Al Gore Rumbled

[rah]

If it saves money, why are countries willing to let developing countries off the hook? If it will save us money, why won't it save them money?

If insurance is too expensive, people do without.

[Kuciwalker]

If insurance is too expensive it's a sign that maybe you shouldn't be purchasing the good in the first place. See above wrt nuclear.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah
If it saves money, why are countries willing to let developing countries off the hook? If it will save us money, why won't it save them money?

If insurance is too expensive, people do without.

Free rider problem.


From an individual countrys POV its not like insurance. Or think of it as insurance we can only buy through a pool. If Europe and North America buy enough, India is covered without coughing up for the premium, so naturally they dont want to pay.

Theres a river near you that could overflow and flood your neighborhood. Your neighbors are building a levee against the chance of a flood. You stay inside, watch TV, and let them work. Does that mean you dont think building the levee is a good investment? Nope, it just means you know you can get away with letting the other folks build the levee. Since youre poorer than they are, and they feel guilty for hurting you decades ago, you dont even fear them being mad at you.


Now at some point if they actually NEED your labor to build the levee, theyre going to have to put that guilt behind them.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Berzerker


". As for sea levels, where do you think we'll get all that water we need to irrigate all that land? Hell, we could pump ocean water into the Nevada basin and create an inland sea to help maintain sea levels."


How does the cost of flooding Nevada compare to the cost of building solar panels across Nevada? why are some untried engineering projects, with who knows what side effects, assumed perfect, while engineering projects that are well along are dissed?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Berzerker

There are always costs, always... But the cost of having to irrigate vast stretches of the northern hemisphere made arable by a warmer world is a cost we should be happy to pay. Expanding vegetation zones is not a bad thing...

Except you'll be contracting them in the tropics. Not clear theres a net gain in cultivable land area. There may be a gain. There may be a loss. Without having read all the studies, Im assuming its a wash in terms of cultivable land area. Except to get that wash, youve got infrastructure investments, human capital investments (or large scale migrations) etc all of which are costly. The US Wheat belt if filled with railroad sidings, silos, farm roads, etc all of which are in the wrong place now. Etc, etc.

[rah]

Let's look at it one other way.
If the cost of home insurance is the same as replacing the house, there's no reason to buy the insurance.

A lot of people believe man can adapt to changing conditions and will pay when it happens if it happens.
You've presented many fine papers that show what can happen but I'm sure that even if you believe they are high probability, you are not 100% convinced. For those of us with less faith.............

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah
Let's look at it one other way.
If the cost of home insurance is the same as replacing the house, there's no reason to buy the insurance.

A lot of people believe man can adapt to changing conditions and will pay when it happens if it happens.
You've presented many fine papers that show what can happen but I'm sure that even if you believe they are high probability, you are not 100% convinced. For those of us with less faith.............

I agree that what you present in the first paragraph is a real possibility, as should be clear from my numerous mentions of the need to compare mitigation costs to prevention costs.

No, Im not 100% convinced - I need to read further.

But let me correct the analogy a bit. We've built houses before. We've never, say, relocated millions of 3rd world peasants to new farms 200+ miles to the north. We've never built sea walls protecting entire countries (not even Holland has done that, IIUC) Many of the mitigations proposed represent gigantic tosses of the dice.

And like I said, I dont need 100% faith. If theres a 70% chance the prevention is cheaper than mitigation, doesnt that suggest doing prevention? And I dont see detailed papers on why mitigation will be cheaper, as fair and balanced in their citations as the IPCC report Ive been quoting. What I see is stubborn resentment at "wildeyed enviros", and grasping at every straw.

[padillah]

Orinally posed by MOBIUS
The massive irony is that one of the major gripes from the anti-GW faction is that it will be economically crippling... Why?

Let me first admit that the situation I am about to describe is going away. But it has been so prevalent that it has scared quite a few fencepost sitters.

The reason we've viewed it as so expensive is we've been told things like "Stop driving gas powered cars". I have a job, it's ~30mi from my house. What am I supposed to do without a car? Do I quite my job and work only in places I can walk to?

I know, I know... they said "gas-powered" cars. OK, so I have to buy a new car just to keep my job? And if I'm lucky the new fuel will be only twice as expensive as the old gasoline.

And then they come out with "electric cars aren't good enough, they just get energy from the electric plants which still burn oil". So now I've bought this car for nothing!

Now, like I said earlier, this is begining to diminish some, but it's still very prevalent (or, maybe, those guys are just louder than the normal people).

I got nothing against buying (and, in fact, have bought) compact phlorescent bulbs instead of incandescent. I've even looked for LED lights for the home (the only ones I could find were floodlights for outside). And next time I'm in the market for a new car I'll look at the fuel type and see what I can do. But that's going to be next time, not right now. I can reduce what I do but I can't make my carbon footprint 0 by the end of the week. That's what would be so expensive.

From what I understand Gore's film is not as heavy-handed as I've seen in the past. I will try and watch it and see if my mood changes.

You made an analogy of waiting on train tracks... you asked if we wouldn't jump off the tracks if given the chance. I'll say this, it feels like we're being asked to chop off our legs cause jumping wouldn't be fast enough. I'd much rather run than jump... or chop off my legs.

Tom P.

EDIT: sorry, I'm coding on my laptop while I do this and I get the {} and the [] confused.

[rah]

There's always going to be stuborn people. Fortunately they are not the majority. But I do feel a more reasonable approach not based on excessive fear and arrogance will have a much more desirable effect on the majority of those more moderate.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by rah
Let's look at it one other way.
If the cost of home insurance is the same as replacing the house, there's no reason to buy the insurance.

Why do you believe that is the case?

[rah]

With GW, I believe neither cost has been defined acurately enough to my satisfaction. All estimates I've seen seem to have been made off some possibly vague assumptions. Without knowing which one is more, you can't make any decisions based on it so decisions must be made treating them as equal.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Why do you believe that is the case?

let X be the cost of buying the insurance - assume a one time, lump sum premium, to keep it simple.

By Rahs assumption, the cost of replacing the house is also X. The probability of having to replace the house is p.

If I buy,insurance, and the house is not destroyed,
I pay X, but I get X which I wouldnt have gotten had i not bought insurance. My net gain from buying insurance is 0.

I the house is not destroyed, I pay X, and thats the only difference. My net gain from buying insurance is -X.


My expected value from buying insurance is p(0) + (1-p)(-X)

which is equal to (1-p)(-X)

Since 1-p is necessarily positive - p cannot exceed 1 - and -X is negative (since my premium for insurance is postive) the expected value of buying the insurance must be negative.


It can only be positive if the cost of replacing the house exceeds the premium, and even then it will depend on the probability of needing to replace the house.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by lord of the mark




"[edit] National Research Council Report
At the request of the U.S. Congress, a special "Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years" was assembled by the National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. The Committee, consisting of 12 scientists from different disciplines, published its report in 2006.[19] The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect. The report summarizes its main findings as follows:[20]

You realize the findings of this panel essentially walked back the previous assertions that the last two decades were the warmest on record for the entirety of 2000 years. The panel said with certainty that it was over the last 400 years which was never in dispute as all recognized the end of the LIA circa 1600-1700 ish. Up until this report it was claimed via IPCC 3rd report (essentially a rehash of MBH) that the last two decades were warmest in 2000 years. The NRC instead say that there is some less degree of confidence back 900 years and almost none beyond 900 years. So realistically the NRC report started to erode what was up until then considered indisputable. Case and point the conventional wisdom of IPCC report 2001 ""…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries". In other words the MBH data which showed no real MWP or LIA was considered Gospel. Flattening of the hockey stick handle was accomplished.

Consider what stance 2001 IPCC was taking (see attachment below):

The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.
Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.

Except that the MWP and LIA are essentially eliminated in MBH and claimed via the IPCC in 2001. More to say later on the relative weighting of the various proxies used and applicability of proxies employed.

It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries.

Again no dispute ever was claimed here. This was never contended by critics.

This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.

The contention comes from mid latitude reconstructions. 2 major contentions were raised from critics. Improper statistical treatment of the proxy data and mixed conflated proxy data to start with. The first was dealt a starightforward and uncompromising affirmation from Wegman. On matters statisitical he absolutely repudiated the methodology employed by Mann. And on this his word has much much credibility much moreso than any of the climatologists. Re: the 2nd contention he was silent on the matter. (strike that he may have commented that the second might have merit. Its been a bit since I read the report, but he did not endorse or repudiate it) But, consider how the proxies for tree rings were generated. Tree ring data generally shows larger spurts of growth when warmer climes are present (longer growth seasons etc.). Some regression analysis can then be used to generally correlate tree ring width to average seasonal temperature. (neglect for the moment that it generally only shows the temperatures of the growth season and not the warmth or coldness of the winter/nongrowth season as we will assume hot summers also mean a corresponding mild winter) But in order to get that correlation a known given temperature must be known to get the regression correlation. The only period one can realistically use is during the instrumentation period where temperatures were actually measured. No big right, one simply looks at tree ring widths and correlates vs. apparent average seasonal temperatures. Bit of a problem though (aside from rainfall and other noise insect infestations etc. one assumes you get a decent regression except...) during this same period we know and claim CO2 has increased 2 fold. CO2 fertilization doesn't appear to be accounted for. Think about it. It would assume the rapid growth (very large tree rings) seen in the very recent hot and heavily CO2 laden would set the benchmark for a given seasonal temperature. 800-900 years ago the same temperatures would ahve yielded less growth as the plant life was not as heavily CO2 fertilized. By the regression they would be assumed to be at a lower seasonal temp.

To my knowledge, all supporting and affirming temperature reconstructions have utilized this kind of approach. But may have used differing statistical treament and weightings than the original MBH flat line data.

Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

[edit] Committee on Energy and Commerce Report (Wegman report)
McIntyre and McKitrick's paper has been reinforced by a team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. The Wegman team was assembled at the request of U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, an outspoken global warming skeptic.[21] The report primarily focused on the statistical analysis used in the MBH paper, and also considered the personal and professional relationships between Mann et al and other members of the paleoclimate community. Findings presented in this report (commonly known as the "Wegman Report") include the following:

MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be valid and compelling.
It is noted that there is no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.

Note Wegman's critiques were solely on the statistical treatment of proxy data as mentioned above.

A social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction of at least 43 authors having direct ties to Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him is described. The findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to interact with the statistical community.

It is a shame that this became the crux of Wegman's report as trumpeted by the Pols (not by Wegman) as it is the least substantiated and most speculative areas. It was framed as a means to correct any future errors of such a gross and egregious nature as Mann committed by simply having trained professional statisticians have an opportuntity to ensure the data handling is done using proper and appropriate methodologies.

Additionally, the Wegman team judged that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done.

to say the least. Pity he teaches at my Alma Mater. Mann that is.

Overall, the committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

Nuff said.

The Wegman report has itself been criticized for a number of things:

The report was not subject to formal peer review.

I'm almost positive this is in fact incorrect.

The result of fixing the alleged errors in the overall reconstruction does not change the general shape of the reconstruction.[22]

It most certainly changed the shape. See IPCC 2001 (MBH)

Similarly, studies that use completely different methodologies also yield very similar reconstructions.[23][24]

See point above on applicability of certain proxy data.

The social network analysis has no value without comparative studies in other tightly defined areas of science. The network of co-authorship is not unusual at all.

Again a shame that the social networking (which truly was meant as an advocacy for good statistical review moreso than a condemnation of a secret libruhl teh evil luddite scientists conspiracy) was the part of his paper that seemed to make the most splash.

[lord of the mark]

Pardon, if I read it right, the IPCC acknowledges a local temp high circa 1000 CE. I dont see that that contradicts the temps in the last two decades being the highest since 900CE. You could have had a peak in 1000 that has already been exceeded.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Peak to trough over 1000 to 1600 is about .2 C. (Low frequency averaging) Thats prettty damn flat. Compare contrast verses other proxy reconstructions where Peak to trough is more like .7-.8 C.

Shape was not well preserved in the MBH study and in fact was the exact IPCC 2001 claim that no MWP or LIA existed.