount rates, respectively, for Stern and Nordhaus?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze Are you reading to find little juicy tidbits to cherry pick, or are you trying to understand what he had to say?
​

Gimme a break, and some respect.That is not cherry picking, that is a central theme to that paper.

Originally Posted by Nordhaus
Neither extremes-do nothing or stop global warming in its tracks-are sensible targets today
​

OK, not as chicken littleish as Gore, but something needs to be done.

Originally Posted by Nordhaus
While economic studies in this area are subject to large uncertainties, the best guess in this study is that economic damages from climate change with no interventions will be in the order of 2 1/2 percent of world output by the end of the 21st century
​

Looks pretty expensive to me, why not spend 2 1/2 percent of US GDP now? Pay me now or pay me later.

I certainly do respect you and don't mean to offensive, or on the offense.

Quoting from the section critical of Stern -

"A related feature of the Review's near zero time discount rate is that it puts present decisions on a hair trigger in response to far-future contingencies. Under conventional discounting, contingencies many centuries ahead have a tiny weight in today's decions. Decisions focus on the near future.

the Review would justify reducing per capita consumption for one year today from $10,000 to $4400 in order to prevent a reduction of consumption from $130,000 to $129,870 starting two centuries hence and continuing at that rate forever after."
​

This presumes the efficacy of the action and the certainty of the climate change causation. We don't have

• certainly effective actions
• certainty as to causation.

Suppose there is a 1/3 chance that Biggie Kyoto does the job it was intended to and a 1/3 chance that the problem as believed to exist, actually exists in that shape and form.

The chance of having the expected, useful, "good" outcome is only 1/9.
But this comes at a current day cost, and that current day cost continues and has an effect on the future growth of per capita income.

Is the future per capita income still $129,870-130,000? One would think not, because the investments at the start were considerably lowered, simultaneously with jacked up regulations, restrictions on business and the like.

Perhaps the future income level drops to $87,000. Maybe with more drastic "payments now", that future number is $34,000.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nonsense, poorly contrived at that.

Care to summarize the fist 20 pages of Stern?

Would you care to explain this presumption :

Your government should have refused to pay him for that work (except that his conclusions were what they told him they wanted, I presume).

If Stern's report was rubbish Gordon Brown (then running the Treasury) would have rubbished it, but not so. This leaves us with your presumption that Stern produced what he was ordered to by the (Blair/Brown dominated) British gummint. What can you conjure up as their motivation? Are they out to get you?

Stern's at Bali, is Nordheim? Is McIntyre, the sainted Guru of the Gaps?

 

[CapelDodger]

And what were those long term discount rates, respectively, for Stern and Nordhaus?

Nordhaus's idiocy was to refer to "today's" circumstances, back in May '07 when the wave was cresting and a debt-based property boom was dragging capital out of the financial system. Interest rates remained low because of an insane (in hindsight) focus on short-term profit from medium -term extension of credit. That put all the strain on discount rates, multiplying them enormously - payback-time reduced to a few years. Fine for property development, not so good for nuclear power stations.

It's all unwinding around us, discount rates will fall, and long-term predictable returns will become more attractive.

The Stern Report, on the other hand, hasn't been undermined at all by the recent six-month glitch. Evidence of a firmer foundation, don't you think?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze And what were those long term discount rates, respectively, for Stern and Nordhaus?​

Nordhaus's idiocy was to refer to "today's" circumstances, back in May '07 when the wave was cresting and a debt-based property boom was dragging capital out of the financial system. Interest rates remained low because of an insane (in hindsight) focus on short-term profit from medium -term extension of credit. That put all the strain on discount rates, multiplying them enormously - payback-time reduced to a few years. Fine for property development, not so good for nuclear power stations.

It's all unwinding around us, discount rates will fall, and long-term predictable returns will become more attractive.

The Stern Report, on the other hand, hasn't been undermined at all by the recent six-month glitch. Evidence of a firmer foundation, don't you think?

Originally Posted by mhaze
And what were those long term discount rates, respectively, for Stern and Nordhaus?

 

[CapelDodger]

happy to, but while i am doing that, can we take up your offer to discuss Armstrong?

To fully appreciate that it has to be taken the context of the very next line posted (by mhaze, as it happens, in response) :

"Well, don't waste your time on Stern"

mhaze has a hard-on for Stern right now, and the organ he's led by is extra-cranial.

Standard mhaze havering and demands after that - contrarians are so demanding, don't you find? It's all "What about this?" and no "Well, what about it?" - but perhaps you can squeeze some meaning out. Be prepared for accusations of moulding meaning out of it.

I doubt anybody's taken Armstrong to Bali. Competition for that jam-fest must have been frickin' intense.

 

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by mhaze [URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
And what were those long term discount rates, respectively, for Stern and Nordhaus?

What are they? You're the expert on Nordheim and Stern, aren't you? Give 'em up, why don't you.

 

[mhaze]

What are they? You're the expert on Nordheim and Stern, aren't you? Give 'em up, why don't you.

Another idiot. Since we are on the subject!

George Monbiot, everyone's favourite controversial climate commentator, launched the Be The Change conference with a bang here in London yesterday. He leaped off the starting blocks with the statement that not only is it imperative that we reduce Co2 emissions by 100%, but that it's perfectly possible to do so.
​

100%.

 

[a_unique_person]

Another idiot. Since we are on the subject!

George Monbiot, everyone's favourite controversial climate commentator, launched the Be The Change conference with a bang here in London yesterday. He leaped off the starting blocks with the statement that not only is it imperative that we reduce Co2 emissions by 100%, but that it's perfectly possible to do so.
​

100%.

He's a commentator who's free to say what he likes, who know's, maybe he's right. What's that got to do with the science or the actual politics?

 

[bobdroege7]

[/LIST]Suppose there is a 1/3 chance that Biggie Kyoto does the job it was intended to and a 1/3 chance that the problem as believed to exist, actually exists in that shape and form.

The chance of having the expected, useful, "good" outcome is only 1/9.
But this comes at a current day cost, and that current day cost continues and has an effect on the future growth of per capita income.

Is the future per capita income still $129,870-130,000? One would think not, because the investments at the start were considerably lowered, simultaneously with jacked up regulations, restrictions on business and the like.

Perhaps the future income level drops to $87,000. Maybe with more drastic "payments now", that future number is $34,000.

I think economic projections 95 years out with business as usual are moot.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html

Using these data (estimated reserves: 800 billions of barrels, world consumption: 76 millions per day), it looks like planet Earth has have oil for about 10,000 days, i.e. about 27 years.

http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=188

Coal reserves are available in almost every country worldwide, with recoverable reserves in around 70 countries. At current production levels, proven coal reserves are estimated to last 147 years.

We'll be running out by then anyhow.

 

[mhaze]

I doubt anybody's taken Armstrong to Bali. Competition for that jam-fest must have been frickin' intense.

No doubt. Perhaps some were just turned away? skeptics of IPCC and Gore science perhaps?

 

[mhaze]

I think economic projections 95 years out with business as usual are moot.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html
http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=188
We'll be running out by then anyhow.

A few centuries ago, the concern was that there might be a shortage of whale oil for household lamps...

Agreed on the lunacy of such long term forecasts.

I've heard 2074 as a run out of fossil fuels projection. Also that we could not double atmospheric CO2 by using it all up....

 

[lenny]

Sorry for the late reply,

no worries...

I've had a bit of work.

i hate it when that happens...

lets use the published version

You appear to be asserting here that the climate models are predictive of physical systems, and that Armstrong fails by applying forecasting that is intended for social or economic systems. Is that right?

correct: i am asserting that climate models aim to forecast a physical system. agreed?

and i assert many of Armstrong's "principles" are taken from experience with, and only usefully applied to, empirically based modelling (his examples are socio-economic: my criticism is on the class of models: are they at core physical-simulation or or statistical-empirical)

Armstrong simply asks, "What's in Chapter 8?"

not quite simply that simple, he quotes his own work and his own book much more than Chapter 8, and he lists dozens of his previously published "principles", casts the IPCC into that framework and finds it wanting.

i'd classify the principles he claims the IPCC fails as:

irrelevant (unlikely to apply when forecasting any physical system)
unhelpful (unlikely to be of use in the particular system under consideration)
unprincipled (eg attacks properties of the question, not the problem soln)
naive (wonderful in principle, but displaying an ivory tower separation from the facts on the ground)
agreed (already widely implemented)
on target (under-appreciated or overlooked, and carrying nontrivial implications for climate science)

i find those in the last class the most interesting, and jsut want to get through those in the first four quickly if we can.

i asked:

mhaze, what do you think is his most insightful/stunning criticism?

to see which class the answer fell (i remain interested)

and i asked:

in terms of the IPCC, do you want to defend the relevance of his:

"Prior to forecasting, agree on actions to take..."
"Select simple methods..."
"Shrink forecasts of change if there is high uncertainty..."
"Use safety factors..."
"Use out of sample error measures."
"Base comparisons of methods on large samples of forecasts"
"Conduct cost-benefit analysis"

to see if you wanted to define those i would argue do not apply.

plenty in this paper for discussion.

i will aim to answer every direct question you post, if i miss one when i reply, give me a day or two and then feel free to yell at me.

 

[CapelDodger]

No doubt. Perhaps some were just turned away? skeptics of IPCC and Gore science perhaps?

It's invitation only. You have to get in as part of a national delegatiion. The Bali Conference is at that level. That's how Stern's there - part of the UK delegation. Anybody's welcome to be in Bali if they can find a place to stay at the silly prices taxpayers are funding. Let alone the bar-prices.

What they weren't was invited. Not by anyone. Not even by Russia, Ukraine, or Kazakhstan. Makes them look a bit small and whiney, doesn't it? And that's not even to get into the Nobel Prize.

 

[CapelDodger]

A few centuries ago, the concern was that there might be a shortage of whale oil for household lamps...

Whose concern where? Even 18thCE New England had turpentine - possibly an explanation for this local scare. That's being charitable enough to assume you haven't just plcked this out of nothingness.

Agreed on the lunacy of such long term forecasts.

The medium-term does creep up on one.

I've heard 2074 as a run out of fossil fuels projection. Also that we could not double atmospheric CO2 by using it all up....

You've no doubt read all sorts of things and heard and seen far more, but nobody really gives a toss except you.