... well explained and scientifically backed.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmes ... _id=294083

I will try to tiptoe around the politics, and get to game theory. ( Seems appropriate for a forum like this, right? )

Suppose you have something around 200 members of set A, and all members are faced with event X which harms all parties in time T_X to the extent of cost C_X. ( C_X may not be proportionately distibuted initially, but as T increases, C_X tends toward proportionate distribution. )

Further suppose that to prevent event X, the majority of members of set A must engage in act Y, which has cost C_Y, a cost which the participating members suffer in time T_Y, iff they choose to participate in Y.

If T_Y is rather short compared to T_x, the tendency of most members will be to avoid C_Y, and hope that a majority of other members engage in act Y so that nobody suffers C_X.

Therefore, it hardly matters how certain one is about X occurring. The problem is how to eliminate free riders. This is the 'tragedy of the commons', on a large scale.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

That is the game theoretical analysis that applies to a single, one-off strategy, with no interaction among the players and strategic options only along a single dimension. The fact that you assume a dichotomous outcome of the game (X or ~X) may also be relevant, in certain analyses.

In fact, Y gets repeated for each period by each player - so we're really talking about Y_(a,t), in a game where a is an element of A and t is the period. Even without official interaction among the players, they can begin to vary their strategies as a way of communicating with one another.

Furthermore, in this particular game (as in many other activities people think about modeling as games) we have plenty of other tools at our disposal. In a simple game, the only way we have of communicating is to punish someone by playing ~Y rather than Y... but in a more complex game the players can keep their message clear by choosing Y and some conceptually separate punishment for people who do ~Y.

Out of curiousity...

As a question for those of you who believe that global warming is a serious problem, can you say for how long you've held this belief, and how and when you became convinced? What parts of the science, if any, do you consider uncontrovertible? Are there areas where you think the science is uncertain?

Yes, I believe global warming is a serious problem, and have held that belief for something like 10 years. It is enough for me that the community of climate change researchers has reached the consensus that global warming is exists and is the result of industrial activity; I defer to that expertise.

I don't think that this works. If member A₁ does Y, and A₂ does not, the net advantage to A₂ is 2C_Y. That, in the real world, is substantial, and IMHO, can only be offset by military action, sufficient that C_M > 2C_Y.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Well, I'm not sure either why you're doubling the cost (the net difference in income between cooperators and defectors is C per period) or why you think the relative level of income matters. I'm also not sure why you are jumping to military action. You bring to mind John Cleese - "What's wrong with a punitive tariff, boy? Hmm? Why not start her off with a nice punitive tariff? You don't need to go stampeding off to a military strike like a bull at the gate!"

If you look at past treaties that have been concluded - for example, banning chlorofluorocarbons or human trafficking or whatever - I don't think the ratio of costs to benefits, either per person or per nation-state, was greater in those cases than in these. Obviously the cost of action is much larger, but so is the cost of inaction. The main pertinent difference is that, the cost being much higher, those who would be harmed can pay for much more propaganda, so there is much less political consensus and willingness to defer to experts. Around the time of the "hole in the ozone layer", I remember a certain amount of hippy-baiting (like, "Why is ozone bad when we breathe it in our cities, but good when it's in the upper atmosphere? Ho ho ho!"), but no one ever asked me to name the date when I first heard of chlorofluorocarbons, or whether I was sure that they were leaking out of refrigerators rather than volcanoes. But the evidence concerning the ozone layer was extremely dodgy compared to the evidence for global warming.

there are at lest three aspects to what is commonly known as 'global warming':
1. global weather changes
2. possible human-related causes
3. what can/should humans do about it, if anything

here is my opinions:

#1 is pretty obvious, I think. Even within the 16 years I lived in San Diego I can observe changes.

#2 is a political issue.

#3 is the underlying economic issue which is at the bottom of the political debate. doing anything about it would cost big businesses some money (doing things more cleanly is not cheap on a large scale) and so the pro-big-money groups claim that either there is no issue at all or that the issue is not human-made so we should not worry about it. scientifically, i have no clue. you can find scientists on both sides of the question with good arguments, from what i hear, and i don't know enough to judge who is right.

personally, i think that if we have the means to keep the environment cleaner, we certainly should - regardless if the problems are human-made or not. i also think that it would be silly and irresponsible to assume that all that we do to the planet has no influence on what is happening around us. consider all the forests we cut down, all the ground we pave, all the pollution we produce, and so on... whole ecosystems are destroyed by us, whole species extinct or on the brink because of what we do - and this is documented... if all that has no global repercussions yet, it is just a matter of time. so why not do something about it while we still can?

alas... people have the tendency to chase after riches today and to hell with tomorrow.
after all - those who find the riches will also find some nice corner of the planet still green. and the rest of us?... who cares.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

hmm. Since I successfully completed my university degree in the area (1:1) - or perhaps when I completed my phd in the area. Certainly before having spent the last decade working as a scientist in the area... I guess my 'belief' is more a belief in the scientific method and the experience that scientists in general work very hard at what they do.

What do I consider pretty certain - the basic science behind it. Uncertain? Regional change such country X will experience 73.72% more Y.

_________________
I am John. John-I-Am.

I've leaned towards believing the science for about 10-15 years. I can't pinpoint an exact moment; it's been a gradual process of more and more recognizing the strength of the pro-science side and the weakness of the anti-science side.

_________________
Poka King of the south east.

That's an impossible question to answer really - All science is uncertain, it's just a matter of "to what degree?"

That's interesting. Can you say what exactly you do in the area? Could you elaborate on what you mean by "the basic science behind it" - this could mean different things to different people? Concerning the scientific method, it would be interesting to know what you consider testable predictions of the theory, what observations we could make that would falsify it, and what efforts you know of that are being made to perform such tests.

That's the interesting question though, isn't it? Let's test people's science knowledge a bit more with a more concrete question, what kind of temperature rise is expected for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere? What are the uncertainties in the number?

I was curious whether there would be anwers like pwaldron's which is similar to my own thinking up to maybe 4 years ago: accepting what I was told by the media, and trusting scientists to do the right thing without thinking much about it. I suspect that a large portion of the population believes in global warming without ever having bothered to inform themselves about what exactly either the "official" scientists or the sceptical ones say. Personally, after I became curious and started looking for myself, I found my faith in science somewhat shaken.

What I find instructive is a difference in attitude between (for example) particle physics and climate change. Physicists have the Standard Model, a description of nature spectacularly precise and in agreement with virtually all measurements. The last part of it that hadn't been observed yet, the Higgs boson, was almost certainly found at the LHC last year and nothing that contradicts the model was observed there so far. The LHC may end up confirming the Standard Model in a spectacular fashion - physicists refer to this possibility as the "nightmare scenario". To them, the scientific method means trying hard to falsify a theory because a new observation teaches us something about nature. In contrast, climate science has very shaky models that model nature not very well at all, but in some ways it functions like a church with areas of core dogma that must not be challenged - dissenters are not tolerated. Anyone who makes critical statements is automatically suspect (without evidence) of being in the pocket of evil forces such as Big Oil. Some responses in this thread echoed the belief that action is necessary and it must be industry or big money that's preventing it (as a tangent - I'm sure industry is happy to build offshore wind parks, and banks are quite happy to speculate in emissions trading).

Bantari wrote "Even within the 16 years I lived in San Diego I can observe changes." This matches my own experience, and is one of the reasons that originally made me believe the entire global warming story - the observation that winters in the 1990s seemed to be milder than what I had experienced as a child. Others made the same observation, but here's an amusing classic example of why it's dangerous to extrapolate short-term trends: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html (a German newspaper also ran a very similar story, http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/winter-ade-nie-wieder-schnee-a-71456.html (compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2012_European_cold_wave).

However, isn't it expected that we can observe changes? It seems to be a form of selective perception to think that a change one has personally witnessed is unusual. If we examine history, couldn't people living at any time in the past have made similar statements? There are lots of examples - the Little Ice Age is well-documented. In the past century, the US had severe drought in the 1930s leading to the Dust Bowl. Arctic warming isn't a purely recent phenomenon, see http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/62428921 or http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/42734540. That was in the 1940s and 1950s... then the world cooled for a few decades and everyone was panicking about an approaching ice age: http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf.

It's much worse than that because you can assume that a large majority of human population will apply the following algorithm:

If (T_x > [my life expectancy]) C_x = 0;

That algorithm is the reason why decisions shouldn't be taken by people but by extra-human entities.

I came to believe that global warming is a problem back in the 1980s, when I became aware of the exponential increases in atmospheric CO2. I already knew about the greenhouse effect and the discovery that Venus is hot as Hades beneath its CO2 cloud. As for thinking that it is a serious problem, I'll say something about that below.



I would say none, but I think that it is pretty clear that the world is round and smoother than a billiard ball, that there are tectonic plates, that the sun is fueled by nuclear fusion, that it creates carbon, that there is a Yellowstone super-volcano, that singers can break glasses by means of resonant frequencies, etc.



Virtually all of science is uncertain. As topazg says, the question is the degree of uncertainty.

What made me think that global warming is a serious problem? The political resistance to it. OC, there are powerful economic factors at work that put CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at increasing rates. We have built our economies on burning fossil fuels, and we are cutting down trees at a rapid rate, destroying tropical rain forests. Forests help to reduce atmospheric CO2. Changes to stabilize the natural carbon cycle must be widespread, and they will be costly in the short run. Therefore they will meet stiff resistance by those who profit from increasing atmospheric CO2, which is pretty much everybody. Overcoming that resistance is the work of generations. That is why it is urgent now.

Rain forests do not rely upon nutrients in the ground. The forest floor itself is rich in nutrients. Once you destroy a rain forest, the next phase is unlikely to be a grassland. It is likely to be a desert. The soil is simply not rich enough to support much vegetation. It does not even support the rain forest now. I saw on TV (on Nova, I think) several years ago, maybe even in the 80s, a report that in some areas of Brazil where the rain forest had been cleared, local temperatures had risen by 15 degrees Fahrenheit in only a few years.

Eventually humans will live in ecological balance with nature or go extinct. Do we want a future where humans, except perhaps for a favored few, eke out a hard scrabble existence next to our waste products? Suppose that we burn up all our fossil fuel and cut down all our rain forests. (The latter is more likely than the former.) How likely is it that we will have generated a runaway feedback cycle ending in a planetary greenhouse like Venus? Will people die in droves from smog? It is plain that at that point we will have generated ecological conditions that have never existed on earth since we have had an oxygen atmosphere.

Now, I don't think that we will get there. It is a slippery slope argument. Slippery slope arguments are suspect because they ignore negative feedback. But in recent history the forces of negative feedback in regard to the environment have been weak. Around 1980 I watched a Nova show that illustrates the point. During the Dustbowl of the 1930s new conservation techniques for farming were discovered and adopted to help prevent future dustbowls. However, those techniques cut crop yields by 5% by comparison with non-conservation techniques. By the 1980s the conservation techniques had been abandoned, particularly by agribusiness. 5% is too much of an edge to give your competitors. OC, everybody knew that the abandonment of conservation techniques made another dustbowl almost certain in the 21st century. But hey! your competition will be in the dustbowl too.

To me the urgency lies more with human nature than with climate science. We know that we are on a road that ends in disaster. The question is how and when we will put on the brakes. We can do without New York City, Los Angeles, and the Cayman Islands. Too bad about Hawai'i and New Orleans, though. We can even survive our wheat fields becoming desert. We'll adapt. But why should we bring disaster on ourselves?

One night I was driving home, about 50 miles, when a thick fog enveloped the highway. It was a two lane highway in the middle of nowhere, so stopping was not an option. I slowed to below 15 mph and kept an eye on the side of the road. The fog increased my uncertainty about what lay ahead, and I took prudent safety measures. The uncertainty of science is not an argument for barreling on, full speed ahead. If disaster strikes, Whocuddanood is cold comfort.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I think science is more of a method for integrating new information and eliminating uncertainty by testing hypothesis, when possible.

I would keep an eye on the oceans personally. If you look at the ability of micro organisms to terraform the planet, from the cliffs of Dover to the Ozark mountains, to the ancient methanotrophs that metabolized out the methane from greenhouse atmosphere those micro organisms shouldn't be underestimated. Also much of the drought weather this past summer in the US would be considered due to a La Nina which is ironically a cooling trend in the South Pacific that prevents water from being evaporated into the atmosphere, though some say that an increased weather cycle where precipitation is dropped before it reaches the US would be a consequence of a warming trend. Having said that if you look at the major eruption of Laki in Iceland which emmitted 120 million tons of sulfur dioxide. That same year 1783, America gained independence and Europe had a three percent decrease in GDP, the hottest summer(and coldest winter) were observed in Boston.

Thanks. I'm afraid I might not be able to satisfy your curiosity fully. Anyway a quick answer:

I work in the general area of Climate and Meteorology simulation - modelling rather than observations mainly. I should say straight up that I don't consider myself a 'somebody' at all as I have never been career focused enough. For my phd I looked into the dynamical systems behaviour of the climate system (in simulations) when you include vegetation as a dynamic component of the system (allow it to change in response to environmental change according to a set of given equations). Since then I've worked on a number of modelling projects including using climate model data to investigate prehistoric early human (homo erectus) dispersal out of Africa. I've also been involved in running the UKs latest set of climate change simulations:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/cmip5

I've also done work on modelling the terrestrial carbon cycle and am currently working on a project to simulate small-scale phenomena (cold air pooling in valleys in the UK landscape).

(sorry for the long bio!)

.. anyway by the basic science I meant climate is warming and we are to blame. As for a testable hypothesis there is the problem that we have only one example, one world. We can't do any global-scale experiments on the planet and observe the results (other than the rather unfortunate one we're doing now). That is really a major reason for climate modelling. The climate model includes as good a representation of the climate as we can make, given the limits of our knowledge and limits set by the computing resources available. Equations for the fluid dynamics of Atmospheric circulation, for example, were the first to go in, around the 1980s I think and other aspects such as ocean biology are now included. With these models you can do experiments, i.e. re-run recent history including human emissions of CO2 (and all other climate forcings), for example, or just with natural climate forcing (e.g. solar variability and volcanoes). What you see is that to reproduce the global temperature record you need to include the human emissions terms. Without them you don't see the warming that is observed in the last half of the 20th century. So to summarise, climate models are our best guess at how the climate system works and they strongly suggest we're warming the climate and will continue to do so in the future. Global warming theory existed before the climate models but I personally find this line of reasoning to be the most convincing. It's fairly easy to construct a verbal chain of cause and effect but the models allow the different processes and feedbacks to 'fight it out'.

This is getting rather longwinded I guess. However it's interesting to note that the Met Office (UK again) recently updated it's estimate of global warming over the next decade or so - decreasing it by 0.1 deg C (nothing to do with me), resulting from new modelling results i.e. using the latest model. This is not consistent in my mind with a paranoid agenda of alarmism they are sometimes accused of.

Given that simulations form such a major part of the science behind climate change science, I'll try and say how it could be shown to be false. I suppose something could be demonstrated to be completely wrong in our understanding of the science (e.g. atmospheric radiative transfer) or the models in particular. Perhaps a process that is neglected in our current representations could be shown to be massively important and counter balance 'it all'. There are a lot of observations of the climate state - if it became apparent that there was behaviour in the real world that couldn't be explained by the current modelling paradigm that would also call into question our ability to understand the climate and make predictions. Such developments would come from within the scientific community. Testing the models against observations and developing better representations of different processes is basically what a large number of scientists do with most of their time. If anyone could disprove all other models they would. It would certainly help my career

This is just my take on it all anyway.

_________________
I am John. John-I-Am.

I just want to underscore the value of falsification. Unlike people in most other fields of endeavor, scientists strive to prove themselves wrong. They also strive to prove other scientists wrong. While it is true that there is scientific orthodoxy, it is nothing like the orthodoxy of other fields. There may be an extra burden on unorthodox views, but orthodoxy is not simply accepted. Everything comes under scrutiny.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Orthodox vs. unorthodox isn't all that much of an issue, in science people are mostly concerned with novel or unexpected results, since people tend to be experts in their domains. As for climate change I think there is enough value in developing climate models, that even if they don't prove it one way or the other, the models will get application in other areas, namely weather forecasting, but also in odd other fields such economics and computation.

I would also add that I personally feel that local pollution is a bigger issue, and that I don't like being near large intersections, highways parking lots or coal power plants, as well as heavy factories, I don't need a sophisticated model to tell that is bad.

FWIW, the orthodox vs unorthodox argument varies between fields, but having been working in science for 8 years, it's one of the most influential aspects of the fields I've seen and been involved with (particularly controversial areas).

Science in theory is a wonderful thing - science in practice is often money, power, politics, ego and towing the party line if you want to keep being funded. It's not a new phenomenon (see William Harvey's repeated failures to demonstrate their advances in blood circulation knowledge). In areas where the vested interests are larger (pharmaceutals, mobile phones, tobacco, climate change) the dichotomy between what science should be and science actually is also grows considerably.

It's not restricted to vested interests, and part of it I suspect is when you've built your reputation proving a certain theory or demonstrating a certain way a system works, having some arrogant young upstart trying to publish papers that you perceive as making your life's work fruitless is not the top on people's lists of things to do. I also suspect that simply growing older and more "stuck in a belief you know the way the world works because you've studied so long" is a bigger issue.

To quote Sir Richard Doll, the guy who really made famous the link between lung cancer and smoking (personal conversation): "When you're a post-doc, you read every relevant paper in the field you can get your hands on. When you're an established research scientist, you tend to read only those you write and those of your close colleagues. When you're a senior professor, you don't even always read those you co-author yourself". Go figure