IPCC Report

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4151
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:58 pm

@vexed87:

Serious matter, but still I must note that your post got me humming the theme song for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

User avatar
vexed87
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:02 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: IPCC Report

Post by vexed87 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:39 pm

It's a good theme tune. :mrgreen:

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3693
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE » Sun Nov 25, 2018 3:17 am

http://economicsdetective.com/2018/11/c ... ob-murphy/

interview with brute's favorite human on climate change. explains pretty well in the beginning why this is not all about the natural sciences, but lots of economics actually come in.

tonyedgecombe
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:11 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: IPCC Report

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:28 am

BRUTE wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 3:17 am
http://economicsdetective.com/2018/11/c ... ob-murphy/

interview with brute's favorite human on climate change. explains pretty well in the beginning why this is not all about the natural sciences, but lots of economics actually come in.
Isn't he the guy who said he believed the biblical story of Jonah and the whale? I think I'll take what anyone with such little critical thought has to say with a pinch of salt.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4151
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:22 am

@BRUTE:

I agree that there is more than a little political/ego/"religious" bias embedded in almost everybody's take on this issue, as well as other issues having to do with resource depletion and population/economic growth. So, it is important to actually examine the work being done on its own merits when possible.

The DICE model created by William Nordhaus is available here:

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/home ... xclude.GMS

Free simulation software on which model could be run is available here:

http://vensim.com/free-download/

I like playing with simulation software for the same reason that I liked playing with my big wooden dollhouse and all its accessories when I was 7. MMV :lol:

Anyways, it is very easy for me to construct and run a Cinderella model where I cut my caloric intake to 1200 kilocalories/day and increase my time spent at paid employment to 60 hours/week and thereby simultaneously maximize the likelihood that I will be able to wear something cute in a size 8 and hand my daughter and her new husband an envelope stuffed with Franklins on the occasion of her wedding 11 months from today. However, this model does not take into account my relatively high levels of gluttony and sloth (low level pain tolerance.) So, perhaps, it would be more realistic to construct a model which moderates both caloric intake and work effort to the level of my pain tolerance, resulting in a more moderately successful outcome, such as settling for half stuffed gift envelope and size 12 dress. OR...!!!!!!Flash of Brilliance!!!!Maybe I could maximize my work output until June while still eating as many cookies as I like, and then quickly switch gears and minimize my work output and caloric intake until October and then even if I end up 20 lbs fatter by June than I am now, I can still show up at the wedding with 3/4 stuffed envelope wearing size 10 dress!!!!

Pretty much that is what your favorite is suggesting, and he may very well be right, but he hasn't actually constructed and run a model himself, so I don't know whether to believe him, and I tend towards not believing him, because some of the arguments he made in his articles are quite misleading. For instance, he suggests that this sort of modeling should be subject to the same degree of precision as equations in physics. That's not how modeling works. The more resistant a modeler is to updating a model given new information the less accurate a model will be. For instance, I might start out with a guess that my basal metabolism is equal to 12 times my weight in lbs. , but then after a few runs notice that it is actually closer to 10 and also not completely independent of current caloric intake, both in terms of quantity and quality. Doesn't mean that the notion that I possess a metabolism which influences my body weight is flawed.

Okay, not the world's greatest analogy, but I was trying to communicate agreement that although inherently more risky, quick fix method can sometimes be the best solution, but NOT always!

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4151
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:31 am

Another thing that confuses me is how almost everybody suggests solutions which are not even consistent with their own politics/"religion". For instance, it doesn't make sense for an environmentalist to be in favor of open borders immigration, and it doesn't make sense for a libertarian to be in favor of nuclear power; literally the most centralized power structure imaginable.

suomalainen
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by suomalainen » Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:30 am

National Climate Assessment released Friday.

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4151
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:11 pm

This may also be of interest:

https://www.iea.org/weo/


Keep in mind that projected demand does not imply availability of supply.

https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.net ... -graph.jpg

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3693
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE » Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:39 pm

tonyedgecombe wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:28 am
Isn't he the guy who said he believed the biblical story of Jonah and the whale? I think I'll take what anyone with such little critical thought has to say with a pinch of salt.
brute has never heard of that. if so, citation please.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3693
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE » Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:41 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:22 am
...
brute has no idea what 7Wannabe5 is saying in that "analogy".

Stahlmann
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:05 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by Stahlmann » Sun Nov 25, 2018 3:27 pm

BRUTE wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:39 pm
brute has never heard of that. if so, citation please.
Check out wiki.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4151
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:03 pm

@BRUTE:

In ERE-the book, Jacob writes about homeotelic response vs. heterotelic response in a 2 goal world. A homeotelic response moves closer to both goals, and a heterotelic response moves towards one goal, but away from the other. To make my analogy simpler, imagine that I only have two goals in life which are to never have to shoot myself up with insulin and to eat as many cookies as possible on a daily basis. I go to see my doctor at the IPCC for a checkup and she tells me that at my current cookie eating level of 8 cookies/day, I am already pre-diabetic, and I should have taken her advice to cutback on cookies 30 years ago, because now going immediately cold turkey on cookies, muffins, and even potatoes is my only chance to maybe, just maybe, not have to resort to insulin. I do not like this diagnosis, so I go to get a second opinion from Dr. Murphy who happens to have an office over my favorite bakery. Dr. Murphy asks me "What would be the ideal number of cookies for you to eat every day?" and I answer "Maybe 12?" and then he uses his calculator for a minute, and sends me off with a prescription for insulin and a bakery gift-certificate.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3693
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE » Mon Nov 26, 2018 1:13 am

Stahlmann wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 3:27 pm
Check out wiki.
brute can't find the reference listed on Wikipedia. the article might have gotten deleted or whatever, but it doesn't seem to exist under the author's name at the date referenced in the Wikipedia footnote.

that said, brute isn't unwilling to believe Murphy actually said this - the guy is a Christian.

but brute also knows that Murphy is a brilliant economist, so that doesn't make him doubt the ideas expressed in the podcast interview.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3693
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE » Mon Nov 26, 2018 1:34 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:03 pm
@BRUTE:

In ERE-the book, Jacob writes about homeotelic response vs. heterotelic response in a 2 goal world. A homeotelic response moves closer to both goals, and a heterotelic response moves towards one goal, but away from the other. To make my analogy simpler, imagine that I only have two goals in life which are to never have to shoot myself up with insulin and to eat as many cookies as possible on a daily basis. I go to see my doctor at the IPCC for a checkup and she tells me that at my current cookie eating level of 8 cookies/day, I am already pre-diabetic, and I should have taken her advice to cutback on cookies 30 years ago, because now going immediately cold turkey on cookies, muffins, and even potatoes is my only chance to maybe, just maybe, not have to resort to insulin. I do not like this diagnosis, so I go to get a second opinion from Dr. Murphy who happens to have an office over my favorite bakery. Dr. Murphy asks me "What would be the ideal number of cookies for you to eat every day?" and I answer "Maybe 12?" and then he uses his calculator for a minute, and sends me off with a prescription for insulin and a bakery gift-certificate.
that makes more sense to brute. here's what brute thinks about the analogy:
there is no downside to not eating cookies besides the lack of pleasure. limiting energy consumption to reduce CO2 emissions has terrible consequences for current and future humans. there should be no mistake - humans WILL die from lack of economic growth. going back to "safe" levels of emission right now will reverse the progress made on world-wide reduction of poverty. for the first time in a long time, less than 1 billion humans on this miserable rock live in poverty. does 7Wannabe5 go back to 2-5 billion in poverty? because that's what it takes to limit CO2 emissions by drastic amounts.

the homeotelic vs. heterotelic thing is interesting with regards to climate change and actions taken. brute is against most recommended action precisely because it is NOT conducive to a web of goals (i.e. it is heterotelic?).

if the goals are saving the planet and improving human prosperity and wellness, brute is for any activity that reaches both of them. brute is against heterotelic responses like carbon taxes, subsidies for renewables, bans on nuclear power, or bans on fracking.

the reason that brute (and Murphy, as he says in the interview) is not that worried about climate change is not denying physics. it is simply that there are actually homeotelic responses that advance towards both economic prosperity (and therefore human well-being), and reducing emissions. these include:
- market developments of renewables and nuclear power
- voluntary reduction in consumption
- energy saving measures and technology that make financial sense

to turn the metaphor back to 7Wannabe5, here's how brute would describe the impact:
7Wannabe5 goes to the doctor. the doctor says "if 7Wannabe 5 continues eating 8 cookies a day, she will get diabetes and have to inject insulin for the rest of her life. in order to prevent that from happening, it's not enough to reduce eating cookies, 7Wannabe5 will have to amputate an arm right now." at the same time, 7Wannabe5 knows several humans that have eaten 8 cookies a day without getting diabetes so far, so the danger is in the least several decades away. in addition, injecting insulin (== sucking carbon out of the atmosphere? adapting to climate change?) may be bad, but it's not that bad. it can be done, even though it is costly and a nuisance. humans live with it all the time.

definitely taking drastic costs now to maybe prevent something that might be bad and might not actually happen later - brute isn't sold. electric vehicles have made incredible progress in the last 5 years. batteries have become 75% cheaper since 2010. solar is getting much cheaper. fracking has reduced fossil fuel emissions drastically. western countries are reducing their CO2 emissions just by using newer, cleaner, cheaper technology.

everything good is already happening. with the draconian, heterotelic responses implemented, all those things would maybe happen 5 years earlier. but at what cost? probably hundreds of millions dead. standards of living drastically reduced, especially for the currently-poor. no electricity, education, medicine for third world kids. because those are the countries that produce most of the emissions.

brute's whole point in this debate is that economics is the science of "there is no free lunch". that is true no matter what physics says about the climate.

User avatar
Bankai
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:28 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by Bankai » Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:27 am

BRUTE wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 1:34 am
because those are the countries that produce most of the emissions.
What? US is by far the biggest emitter per capita, twice the level of other advanced economies and 10x the level of '3rd world' countries.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/s ... _utZjnLc0M

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3693
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE » Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:33 am

Bankai wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:27 am
What? US is by far the biggest emitter per capita, twice the level of other advanced economies and 10x the level of '3rd world' countries.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/s ... _utZjnLc0M
climate doesn't care about per capita. China is almost 2x total US emissions, and the trends are in opposite directions.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4151
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:54 am

there is no downside to not eating cookies besides the lack of pleasure. limiting energy consumption to reduce CO2 emissions has terrible consequences for current and future humans. there should be no mistake - humans WILL die from lack of economic growth. going back to "safe" levels of emission right now will reverse the progress made on world-wide reduction of poverty. for the first time in a long time, less than 1 billion humans on this miserable rock live in poverty. does 7Wannabe5 go back to 2-5 billion in poverty? because that's what it takes to limit CO2 emissions by drastic amounts.
Some humans will die from lack of availability low-cost energy to further fund economic growth. Other humans who are not about to starve will bitch/vote their own "pocketbook/lifestyle" and/or riot if carbon taxes or any other imposed austerity measures limit their ability to afford "cookies." Given.
climate doesn't care about per capita. China is almost 2x total US emissions, and the trends are in opposite directions.
Climate doesn't care about national boundaries either. Subsistence farmers do not create a lot of new emissions. People working very hard in cities to make their way into the global middle class (approximately 1/2 Jacob/capita) do. People do not tend towards voluntarily reducing their emissions until per capita income is around $30-$40,000 (give or take for social/job benefits.)

the reason that brute (and Murphy, as he says in the interview) is not that worried about climate change is not denying physics. it is simply that there are actually homeotelic responses that advance towards both economic prosperity (and therefore human well-being), and reducing emissions. these include:
- market developments of renewables and nuclear power
- voluntary reduction in consumption
- energy saving measures and technology that make financial sense
As you noted there is no such thing as a free lunch, and with no numbers attached here, that's what this highly optimistic suggestion smells like to me. Unless the most impoverished are destined to lift themselves up and out simply by trading information on a global basis, transportation and manufacturing costs remain key element. Putting aside the fact that no other energy source can come close to competing with fossil fuels on basis of quality of density/portability, EROI without subsidy might make other sources competitive at $100/barrel.

So, I predict that humans will continue to burn fossil fuels at level very well correlated with growth in global GDP until $100/barrel price level is reached due to declining supplies. I am not optimistic enough to believe that human ingenuity will be able to greatly ameliorate a huge amount of suffering, strife, and death as a result, but one can always hope. In a nutshell, all "we" have to do is come up with enough ingenuity to move approximately 4 billion people into a lifestyle equal in affluence to $30,000 per capita, while using 40% less fossil fuels, within the next 25 years or so. Maybe "we" can exhume Eli Whitney and Thomas Edison, and use their DNA to impregnate a million upwardly mobile young Asian females?

tonyedgecombe
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:11 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: IPCC Report

Post by tonyedgecombe » Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:13 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:54 am
Some humans will die from lack of availability low-cost energy to further fund economic growth. Other humans who are not about to starve will bitch/vote their own "pocketbook/lifestyle" and/or riot if carbon taxes or any other imposed austerity measures limit their ability to afford "cookies." Given.
I'm not completely gloomy on this, there is a precedent for the population making willing sacrifices, that is rationing during the second world war. I'm sure people grumbled and there was a black market. In general though it was successful. I guess the big distinction is there was an obvious opponent politicians could focus attention on although there is no reason that couldn't be climate change. Also you don't even need to ask people to slowly starve themselves, as well all know there is a quite healthy lifestyle on the other side of the equation.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10523
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: IPCC Report

Post by jacob » Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:28 pm

UNEP's annual emission gap report just came out. It's purpose is to keep an eye on where we are vs where we want to be. The difference is the gap and it's measured in gigatonnes. Pretty simple. GtCO2 is emitted continuously (e.g. 36GtCO2/year). There's a finite budget (e.g. 285GtCO2) corresponding to the targets (like 1.5C). When it's all spent (0 left), it means the target has been exceeded.

https://www.unenvironment.org/resources ... eport-2018

Highlights:
  • Countries have yet to live up to the promises of their politicians and constituents.
  • There's an emerging realization that good intentions alone do not change reality.
  • Global GHG emissions still show no signs of peaking. After three years of flat ranging, 2017 set a new record.
  • Previous techno-optimism has cooled a bit as serious people are no longer as convinced that negative-emissions technologies (like BECCS) will work. There are some indications that full-systems EROI might be too close to ~1.
  • As a result, the suggested cuts in the IPCC1.5 report from earlier this year are insufficient.
  • To stay under 1.5C, the current ambition level has to be increased by 5x.
  • To stay under 2C, the current ambition level has to be increased by 3x.
  • Continuing as is will lead to the 3C scenario for year 2100. Temperatures will keep increasing after that.
  • There's material technical potential in a wide-scale shift to wind/solar, energy efficient appliances and cars, and afforestation (planting more trees) and reducing deforestation. This alone will not be enough but it's more effective than the current approach.
Place your bets!

User avatar
Jin+Guice
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by Jin+Guice » Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:43 pm

This is the most depressing thread. Everyone but brute, what do you suggest we do? We are already essentially fucked. Maybe if we stop doing everything all of us have done since we were born it won't be as bad as it could be. Pretty obviously this won't happen as not even those of us on here who believe this threat is real and pretty bad (myself included) have taken any steps to solve this problem, which if I'm not mistaken would include not posting on this forum anymore. It seems like the only real response it to enjoy the apocalypse and know that most of us will be too old to experience the really shitty parts and probably too rich for it to really effect us.

Post Reply