The politics of incentives

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I think one thing that is obvious from the pandemic is that pulling together for collective action to solve a common problem is almost hopeless. And once people take a position on an issue, they harden their resolve to never change their mind, no matter what the evidence is or how much being wrong will cost them. People were willing to die over mistaken beliefs, and at least half a million did actually needlessly go to their graves over misinformation. No one is going to convince a dude in Ohio that the floods and the lake algae blooms are something new and human caused if he’s already made up his mind.

 

[KennB]

This climate change hysteria is utter nonsense. Climate does change but we’re not causing it. There was an ice age 30,000 years ago and some believe that there may have only been 10,000 people on the planet at the time. Are we to believe there was a massive civilization before that that polluted the earth and caused global warming and then cooling? Or was it just natural solar cycles? I don’t buy into the gloom and doom. Do your part, try and conserve natural resources and don’t pollute. That’s the best we can do and embrace new tech when it makes a difference. Sitting out there worrying about the end of the world because you own a car and heat your home is just dumb.

And BTW,Thirsty, Ohio is a pretty great place to live. Don’t have much in the way or hurricanes or droughts. We also have the largest freshwater lake in the world on our north shore. No wildfires, no earthquakes, no tsunamis either! The world is a big place. You might consider seeing some of it before it ends in 30 years.

Here's another depiction of the data you can scoff at. Scroll down and enjoy the whole thing.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

 

[smstachwick]

I think one thing that is obvious from the pandemic is that pulling together for collective action to solve a common problem is almost hopeless. And once people take a position on an issue, they harden their resolve to never change their mind, no matter what the evidence is or how much being wrong will cost them. People were willing to die over mistaken beliefs, and at least half a million did actually needlessly go to their graves over misinformation. No one is going to convince a dude in Ohio that the floods and the lake algae blooms are something new and human caused if he’s already made up his mind.

Generally I’d agree with that, with the caveat that it’s sometimes worth at least one appeal to reason. If that works, great!

If not, I’m not obligated to continue entertaining interaction with whatever account may be in question.

Here's another depiction of the data you can scoff at. Scroll down and enjoy the whole thing.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

Impressive.

 

[jderimig]

Yes, absolutely correct — you did cherry pick that from the EPA.

Figures 2 and 3 do show a strong indication that the strength and intensity of tropical storm activity has increased in the past 30 years.

There is a thing call statistical inference which is applied to data. There is also a thing in statistics called the NULL hypothesis. The NULL hypothesis states that any variation observed in data is no different than random variation. To prove significance you have to show statistically that the variation you observed has a very low probability of being random. The common threshold for this probability is 0.05 which is commonly known to skilled in the art of statistics as the P-value.

Basically what you do is compare the variation that you suspect is significant against the historical variation of that response and calculate the probability of that variation not being a random move. There are several methods to do this, Shewhart control charts are the most common. You almost never see this data plotted on Shewhart charts by the AGW crowd. Because if you did, you would see that Figures 2 and 3 would could not statistically reject the NULL hypothesis.

You should read up on this. You can start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shewhart_individuals_control_chart

 

[Zbench]

There is a thing call statistical inference which is applied to data. There is also a thing in statistics called the NULL hypothesis. The NULL hypothesis states that any variation observed in data is no different in random variation. To prove significance you have to show statistically that the variation you observed has a very low probability of being random. The common threshold for this probability is 0.05 which is commonly known to skilled in the art of statistics as the P-value.

Basically what you do is compare the variation that you suspect is significant against the historical variation of that response and calculate the probability of that variation not being a random move. There are several methods to do this, Shugart control charts are the most common. You almost never see this data plotted on Shewhart charts by the ACC crowd. Because if you did, you would see that Figures 2 and 3 would could not statistically reject the NULL hypothesis.

You should read up on this. You can start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shewhart_individuals_control_chart

Thank you. Been working as a Master Black Belt since 2001, use minitab daily. When you get to the REAL numbers, the climate hysteria fades away. Its all based on projections (regression analysis) and models. Neither are accurate past the last known data point for a system as complex as the earth's environment (r^2 = .00000000001).

But then what would anyone expect from a movement that was started by Mr Inconvenient Truth? The only inconvenient truth is he apparently enjoyed the midnight delights of massage parlors while jet setting around in his carbon emitting nightmare while telling you to sit in the dark warming yourself with lava rocks that you put out in the sun the day before. And then we have the more modern prophets of doom, John Kerry, whose only concern about the Ukraine war is that nations might backtrack on their carbon commitments and some 16 year old girl from Sweden. Serious topics require serious people. I've seen precious little of anyone fitting that description in this climate debate.

In my estimation, this climate jazz is all about govt seeking to exert control over you so as to influence what you can do. It's just that simple.

 

[jderimig]

Thank you. Been working as a Master Black Belt since 2001, use minitab daily. When you get to the REAL numbers, the climate hysteria fades away. Its all based on projections (regression analysis) and models. Neither are accurate past the last known data point for a system as complex as the earth's environment (r^2 = .00000000001).

But then what would anyone expect from a movement that was started by Mr Inconvenient Truth? The only inconvenient truth is he apparently enjoyed the midnight delights of massage parlors while jet setting around in his carbon emitting nightmare while telling you to sit in the dark warming yourself with lava rocks that you put out in the sun the day before. And then we have the more modern prophets of doom, John Kerry, whose only concern about the Ukraine war is that nations might backtrack on their carbon commitments and some 16 year old girl from Sweden. Serious topics require serious people. I've seen precious little of anyone fitting that description in this climate debate.

In my estimation, this climate jazz is all about govt seeking to exert control over you so as to influence what you can do. It's just that simple.

To be fair I do believe that planet is warming and CO2 emitted by humans maybe a contributor. But when the hysteria and fear mongering extend to predicting (or worse explaning) increased catastrophic weather, floods and pestilence, that is simply not supported by data.

Since you are a fellow MBB one simply has to look at the Poisson distribution of record high temperatures in any particular city and you will see they are randomly distributed over the last century. Or last totally uncorrelated with atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The only thing that correlates with CO2 concentration is standard of living, life expectancy, inverse of poverty rate, inverse of food production per capita globally.

 

[Zbench]

I think the current climate alarmist standard bearer said it best: “ We chose truth over facts”

 

[jderimig]

Just remember that heat waves, droughts, mild winters, lack of snow, and hurricanes are all caused by global warming.
On the other hand, extra cold winters, floods, calm winds, and heavy snow are also caused by global warming.

 

[jderimig]

I'll make a prediction that unfortunately is almost certainly going to come true. There is going to mass hunger and major food shortage/inflation uprising by winter 2022-23. Russia and Ukraine are major grain exporters, and Russian natural gas and potash are major raw materials for fertilizer, and all will be greatly reduced in supply during the coming year whether the Ukraine war ends quickly or not. Without cheap natural gas there is no cheap fertilizer, and without cheap fertilizer crop yields could drop by 50%. This is going to get bad, and it is all self-inflicted by well intentioned simplistic thinking people who have no idea of the linkage between fossil fuels and food supplies, but who want to ban fossil fuels and livestock production the two major sources of fertilizer, in order to save the people a hundred years from now from having to endure slightly warmer temperatures. I think most people when confronted with hunger and bankrupting food prices today are going to start caring a whole lot less about temperatures 100 years from now.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

There is a thing call statistical inference which is applied to data. There is also a thing in statistics called the NULL hypothesis. The NULL hypothesis states that any variation observed in data is no different in random variation. To prove significance you have to show statistically that the variation you observed has a very low probability of being random. The common threshold for this probability is 0.05 which is commonly known to skilled in the art of statistics as the P-value.

Basically what you do is compare the variation that you suspect is significant against the historical variation of that response and calculate the probability of that variation not being a random move. There are several methods to do this, Shewhart control charts are the most common. You almost never see this data plotted on Shewhart charts by the ACC crowd. Because if you did, you would see that Figures 2 and 3 would could not statistically reject the NULL hypothesis.

You should read up on this. You can start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shewhart_individuals_control_chart

Don’t try to convince me. Convince the fire!

 

[Steven]

I like my climate. I'm too lazy to control it.

 

[smstachwick]

This is one of those pages that makes me love the ignore button.

 

[Bravo52]

Everyone whining about what the climate might do are assuming that no mitigation will occur...

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Everyone whining about what the climate might do are assuming that no mitigation will occur...

What mitigation is occurring?

 

[Bravo52]

What mitigation is occurring?

None in China...

 

[Bravo52]

What mitigation is occurring?

...or in India

 

[Bravo52]

.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

None in China...

Is there any place else where mitigation is happening?

 

[justforfun]

Don’t try to convince me. Convince the fire!

Clean out the fallen timber.

When the alarmists can stop a volcano, a tidal wave, a tornado, a hurricane, I might listen to them.

When they have data that is a graph over say a billion years.

The Earth will be here after the current human race kills itself off.

Roy

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

What is happening in California and other places in the west is that entire ecosystems now exist in places where the weather has changed enough that they can no longer survive. Animals can move and migrate, and their lifespans aren’t very long. But that’s not true for trees and forests. As the rainfall and temperature patterns have changed, these plants are growing in places where the conditions are not right for them. So they weaken and some of them die. Fire is what clears away that dead material. We are probably going to have fires here for a long time as these sick ecosystems get burned away and replaced by something else that can thrive in the new conditions. It’s happening here first, but it’s probably going to happen almost everywhere eventually.

 

[smstachwick]

When the alarmists can stop a volcano, a tidal wave, a tornado, a hurricane, I might listen to them.

Each of those is relatively small in scale, not necessarily posing an existential risk. The exception is volcanism, which caused the Great Dying 250 million years ago. The mechanisms that cause that are far too deep in the Earth to do much about it though. Research is ongoing but that is a risk that is currently waiting on technology, not human will.

When they have data that is a graph over say a billion years.

General climactic trends can be found over more than 2 billion years’ worth of geological evidence. It is hypothesized that the Huronian glaciation consisted of cold periods that extended over about 300 million years beginning about 2.5 billion years ago.

Did you choose that number out of the expectation that it would be too high for any data to shed light on, or was it completely arbitrary?

 

[justforfun]

Each of those is relatively small in scale, not necessarily posing an existential risk. The exception is volcanism, which caused the Great Dying 250 million years ago. The mechanisms that cause that are far too deep in the Earth to do much about it though. Research is ongoing but that is a risk that is currently waiting on technology, not human will.


General climactic trends can be found over more than 2 billion years’ worth of geological evidence. It is hypothesized that the Huronian glaciation consisted of cold periods that extended over about 300 million years beginning about 2.5 billion years ago.

Did you choose that number out of the expectation that it would be too high for any data to shed light on, or was it completely arbitrary?

Billion, just a number, hypothesized / best guess.

Humans have so little control, they just think they do.

Roy

 

[Zbench]

Each of those is relatively small in scale, not necessarily posing an existential risk. The exception is volcanism, which caused the Great Dying 250 million years ago. The mechanisms that cause that are far too deep in the Earth to do much about it though. Research is ongoing but that is a risk that is currently waiting on technology, not human will.


General climactic trends can be found over more than 2 billion years’ worth of geological evidence. It is hypothesized that the Huronian glaciation consisted of cold periods that extended over about 300 million years beginning about 2.5 billion years ago.

Did you choose that number out of the expectation that it would be too high for any data to shed light on, or was it completely arbitrary?

Don’t forget about this gem. Makes the great dying look like a stubbed toe:

“The next well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last billion years, occurred from 720 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator,[42] possibly being ended by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes.”

I’m sure whatever lived on the earth at that time was very grateful for the dreaded CO2 build up.

 

[dr wogz]

This.. the pandemic.. religion.. flat or spherical.. Left & Right gonna duke it out until the last man standing.. whether he is right or wrong.

The one thing, the one constant in all of this, is the back & forth.. and we all just seem to be getting more entrenched..


it is entertaining..

 

[smstachwick]

Billion, just a number, hypothesized / best guess.

Humans have so little control, they just think they do.

Roy

The idea that human activity influences climate on a regional scale is almost as old as civilization itself. Aristotle’s students wrote how draining of marshlands coincided with a particular area’s propensity to freeze in the winter, and proposed that there was a causal relationship in the 4th century BC. European scholars in the Renaissance also proposed a causal relationship between growing adoption of agriculture and the changing character of lands surrounding the Mediterranean since ancient times.

The greenhouse gas mechanism was proposed in the late 19th century and investigated over the following decades, often with mixed results and difficulty isolating variable factors. It was a combination of improved equipment, a reduction of aerosol pollution, an acceleration of carbon dumping, the discrediting of other theories and models for various reasons, and a greater collected body of direct measurements that caused the currently accepted idea that humans are responsible for a decisive global trend towards warming to gain traction through the 1970s.

The idea continued to gain acceptance in scientific circles through further work in the 1980s. It was at this time that serious effort was put into combatting ozone depletion and acid rain, and some progress has been made.

Actually the ozone depletion solution of banning CFCs like Freon may have bought a lot of valuable time. Those chemicals absorb something like 1000 times the amount of infrared radiation that carbon dioxide does and they may have caused about half of the warming that was observed prior to the banning of their large-scale use in the late 1980s. The infamous ozone hole has recovered since then and is expected to return to its 1980 state by 2070.

 

[justforfun]

Some time is the past, there was a climate cult of dinosaurs. They all got together and voted to change the climate. Then they died, they all drank poison fern smoothies, Kool-Aide wasn't invented yet, that came from another cult.

I can't wait, in a billion years, someone will find my/this post and declare it true history.

Roy

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Cherry picked from the EPA...
Despite the apparent increases in tropical cyclone activity in recent years, shown in Figures 2 and 3, changes in observation methods over time make it difficult to know whether tropical storm activity has actually shown an increase over time.3
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity

I went back and looked at the EPA site after your post about the statistical tools for determining if data shows a trend or is indistinguishable from random variation. I know that sometimes what looks like a trend is actually just noise. Maybe that’s the case for the Tropical Cyclone Activity charts, maybe it’s not. I don’t have the tools or skills to analyze that.

Tropical Cyclone Activity is not the only indicator that they have information on. If you look at the navigation on the left side of that page you linked to, there are links to information about other indicators: US and Global Temperature, Seasonal Temperature, High and Low Temperatures, Heat Waves, US and Global Precipitation, Heavy Precipitation, River Flooding, and Drought.

For most or all of those other charts, the trends are much more obvious than they are for Tropical Cyclone Activity. While you might be able to pick a few where you could argue the trend is either weak or maybe just a statistical fluke or random variation, when you look at all of them together, it seems extremely unlikely that all the random variations in all of the different indicators are all coincidentally pointing in the same direction. And add to that the other signs that aren’t tracked on that particular site, like the shrinking of glaciers, decrease in arctic sea ice, and my personal favorite — devastating fires. It would be great if the fires were just random statistical flukes and just as likely to go away as get worse, but do you really think so? I don’t. Neither are the droughts and heat waves. Those aren’t going to randomly disappear like a statistical blip. The floods and storms aren’t going away. The glaciers aren’t randomly growing back.

We know what is happening and why.

 

[Bravo52]

Each of those is relatively small in scale, not necessarily posing an existential risk.

Ding, ding, ding….there’s the buzz word! “Existential”

 

[Bravo52]

Is there any place else where mitigation is happening?

Do you own solar?

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Do you own solar?

Yes, I do. Do you?