uncertainty loop

[waitforufo]

An interesting article from David Roberts. You might remember this quote form David Roberts.

 

 

When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these [climate skeptic] bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/23/9604120/climate-models-uncertainty

 

Here is my favorite parts .

 

 

Basically, it’s difficult to predict anything, especially regarding sprawling systems like the global economy and atmosphere, because everything depends on everything else. There’s no fixed point of reference.

Grappling with this kind of uncertainty turns out to be absolutely core to climate policymaking. Climate nerds have attempted to create models that include, at least in rudimentary form, all of these interacting economic and atmospheric systems. They call these integrated assessment models, or IAMs, and they are the primary tool used by governments and international bodies to gauge the threat of climate change. IAMs are how policies are compared and costs are estimated.

So it’s worth asking: Do IAMs adequately account for uncertainty? Do they clearly communicate uncertainty to policymakers?

The answer to those questions is almost certainly “no.”

 

 

Or to put it another way: Think about how insane it is to try to predict what’s going to happen in 2100.

There is a school of thought that says the whole exercise of IAMs, at least as an attempt to model how things will develop in the far future, is futile. There are so many assumptions, and the outcomes are so sensitive to those assumptions, that what they produce is little better than wild-ass guesses. And the faux-precision of the exercise, all those clean, clear lines on graphs, only serves to mislead policymakers into thinking we have a grasp on it. It makes them think we know exactly how much slack we have, how much we can push before bad things happen, when in fact we have almost no idea.

In the view of these researchers, the quest to predict what climate change (or climate change mitigation) will cost through 2100 ought to be abandoned. It is impossible, computationally intractable, and the IAMs that pretend to do it only serve to distract and confuse.

 

So why are we spending tax money on climate change or climate change mitigation?

[swansont]

So why are we spending tax money on climate change or climate change mitigation?

 

Because it's happening and will likely be devastating if we do nothing or wait until certain people are convinced that it's actually happening. Also, the fact that there are benefits beyond that of climate change mitigation. To ask the question in light of quotes about uncertainty smack of the fallacy that if we don't know everything, it means we know nothing.

 

But this has little to do with the issue raised in the quotes you provided. It's true that some people might get confused if the range of economic impact is predicted with e.g. an order of magnitude range between models, say $10 trillion-$100 trillion over some time span, or whether a certain country will see its GDP drop in half vs "only" 10%, but some might get the broader message that

1) it's going to be a big impact

2) we need to do something, and

3) sooner is better (easier and cheaper) than later.

[John Cuthber]

Reminds me of this

 

[studiot]

Who is David Roberts and what does quotes from his output have to do with the title of this thread?

 

But you are right to ask what are we wasting tax dollars on headless chickens for.

 

I am currently watching such an event as the UK stumbles on towards building a new nuclear reactor near me.

The electricity price guaranteed to be paid to the builders is more than double the price currently paid to the operators of the existing two nuclear reactors on the same site (although one is now being decomissioned).

[John Cuthber]

Whatever your opinion may be on the role of nuclear power in the future energy supply, having a new reactor built largely by a foreign (and not altogether friendly) government is frankly bloody stupid.

Who needs stuxnet when you wrote the control software?

However, it's nothing to do with the thread topic.

Perhaps you might like to start one for it.

[studiot]

 

However, it's nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

Funny, I thought it directly addressed the only line in the OP with a question mark at the end of it, which was about money.

 

My query about the connection between the various parts of the OP in this thread was also noted in post#2.

 

However I did like your cartoon.

[swansont]

Funny, I thought it directly addressed the only line in the OP with a question mark at the end of it, which was about money.

 

Money isn't the only consideration in building a power plant. For example, coal pollutes even if one ignores CO2, and one might consider the health effects of that pollution in considering what kind of plant to build.

[studiot]

 

Money isn't the only consideration in building a power plant. For example, coal pollutes even if one ignores CO2, and one might consider the health effects of that pollution in considering what kind of plant to build.

 

Yes I agree it is not the only consideration, but the question asked specifically

 

"Why are we spending money...?" this was the principal clause in that sentence.

 

One of the main justifications for the nuclear plant I mentioned is that it does not produce carbon dioxide or the other noxious pollutants from coal fired stations.

 

However the financial facts are that it will cost considerably more than the nuclear designs it replaces and produce considerably more expensive energy.

So it will be considerably financially inferior to a simple like-for-like replacement of the existing nuclear installation, which has performed extremely well over decades.

 

So my comment stands.

[swansont]

Yes I agree it is not the only consideration, but the question asked specifically

 

"Why are we spending money...?" this was the principal clause in that sentence.

 

One of the main justifications for the nuclear plant I mentioned is that it does not produce carbon dioxide or the other noxious pollutants from coal fired stations.

 

However the financial facts are that it will cost considerably more than the nuclear designs it replaces and produce considerably more expensive energy.

So it will be considerably financially inferior to a simple like-for-like replacement of the existing nuclear installation, which has performed extremely well over decades.

 

So my comment stands.

But you answered your own question. "it does not produce carbon dioxide or the other noxious pollutants from coal fired stations" is a reason why you might spend more for the project. You are also paying for modern equipment and more recent design. Would you want a like-for-like replacement on a 30 year-old car or appliance? How about a mobile phone?

[StringJunky]

But you answered your own question. "it does not produce carbon dioxide or the other noxious pollutants from coal fired stations" is a reason why you might spend more for the project. You are also paying for modern equipment and more recent design. Would you want a like-for-like replacement on a 30 year-old car or appliance? How about a mobile phone?

Also, how many years before it comes online... 5, 10 years? The predicted energy cost will be more inline for the future time.

Edited October 28, 2015 by StringJunky

[studiot]

But you answered your own question. "it does not produce carbon dioxide or the other noxious pollutants from coal fired stations" is a reason why you might spend more for the project. You are also paying for modern equipment and more recent design. Would you want a like-for-like replacement on a 30 year-old car or appliance? How about a mobile phone?

 

More to the point would have been to have read it thoroughly.

 

I was and always heave been discussing the replacement of one nuclear power station by another nuclear power station.

 

I even wrote it out at similar length in post#8, for emphasis.

 

 

Also, how many years before it comes online... 5, 10 years? The predicted energy cost will be more inline for the future time.

 

 

The promise of nuclear power plants, since their inception, has always been falling power costs.

 

There is no doubt in my mind this that project is another over-expensive white elephant, that forms one of the main reasons behind why the UK government cannot fund its proper programmes.

Edited October 28, 2015 by studiot

[StringJunky]

 

...

There is no doubt in my mind this this project is another over-expensive white elephant, that forms one of the main reasons behind why the UK government cannot fund its proper programmes.

Aren't all cutting edge technology projects prone to going way over budget? It goes with the territory I think because there many unknowns, false starts, amendments etc in the journey to final fruition.

Edited October 28, 2015 by StringJunky

[Endy0816]

Mostly a return on investment issue.

 

Keep in mind the strike price is set for about 7 years down the road from now. If wholesale costs are higher than strike price, you'll be saving money. If the wholesale price is less you'll be paying more, but for greener energy.

 

Contract also requires decommissioning costs to be paid for by the company, rather than the government. Easier to pay for something over time than to cough up another large lump sum.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Endy0816

[studiot]

 

wholesale price is less you'll be paying more, but for greener energy.

 

How is it greener than the energy supplied by the existing plant?

[John Cuthber]

 

Funny, I thought it directly addressed the only line in the OP with a question mark at the end of it, which was about money.

 

Well, that would be this bit

"So why are we spending tax money on climate change or climate change mitigation?"

and, we have been building nuclear stations for ages; the belief at the time was that we were heading for an ice age.

So I don't see why this particular nuclear station is anything much to do with climate change.

It may be a sensible way of ensuring power that's not dependent on the weather or, like the first nuclear stations, it might be to do with ensuring plutonium (and possibly tritium) supplies for weapons.

I'm not even sure if the data show that nuclear power is carbon neutral, once you take decommissioning into account.

 

It's still a bit dim to be paying another country to do it.

[Endy0816]

 

How is it greener than the energy supplied by the existing plant?

Relative to coal or natural gas. Almost all the plants in UK have planned end dates in the 2020s. Several are already on extensions.

[studiot]

 

endy

Relative to coal or natural gas. Almost all the plants in UK have planned end dates in the 2020s. Several are already on extensions.

 

studiot

I was and always have been discussing the replacement of one nuclear power station by another nuclear power station.

 

 

 

 

 

John Cuthber

So I don't see why this particular nuclear station is anything much to do with climate change.

 

 

Studiot

Yes I agree it is not the only consideration, but the question asked specifically

 

"Why are we spending money...?" this was the principal clause in that sentence.

 

One of the main justifications for the nuclear plant I mentioned is that it does not produce carbon dioxide or the other noxious pollutants from coal fired stations.

 

Both issues already answered.

[overtone]

 

 

So why are we spending tax money on climate change or climate change mitigation?

You seem to have made some assumptions regarding "uncertainty", that are not well supported.

 

You seem to be assuming that all the uncertain stuff is in the direction of exaggerating the incoming difficulties, and if the predictions turn out to be wrong there will have been in necessary consequence a smaller rather than larger crisis. This is not, unfortunately, the case. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the direction of greater, rather than lesser, harms to befall the procrastinating and the imprudent from this recent and continuing anthro CO2 boost The models are uncertain in their reassurances as much as in their warnings.

 

There is no safety in ignorance per se, but only in the past experience with a continuing state. There is a general human tendency to assume that whatever one has not recognized or understood or discovered yet is essentially benign - and the roots of this in the absence of disaster so far are actually reasonable, barring evidence to the contrary. What you don't know hasn't hurt you so far, ok - but this depends on the state of which you are ignorant not having been changed recently. There's an essential contingency behind the rule of thumb.

 

Sometimes, as here and in similar issues, this bias leads to the denial of that evidence to the contrary - refusal to recognize evidence that the situation has become dangerous, that the unknowns are likely to have been changed from their formerly benign status, and past experience is no longer as safe a basis as it was. We see that in everybody - the scientifically trained are only a little less liable to it than others, as a couple of matters here have made embarrassingly obvious - but we also see it countered and giving in, being corrected, under the pressure of argument and evidence when such is available. And here the scientifically educated enjoy an advantage - this is an experience they have had before.

[waitforufo]

Reminds me of this

Spending $100T needlessly will only make the world worse off not better. That money could be spent on improving lives, and cleaning the environment and real ways.

 

David Roberts said IAMs are used by governments to set policy and compare costs. Then his article says.

 

 

 

In the view of these researchers, the quest to predict what climate change (or climate change mitigation) will cost through 2100 ought to be abandoned. It is impossible, computationally intractable, and the IAMs that pretend to do it only serve to distract and confuse.

 

So if IAMs are worthless why are they used to set policy and compare costs?

 

I just thought the article was funny coming from a person effectively calling skeptics Nazis. The "Climate Hawk" needs to get back on script before he becomes a pariah in his own alarmist community.

http://grist.org/article/2010-10-20-introducing-climate-hawks/

Edited October 29, 2015 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

Spending $100T needlessly will only make the world worse off not better.

That money could be spent on improving lives, and cleaning the environment and real ways.

 

 

It is being.

[waitforufo]

It is being.

If climate change is a big hoax and we spend $100T on it, that will be $100T spent on nothing. During the '60s to major events were happening in the United States. The space program and the civil rights movement. Many in the civil rights movement pointed to the space program and said it was $25B (~$170B in 2015 dollars) to do nothing but put garbage on the moon. They insisted that money would have been better spent on poverty programs. It was quite common in the '70s to hear people say "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we do "X". Well frequently we couldn't do "X" because we spent all our cash putting a man on the moon.

 

You can do a lot of good with $100T. Think of funding for education, further space exploration, advances in medicine, scientific research, motorcycles, and fast women that $100T can provide. If climate change is a big hoax per your cartoon, we will miss out on all the other things that $100T could provide.

 

The risks of improperly understanding our climate are great. If it turns out that the CO2 we are adding to the environment has only a minor impact on climate, some of the impact being positive by the way, spending $100T to "fix" it will be be a disaster.

Edited October 30, 2015 by waitforufo

[studiot]

 

If climate change is a big hoax and we spend $100T on it, that will be $100T spent on nothing.

 

What about spin-off?

[Phi for All]

If climate change is a big hoax and we spend $100T on it, that will be $100T spent on nothing.

 

It's so frightening to see this kind of thought process being played out by adults living in this century. So many people think like this, hold this kind of perspective about our world. It's hard to imagine anyone cynical enough to think we could spend so much and do NOTHING to make the world better. It implies a great deal of contempt for humans, imo.

[swansont]

It's patently untrue that the money spent on going to the moon had no other benefits. A lot of technology improvements came of it. It's just as untrue that money spent on warming mitigation is necessarily wasted, for similar reasons - there are other benefits.

[studiot]

It's patently untrue that the money spent on going to the moon had no other benefits. A lot of technology improvements came of it. It's just as untrue that money spent on warming mitigation is necessarily wasted, for similar reasons - there are other benefits.

 

When I was a pushy youngster I had a (friendly) argument with my brother about the cost of the space race.

 

I was all for the glamour of the rocketry, despite the cost.

 

My brother supported spending the money on something more directly useful instead.

His example was improving agriculture to feed the burgeoning world population.

 

"But," I said, "the space race yields spin-off, for example the thermal blanket." (GPS was not even a twinkle in swansont's eye in those days).

 

Yes, said my brother, "But all R&D will have spin off. Agriculture research spin off would be different, but it would be there and we would also have improved agriculture."

 

You never know what will come up.