It may well turn out that proposed cure will be worse than the disease. Thus I have ressurected my decision matrix for those of us who are still on the fence abouit the whole climate thingy.
Robert's Rules for Environmental [In]action:
Important, you may not skip questions. Feel free to substitute the eco-emergency of the moment for "global warming" as all are equal in the eyes of science.
Is there local climate change? Yes/No
No: end Don't Know: pause Yes: continue
Is there global climate change? Yes/No
No: end Don't Know: pause Yes: continue
Is global climate change bad? Yes/No
No: end Don't Know: pause Yes: continue
Is global climate change going to continue? Yes/No
No: end Don't Know: pause Yes: continue
Is global climate change controllable? Yes/No
No: end Don't Know: pause Yes: continue
Is global climate change influencable by human action? Yes/No
No: end Don't Know: pause Yes: continue
Is global climate change worse than the actions required? Yes/No
No: end Don't Know: pause Yes: continue
If you have reached this point on the decision tree you may now proceed to the public plebescite process to determine which radical actions are most popular/acceptable. Somehow the advocates for first world social upheaval seemed to have skipped all these steps.
17 comments:
first
what did i skip? not a single one. whatever, dude. i'm going to cause first world social upheaval now.
I see hockey sticks....
and is another heretic...
Let the Salem Witch Trials II begin!
Maybe
Yes
Yes
Don't Know
Don't Know
Probably
Don't Know
My proposed radical change is to immediately end the use of private jets for transportation, which are horribly inefficient. As Al Gore is passionate about this issue, I'm confident he'll be happy to be the first of the "jet-set" to go back to sitting in coach on public flights.
Oh, I think I forgot to mention that they should also get rid of the horribly inefficient first-class accomodations--if we're going to be burning CO2-producing fuels to get around, we need to start making the most of the space on the airplane.
Ideally, of course, we'd be using electric-powered Amtrak or clean(er) natural gas-burning Greyhound buses, but I thought I'd start off with a small step first.
Interesting read there BJ.
I can remember in the early 1980s going to a presentation by MIT Prof Danny Hillis in Boston on massively parrellel computing.
His Thinking Machines team were ganging up to 64,000 386 processors & chopping up big problems ("I don't get out of bed for little ones"). He was tearing the then state of art Cray XP apart. The "suits" from IBM were squirming in their seats up front.
One of his quests was to be able to predict tomorrow's weather everywhere and extend 1 day. Then 2 days, then do it 20,000 times and know the weather in 70 years.
"You can arrange the date of your kid's wedding for a perfect reception the day after they are born".
Well the computer modeling clowns cannot even get the 10 day forcast straight for a 200 sq mile area I live in, and we are suppose to believe these guys using cooked up data because there is no solid numbers from even 30 years ago can tell you what the world is going to do? hahahahha.
But you are correct, this is similiar to the Salem Witch trails, but in a different sense.
Ever read what those trials were about?
Sure was not Puritian beliefs.
Or regilious intolerance.
It was a way to steal the property of widows and surviving daugthers from captains and wealthy property owners who had died and could not protect them.
Here was the MO:
1. Say some female without a husband is in cahoots with the devil.
2. Kangaroo court to prove it.
3. Take all their property and divide among the thieves.
Basically using BS to take from the rich and distribute among the fast talkers as the dullards say nothing.
The more things change...
H.
ps You gotta love the fact the town has a witch on a broom as the town seal. It is on the police cars, city hall, firetrucks etc. The SOBs are proud of it.
Bet those hyprocrits would be the first to cast stones if Mongomery Al where to give itself a slogan like "lynch town" or "Klan City".
Speaking of a matrix:
It’s unsettling to think of the world being run by a futuristic computer geek, although we might at last dispose of that of classic theological question: How could God allow so much evil in the world? For the same reason there are plagues and earthquakes and battles in games like World of Warcraft. Peace is boring, Dude.
BJ,
Wow the old days. And in the row behind IBM were Minsky and Glashow. They had just failed a second time in their quest for top down AI and were busy sharpening their knives in anticipation of the brute forcers failing as well.
I'm hoping the massively parallel Virgina with Macs experiments is tried again. With the new poly-quad semi-symetrical PowerMacs they could do interesting things. They still won't be able to do the weather but great things nonetheless.
Akubi, calm down. When I am emporer (deliberately mispelled BTW) of the world there will still be room for snark and porn. Indeed, the best providers of snarky porn shall enjoy my special approbations.
Long time lurker.
That is not so much of a matrix Dawg, as it is a flowchart of sorts. I think you are defining the problem incorrectly. It should really be thought about as a Type I vs Type II error.
Suppose we make a Type I error by running around trying to cap emissions and imposing carbon taxes only to find out global warming is a hoax. What are the consequences? A hit on the future growth of GDP of 1-2%, less crap in the air, and denser cities.
Suppose we make a Type II error by doing nothing when global warming is real. What are the consequences then? Possibly catastrophic. That is really the decision matrix you're after; 1-2% of future GDP vs a new ice age (we can ignore the two correct decisions in the matrix for this purpose I think).
Love the blog and I don't miss Casey.
Fredrick, welcome. You are correct. I only called it a matrix because I have an idea for a true matrix but simplified it for this discussion.
I disagree with your erring on the side of caution impacts. Make no mistake, I am all for mandating pollution standards. Up til now the results have been great and the costs have actually been savings. Great stuff, do more. One of the things you point out is that we end up with denser cities. Maybe but there's no evidence that denser cities are more total energy efficient, that's just been an assumption.
I'm not concerned about a Type II error because the consequences of doing nothig are either faster, slower or as predicted all of which give us plenty of time to allocate capital at lower cost using better technology to address the problem.
Formerly known as Frederick (got that damn gmail account sorted out).
Maybe but there's no evidence that denser cities are more total energy efficient, that's just been an assumption.
One of the errors from the climate papers yesterday was that the reporting station had been moved downwind from the city resulting in increased temperature readings.
I originally come from a (very) Northern climate and cites are efficient for heating. The air temperatures are several degrees warmer and the wind is broken up resulting in lower heat loss. The economics of moving food vs moving people is perhaps deserving of it's own topic, but in terms of winter heating I would rather be snug in a city than out on the prairie anytime.
Mass transport has been discussed to death, but it, and cycling, and foot traffic is certainly efficient if you can get people to do it.
Is IAFF down?; I have not been paying much attention since Casey sold it.
Better question: do we even talk about him anymore, or has he disappeared as quickly as a newly outed gay person in the Bible Belt?
Nevermind, it's back up now. Of no value or use, but there it remains.
@Federick
Suppose we make a Type I error by running around trying to cap emissions and imposing carbon taxes only to find out global warming is a hoax. What are the consequences? A hit on the future growth of GDP of 1-2%, less crap in the air, and denser cities.
Statement presupposing facts not in evidence. What if the error of attacking C02 emissions IS a Type II error (not a Type I) because it is the only thing preventing another ice age?
Sometimes thoughtful reflection prior to action is better than immediate impatient and improperly directed action. Knee jerk actions are usually wrong.
Type I vs Type II
Which is which is really just the question of signal detection. Since the signal we are talking about is global warming than that defines the error types by whether global warming is actually occurring or not.
Since you bring up ice ages, what do you think of the concerns regarding glacial melt and the great conveyer?
I presume you mean the Thermohaline circulation by 'Great Conveyer'.
I have not formed much of an opinion on what would happen with a large addition of fresh water. There are a few facts that seem to be overlooked at times.
1) Salt water is considerably more dense than fresh water at same temperatures.
2) Water is very thermally conductive, particularly compared to air.
3) Fresh water is much more prone to evaporation than salty water.
Some have proposed that a stable inversion with warm salty water on top of cold fresh water would occur. The problems with maintaining that as stable is that it is an inherently unstable combination. With waters ability to conduct heat combined with dissolved salts causing an increase in density, the large horizontal surface area involved, the inversion will not be stable.
Other have proposed that a quick melt of fresh water into salty will stop the Thermohaline cycle, but will not result in inversion because the cold fresh water will have similar if not lighter density to warmer salty water. This will literally allow something similar to a lake effect to occur near the poles, causing rapid snow/ice buildup in surrounding land masses (anyone living near the Great Lakes can attest to the lake effect during winter). They have proposed that the introduction of sufficient amounts of fresh water from glaciers would not amplify global warming, but could induce an ice age.
By the way, Ice Age cycles have been about 100,000 years on average. 10,000 as being warm, 90,000 years cold. We are now 12,000 years into the warm period, and may have only just slowed the progression to Ice Age via C02. This cycle could be a natural oscillation between extremes.
I'm not really comfortable with referring to it as a hoax. To me a hoax implies that people are propagating an idea that they know to be false. My sense of the majority of those pushing for action against global warming, especially those in the academic community, really believe that it is happening.
Let's suppose it is a hoax. What are the potential motivations behind it?
Let's suppose it is a hoax. What are the potential motivations behind it?
Grant and research money... lots of it. Ability to have something published and get your name out there and recognized. Avoid being labeled as a heretic and have funding pulled.
It is easier to go along to get along instead of getting vilified. The pro AGW camp tends to label people with an almost 'baby killer' type of label if they dare speak up against their beliefs.. instead of debating the science. For example, why does Gore refuse to debate scientist that challenge him to debate the subject? (Actually avoid /ignore is more like it than refuse. He can't be seen as actually refusing. It would compromise his position).
Post a Comment