User Tag List

First 10181920

Results 191 to 192 of 192

  1. #191
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You're right that we don't know how much of an influence the sun has on the climate.
    We have an idea. And now that we extrapolate energy from actual readings, rather than historical information, we have a very good idea for the purpose it is being used for. It is just unfortunate that our baseline is after the industrial reason - it makes it artificially high. But that's not terribly important, as the sun cycles, so we can factor it out historically anyway.

    I think it's premature (and foolish) to call it noise.
    No, it is noise - we are measuring human influence on climate and have to factor out the sun's variations... that makes it noise.

    all those years of research on carbon dioxide will have been a waste.
    Hardly. The best news possible is that it has next to no influence. That's essentially impossible, but the degree of influence could change, so research into it continues to help us determine how things interact.

    How can you say solar output is "on the low end"? You don't know that. People assume that based on sunspot cycles, but we don't know much about other sun cycles.
    Current Measurements < Historical Measurements. The why is left for astronomy - the climate model doesn't care.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    in particular, decision theory (or, game theory ). Esp. decision theory where the premise is a 'choice under uncertainty', where we hope to resolve through insight into what we call, 'expected value'.
    He didn't though - I would be fine with this if he did it properly. Both expected value and game theory require more than the simply matrix, it requires a binomial tree, or some form of probability tree. An 'infinitely large' negative or positive is only relevant when it is not extremely improbable - that is, EV is determined by [chance] * [outcome].

    With "god", science makes no commentary either way on it, the 'yes' versus the 'no' side, on the other hand, for global warming (human and/or otherwise), scientific evidence can be applied to either side.
    Absolutely, which is why the video annoys me. What science is doing is quantifying the [chance] and [outcome], and he is falsely inflating the need to act by ignoring that the [chance] of the [outcomes] he uses are so small as to be irrelevant, when in reality the [chance] * [outcome] doesn't support the kind of intervention he is talking about.

    Decision making isn't reducible to 'act or not to act'. It's a matter of marginal costs, etc. Initial regulations are less onerous than later ones... reducing NOX is less costly than reducing CO2 (and the effects are different). As a result, the [outcomes] (as defined as [costs]+[benefits]) changes... and there is a point where [costs] > [benefits] (costs being up front costs we pay to change and costs of not acting - so it will end up having at least one max/min, if not many).

    What is wrong with using game theory in dealing with this issue?
    Absolutely nothing - I strongly believe we should. But I do not think spending money on global warming makes sense, and that game theory states that (when reasonable outcomes and probabilities are assigned - and this is *with* a high probability assigned to human influence). This is an economics issue, not a doomsday scenario. This is essentially what I believe (video @ TED by Bjorn Lomborg)

    The premise of the scenario chosen is independent of the application of the game theory. You can choose as 'worse' to as 'good' a condition and do the same 2 by 2 to it.
    Right - but if you remove the extremes, the logical conclusion is way different than what he demonstrates in the video.

  2. #192
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    What's wrong with nuclear energy?
    Nothing, as long as I can dump my nu-Q-lar waste into someone else's wine cellar.

Similar Threads

  1. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  2. Socialism posts (moved from Global Warming.)
    By Anonymous in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-21-2008, 08:28 PM
  3. Global warming explained
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 08-20-2008, 04:30 AM
  4. Global Warming, Man made or Naturally caused (And other earth questions)
    By Didums in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 11:29 PM
  5. Global warming
    By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO