|
Do climate models have any problems grappling with the Ludic Fallacy?
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Do climate models have any problems grappling with the Ludic Fallacy? That is the dumbest poo poo I've read in awhile. We use confidence intervals and margins of error for a reason. Eh, I read farther into it and it is even dumber than I thought. Pohl fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
I have to say, as someone who was starting to get depressed by attempting to refute the "plateau" believers among my family / facebook friends, it feels pretty good to finally have a year that totally blows away the record temperatures. Even though it is actually bad news in a vacuum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
quote:The climate change initiative can proceed even as the legal challenge is pending. It might not be the cuts we all wanted to see, but it'll make tomorrow a better world than it would have been. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/court-refuses-to-block-obamas-climate-change-initiative/
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Do climate models have any problems grappling with the Ludic Fallacy? I'm not too familiar with this concept, but I'm inclined to say it's not really a problem, at least not if you use the models for their intended purpose. So reading that article, it would appear that the ludic fallacy, applied to climate change, would be assuming that we can predict the future climate simply by extrapolating the trend from the last 100 years of surface temperature data into the future. This would be foolish because small errors in our observations would compound over time, and because our interval would be too small to capture events very significant to the climate like large volcanic eruptions, nuclear wars, or meteor strikes that would drastically change our predicted outcomes. I believe climate science doesn't suffer as much as other efforts to make predictions (for example in the stock market) from the lack of perfect data because it has a solid theoretical base in physics, as well as empirical observation. It's predictions are based as much on our theoretical understanding of the atmosphere as on our empirical observations of how it's past behavior. Climate scientists work with both much better models and a far greater awareness of uncertainty than the bond traders in 2007. That IPCC estimates of the future climate don't account for the probability of a thermonuclear war killing hundreds of millions of people and instigating a nuclear winter may make them less accurate by Taleb's standards, and if such an eventuality were to occur our predictions for the climate would prove very wrong. However the models aren't supposed to account for that risk. Climate scientists aren't trying to account for when the Yellowstone super-volcano will erupt, although such an eventuality would strongly effect the accuracy of their predictions. Rather than being an effort to accurately account for all risks, the models solely tell us that, given our current circumstances, This is what we can expect. The fact is if a ten kilometer wide meteor strikes the earth tomorrow nobody will care what the climate is doing, we'll be too busy dying horribly. We aren't modeling the climate to assess these kinds of risk, but only so we understand what is currently happening. If some state tomorrow starts a trillion dollar geoengineering campaign, our current models will also be wrong. Which is fine, because they aren't supposed to account for that possibility. Most of the uncertainty in climate modeling is of the kind Taleb explicitly excluded from this fallacy, i.e. the uncertainty of chaotic nonlinear systems. Although it's not that clear from the wikipedia page, at times it seems to conflate this fallacy with sensitivity to initial conditions, so sort of hard to address that point. There are a lot of non-linear processes in the climate which have big impacts, but of course everyone knows that and tries to incorporate it sensibly into our predictions. tl;dr: Models have a good theoretical basis and in any case aren't supposed to predict all possibilities, but only to describe present ongoing processes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Do climate models have any problems grappling with the Ludic Fallacy? No.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why would global climate change end currency in such a way that you can't transfer your wealth later? Retirement funds aren't kept in "currency", they're kept in stocks and bonds. Stocks and bonds that likely won't perform well when shareholders are faced with permanently diminished returns due to climate change. Current retirement models assume 7% annualized growth until retirement, I find that assumption laughable if middle-of-the-road assumptions about climate change impacts become reality. If that 7% becomes 2-3% (optimistic, IMO), virtually nobody will be able to retire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Good news! Things are looking up:
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Current retirement models assume 7% annualized growth until retirement, I find that assumption laughable if middle-of-the-road assumptions about climate change impacts become reality. If that 7% becomes 2-3% (optimistic, IMO), virtually nobody will be able to retire. If you're right then the society will have to change (it should anyway). If not, you've screwed yourself. Saving/investing for retirement is still a really smart thing to do right now and I don't see that changing in a big way for at least 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:If you're right then the society will have to change (it should anyway). If not, you've screwed yourself. Saving/investing for retirement is still a really smart thing to do right now and I don't see that changing in a big way for at least 20 years. Yep, what's known right now is that you're guaranteed to lose 2% a year by stuffing your cash under your mattress. This probably has about equal likelihood of getting worse as the likelihood of investment returns going south, so even then it's a choice between 3% growth (optimistic) or 6% losses (again, optimistic).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Having my fourth "descend into a shaking mess over climate issues" moment was enough to make me come back to the forums. At least the thread's palatable. Thanks, UP, for reminding me that I can marry all this to my social concerns as well instead of convincing myself I need to divide my attention. That's all besides the point. I'm brainstorming concrete ways to actually act. It's hard in my local area because of the few organizations there are (first hit when looking them up was a Free Republic article!) and my lack of transportation. Yelling at individuals on the internet all day is basically meaningless on my own or as a faceless letter writer even in conjunction with larger organizations, so I've been thinking of where to start and came up with this: Would it be worth our time to create something like a budget for adoption of new energy forms on a mass scale? I mean along the lines of "We're going to build these things in these places on this time table for this amount of money. This is completely possible with current resources. We just need to start." We'd need to use energy forms that already exist and that can be built now. The purpose of this is not to say we have the one true vision of how to apply new energy forms but more to launch the idea of using them into the public consciousness with something more concrete than "Wind/solar power exists!" "Iceland's doing it!" or nebulous things like the CPP or the Paris accord. All of those things need to come together because the more concrete it is in those areas, the less time wasting small scale arguments will arise. It's my hope that showing that such a thing is makeable for the scale we would do it at would, on top of maybe giving people something to back or just something to encourage them to be more active, give people the initiative to do it on different scales like the local one. And if it's not worth our time specifically, is it worth anyone's time to do?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
onepixeljumpman posted:Having my fourth "descend into a shaking mess over climate issues" moment was enough to make me come back to the forums. At least the thread's palatable. Thanks, UP, for reminding me that I can marry all this to my social concerns as well instead of convincing myself I need to divide my attention. There are such papers put there like you describe. The trick is as this tread shows there are lots of potential solutions with different costs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
onepixeljumpman posted:Having my fourth "descend into a shaking mess over climate issues" moment was enough to make me come back to the forums. At least the thread's palatable. Thanks, UP, for reminding me that I can marry all this to my social concerns as well instead of convincing myself I need to divide my attention. 1) eat less beef 2) don't drive a SUV with truck nutz dangling from the exhaust pipe 3) don't get suckered into eco-hipster fads of the week like gmo free local food from nuclear-free family farms, which don't tend to be actually useful Budgets for adoption of new energy forms on a national scale have been done and range from completely imaginary to somewhat solid. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:19
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Perhaps take steps to deal with mental health issues first, since nothing you do as an individual will have any impact on ACC but you can have a very strong impact on your health and well being by looking after your mental health.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Freezer posted:Doesn't work that way. Throw me into the group going to the fifth step from the other side. Except the sci-fi solution, it doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:If I wind up staying here forever I'd even dump money into repairing the roof and installing solar panels attached to a battery system. I get good enough sunlight to make it worthwhile and I bet if I went fully LED and smart electronic set up inside my house I'd be feeding net power into the grid. This is all good stuff, but I would wait on batteries for a solar system until prices come down some more. Unless you are in a remote area, I don't think the cost/benefit is worth it if the power company will buy energy from you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Retirement funds aren't kept in "currency", they're kept in stocks and bonds. Stocks and bonds that likely won't perform well when shareholders are faced with permanently diminished returns due to climate change. If that does happen, society is going to collapse altogether because without economic growth, businesses will fold up in unprecedented waves and jobless people will actually attack the rich for food, shelter, and water. Saving for retirement is a good bet because if the market does actually permanently collapse, there's nothing you could've done with that money anyway (unless you were buying tons of guns, ammo, canned food and building a stronghold). No one's going to want your cash or your gold because in bartertown, it won't be legal tender.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Throw me into the group going to the fifth step from the other side. Except the sci-fi solution, it doesn't exist. That's usually how I see stage 5 of climate denialism phrased. I do see it on here a lot too. People don't seem to get this isn't a problem we can abandon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:Perhaps take steps to deal with mental health issues first, since nothing you do as an individual will have any impact on ACC but you can have a very strong impact on your health and well being by looking after your mental health. Ah, I see. No individual can have an impact on climate change so nobody should attempt to reduce their impact on the climate. Makes sense. What good/bad can 7,400,000,000 individuals do anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's usually how I see stage 5 of climate denialism phrased. I do see it on here a lot too. People don't seem to get this isn't a problem we can abandon. I'm not abandoning the problem, it will be devastating, but it can't be fixed in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:I'm not abandoning the problem...but it can't be fixed in my opinion. I'm not abandoning the problem, just declaring there's no solution! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Math isn't subject to belief, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm not abandoning the problem, just declaring there's no solution! You can get really angry about it but it still won't change anything. I did retrieval of atmospheric conditions from radar measurement in college, along with some atmospheric modelling. I read quite a bit of climate change papers then, and most have been shown to be too optimistic. Even most of the climate change advocates outside of the actual researchers don't understand how grim the reality is. How most of them celebrated the results of Paris are enough evidence of that. And I'm talking unsolvable in the most ideal conditions, I.e. bring able to turn knobs to directly change output of pollutants. Completely ignoring how people living their daily life in pollution soup do nothing to agitate for change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:You can get really angry about it but it still won't change anything. I did retrieval of atmospheric conditions from radar measurement in college, along with some atmospheric modelling. I read quite a bit of climate change papers then, and most have been shown to be too optimistic. Even most of the climate change advocates outside of the actual researchers don't understand how grim the reality is. How most of them celebrated the results of Paris are enough evidence of that. The fact that you can't see how the world's policy and discussion of climate change has been changing and positively may just because you're jaded or may just be outside of the area you follow. Even the climatologists don't understand the global energy system as well as the energy scientists (who conversely don't understand the climate models as well). The Clean Power Plan and the US/China bilateral deals are huge positive steps that will meaningfully improve our mitigation of climate change. Likewise, the foundation laid at Paris was what we needed to do and will be helpful. It isn't sufficient, but at the scale of our problem, we can't wait for a perfect solution to start to act. At local levels, there is a ton of political action one can take on climate change. So this idea that because the problem is so vast, we poor little people can't do anything, puts you in the same camp as climate deniers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
I have family in the climatologist circles and at the very least there is severe debate about the outcomes of climate change, with more than a few people saying that this doomsday stuff is overhyped pop science bullshit. It's definitely an issue mind you, one that we should fix, but it won't literally turn into Canticle for Leibowitz by the end of the century.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I have family in the climatologist circles and at the very least there is severe debate about the outcomes of climate change, with more than a few people saying that this doomsday stuff is overhyped pop science bullshit. Maybe, but my understanding is that you can't really build a bell curve of the different possible outcomes based on probability, so models which predict extermely bad outcomes are something you should be losing your night sleep over as much as the least damaging scenarios. And based on what we've seen for the last decade with the mild disturbances we've experienced, I don't think the worst case scenarios are something to be dismissed outright. The thing that the sceptics are right about though, is that we don't really know what's gonig to happen. They just draw the opposite conclusion from that, ie that nothing at all is going to happen. Which is cool!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:If that does happen, society is going to collapse altogether because without economic growth, businesses will fold up in unprecedented waves and jobless people will actually attack the rich for food, shelter, and water. Saving for retirement is a good bet because if the market does actually permanently collapse, there's nothing you could've done with that money anyway (unless you were buying tons of guns, ammo, canned food and building a stronghold). No one's going to want your cash or your gold because in bartertown, it won't be legal tender. You're acting like there's no tradeoff value to saving for retirement. If we genuinely believe that retirement will be structurally impossible at recommended rates of saving (say 10% of income when starting in early 20s, which is VASTLY more than most people actually save), then the rational course of action is to spend that money now. Why give up a vacation to Cancun, a new car, or a new house to save for retirement if there is a chance that "jobless people will actually attack the rich for food"? That's a very real tradeoff. Maybe it's my personality, but living a life of scrimping and saving and then seeing everything get vaporized would make me extremely bitter about the sacrifices I'd made to get there. computer parts posted:I have family in the climatologist circles and at the very least there is severe debate about the outcomes of climate change, with more than a few people saying that this doomsday stuff is overhyped pop science bullshit. gently caress the doomsday stuff, I don't know or care whether a certain city will be underwater by a certain date. The real doomsday stuff is what I've been talking about - a permanent, diminished return on investment that accelerates crises of capitalism to a fever pitch. That will touch every inch of the globe, regardless of your personal vulnerability to climate change. When nobody can retire and most people cannot get jobs, that's doomsday enough for me. Considering how insanely vulnerable the world economy is to the stupid actions of a few assholes, I cannot be convinced that even a middle-of-the-road climate change endgame will not destroy the world economy. Radbot fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I have family in the climatologist circles and at the very least there is severe debate about the outcomes of climate change, with more than a few people saying that this doomsday stuff is overhyped pop science bullshit. If it's even fixable, though, every year that we carry on with the status quo is a year that the problem gets that much harder to solve / less likely to be solvable. Every time I see a commercial for a giant SUV or truck I get angry. Doubly so when it's a couple racing somewhere (because you clearly need two giant SUVs to carry two or four people). quote:You're acting like there's no tradeoff value to saving for retirement. If we genuinely believe that retirement will be structurally impossible at recommended rates of saving (say 10% of income when starting in early 20s, which is VASTLY more than most people actually save), then the rational course of action is to spend that money now. The vast majority of consumerism is not things that will actually bring you longterm happiness. A lot of vacations, cars (this is the biggest problem we have aside from perhaps beef), dumb gadgets, they don't make you happier after the novelty wears off. It's very easy to save for retirement without actually compromising your quality of life. Literally no one will be siting on their deathbed wishing they'd bought that new iPhone a year earlier or that they'd gotten just two or three more new truck models in their life instead of skipping a few. Travel, okay, maybe, but you can figure out how to make that work and save for retirement if you're not pissing away $3k a year buying lunch instead of bringing it, etc. But hey, go ahead and spend it all, because possibly not having as much to spend in retirement as 7% annualized would add up to is clearly just as bad as having literally zero. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Is the "status quo" the one from 2016 with an international plan for ratcheting carbon restrictions, where the two largest emitters are both implementing overhauls to their energy system or the status quo of 2010?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Maybe, but my understanding is that you can't really build a bell curve of the different possible outcomes based on probability, so models which predict extermely bad outcomes are something you should be losing your night sleep over as much as the least damaging scenarios. What you're referring to is the idea that the likelihoods of outcomes are unknown, so we should assume all outcomes are equally likely.The problem is that you don't know which outcomes can actually happen and which are just baseless fear mongering. Like I don't think most people know that Mad Max the series is ostensibly set in Australia, not Ohio after the Apocalypse or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:The vast majority of consumerism is not things that will actually bring you longterm happiness. A lot of vacations, cars (this is the biggest problem we have aside from perhaps beef), dumb gadgets, they don't make you happier after the novelty wears off. It's very easy to save for retirement without actually compromising your quality of life. I gotta disagree here. I just replaced my 15 year old car with a new economy car - it's loving awesome. Please don't tell me that not having to wait by the side of the road for AAA doesn't bring me happiness. quote:Literally no one will be siting on their deathbed wishing they'd bought that new iPhone a year earlier or that they'd gotten just two or three more new truck models in their life instead of skipping a few. Travel, okay, maybe, but you can figure out how to make that work and save for retirement if you're not pissing away $3k a year buying lunch instead of bringing it, etc. You can strawman this all you want, but having talked to a lot of dying people as a former EMT (usually during interfacility transports), a lot of them really wanted to have worked less and seen the world more. Not having to save massive amounts of cash allows you to do both, coincidentally. quote:But hey, go ahead and spend it all, because possibly not having as much to spend in retirement as 7% annualized would add up to is clearly just as bad as having literally zero. We're not discussing "not having as much to spend in retirement" here, we're discussing what permanent 2-3% growth would look like. Hopefully you would agree that this would bring about a very, very deep depression, one that could likely involve starving elderly people and desperate poor folks. *That* is the issue. If one genuinely believes that you're going to be torn apart by starving hordes at 60 regardless of what you do, maximizing current utility of your resources makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Radbot posted:*That* is the issue. If one genuinely believes that you're going to be torn apart by starving hordes at 60 regardless of what you do, maximizing current utility of your resources makes sense. Yes, if you start from a completely unfounded position based in fear and ignorance, you might start making short-sighted decisions...doesn't mean they were the correct choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes, if you start from a completely unfounded position based in fear and ignorance, you might start making short-sighted decisions...doesn't mean they were the correct choice. Climate change won't have effects on returns on investment. Sure thing, you're right Trab.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What you're referring to is the idea that the likelihoods of outcomes are unknown, so we should assume all outcomes are equally likely.The problem is that you don't know which outcomes can actually happen and which are just baseless fear mongering. Ér ok. I don't assume that all scenarios are equally likely though. I just assume that 'bad poo poo gonna happen' since bad poo poo has already happened, ie. the (frequency of) droughts and famines of eastern africa being a direct consequence of climate change, ergo it's gonna happen elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Climate change won't have effects on returns on investment. Sure thing, you're right Trab. Climate change won't turn the world into Logan's run either. Also, the research is mixed on the impacts of climate change on economic growth in developed economies.....
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Climate change won't turn the world into Logan's run either. Can you link me to research showing positive effects of climate change on the economy of developed nations? 'Cause I can't find any.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You can strawman this all you want, but having talked to a lot of dying people as a former EMT (usually during interfacility transports), a lot of them really wanted to have worked less and seen the world more. Not having to save massive amounts of cash allows you to do both, coincidentally. No they don't, not saving for retirement guarantees you will have to work until the day you die, instead of having the possibility of not needing to. Maybe poo poo won't get really bad until 50 years from now, when you're 20 years into retirement. Maybe they'll get bad in 30 years and you'll need to work those years after all. But if you don't save, you'll definitely be working those 20 years either way. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also, the research is mixed on the impacts of climate change on economic growth in developed economies..... Research is "mixed" in that no one knows whether the economic effects are going to be just bad or outright catastrophic. There's no scenario where developed nations on the whole benefit, and just because Europe and North America probably aren't going to have literal sinking cities and famines doesn't mean that everything's going to be fine. What Radbot is saying is still pretty much nonsense, though. Hedging right now means saving more, not less. The only scenario where that's a bad idea is total economic collapse, which is something that isn't worth worrying about or preparing for. Even if you think you'll never be able to retire (probably a pretty legitimate concern for millennials, to be honest), having something on hand is the best way to weather economic downturns. And a lot of bad recessions and periods of stagnation are way more likely than some weird mad max scenario where money stops mattering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The fact that you can't see how the world's policy and discussion of climate change has been changing and positively may just because you're jaded or may just be outside of the area you follow. Even the climatologists don't understand the global energy system as well as the energy scientists (who conversely don't understand the climate models as well). Policy and discussion can't be seen in a positive light no matter how heart warming it is if reversing climate change is essentially impossible. I could point out previous binding agreements that have had zero effect on year over year increase in CO2 production, but again, that's not the point. Any further CO2 production above the sink level is essentially added to the atmosphere on a timescale longer than human generations. The whole 'we can't wait for a perfect solution to start to act.' shows you're treating it like some human rights issue where admitting the problem is 90% of the solution - this is a physical problem. It is like celebrating that a doctor has admitted a terminal cancer patient 'has cancer' and can start his road to recovery. I'm not entirely sure how its the same camp as deniers but OK. There is quite a lot that can be done for planning infrastructure, moving groups, etc as biomes change. Unfortunately this doesn't seem too popular in environmentalist circles and the only groups doing it are the energy extractors themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Policy and discussion can't be seen in a positive light no matter how heart warming it is if reversing climate change is essentially impossible. I could point out previous binding agreements that have had zero effect on year over year increase in CO2 production, but again, that's not the point. Any further CO2 production above the sink level is essentially added to the atmosphere on a timescale longer than human generations. The whole 'we can't wait for a perfect solution to start to act.' shows you're treating it like some human rights issue where admitting the problem is 90% of the solution - this is a physical problem. It is like celebrating that a doctor has admitted a terminal cancer patient 'has cancer' and can start his road to recovery. So literally any action the people of earth could do wouldn't be seen in a positive light by you because we can't undo the sins of the past? Climate change can't be "reversed" even if all carbon emissions stopped today. Yes it is a social problem first. This isn't a physics problem. This is a human problem. We need our social institutions aligned because that's the only way we can deal with it. So yes the first agreement isn't perfect. It literally can't be. But it sets on a far better path than the one declaring doom would take us on. Also, I think once again you're assuming that because you haven't read about it no one is doing it. Adaption is a huge part of the discussion and has been since Kyoto died. The fact adaptation and vague references to geoengineering made it into Paris is part of the positive changes to the status quo that you deny are occurring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:52
|
|