patrick.net

And the Goldman Sachs SWAMP?

HEY YOU says

"Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh lamented Tuesday that President Donald Trump is “caving” to Democrats,"

"..it looks like President Trump is caving on his demand for a measly $1 billion in the budget for his wall on the border with Mexico.”

Why aren't you happy? Isn't that what you want?

Hater says

Does anyone know what the ideal temp and co2 percentage is for human life.

This is a bullshit argument that if a precise optimal CO2 level cannot be agreed upon, then we should allow pollution to go unchecked, climate change to run rampant, and countless residences and businesses to be destroyed by rising sea-level.

What makes climate change bad is
1. It's happening damn fast.
2. It's completely uncontrolled.
3. We aren't prepared for it.
4. It threatens the very places where 100 million Americans live and work.

Humans could live with the entire east and west coast states destroyed, but it's not in our economic interest to lose all that real estate, infrastructure, and commerce. It's just bad economics.

Hater says

You can say that CO2 will cause all the ice to melt and the world will become an unlivable sauna, but that does not make it true.

Great. We agree on something, so we are making progress.

Do you agree that the important task is to quantify risk for different CO2ppm scenarios and then make decisions based on that risk?

YesYNot says

Do you agree that the important task is to quantify risk for different CO2ppm scenarios and then make decisions based on that risk?

No. You cannot make good decisions from bad models.

We should tell people they are on their own and let them make their own decisions. If they still want to buy coastal properties it is their own choice. Those who believe their country will be uninhabitable in the future should look for alternative citizenships now.

There is a HUGE gap between "the world is warming up" and "there is a reliable risk model for CO2 scenarios."

Hater says

Dan got so triggered

Translation: Hatred could not produce a single sensible argument to support his case, so he's labeling Dan as a leftist SJW in an attempt to poison the well.

This is par for the course.

Anyone who would compare me to the leftist SJWs is a fool given everything I've written about the conservative left, SJWs, triggering, and political correctness. It's like calling Martin Luther King, Jr. a violent psychopath.

Peter P says

No. You cannot make good decisions from bad models.

You seem to have determined that climate models are bad. Did you use any specific criteria to make that determination?

Hater says

Science is not settled by consensus. It is settled by debate, experiment, and facts.

It is not the consensus of scientists that has settled the question of climate change. It is the consensus of evidence. And that consensus of evidence is demonstrated by the 99% of peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change that confirm man-made climate change and openly provide the physical evidence, physical evidence that can and is independently confirmed by scientists around the world. This level of collaboration of evidence simply cannot be faked. A single false incident would be exposed.

www.youtube.com/embed/QIubkvNT4Bo

Bonus videos
www.youtube.com/embed/plReQcO6sz0

www.youtube.com/embed/6VUPIX7yEOM

How much is 107k views worth?

Hater says

You can say that CO2 will cause all the ice to melt and the world will become an unlivable sauna, but that does not make it true.

Another straw man argument. People aren't saying you are going to sweat your balls because of climate change. People are saying that Florida and New York City will be underwater. And already we see that happening.

www.youtube.com/embed/raNel0Or5uY

www.youtube.com/embed/yAKZaQkWSIo

www.youtube.com/embed/-JbzypWJk64

If you say that losing Miami is OK, I say fuck you. You don't get to say that the cities I love, live in, and work in are acceptable casualties just so some rich, lazy fuck can have a third yacht. Fuck that.

If you think that it's OK for a hundred million Americans to loser their wealth and possessions to rising sea-levels, then let's start with you. Let all the climate change deniers lose their possessions through state seizure so that the victims of rising sea-levels will have houses to move into when theirs are flooded. If you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is, you don't get to demand we pay the bill for climate change.

It was just the obvious context your words implied. Perhaps if you'd prefaced that statement with some other character failing of Ironman, the "also" would have been clearly an addenda to that list, and not a tacit admission of group ownership. Careful there!
If you're not a shill, don't admit to being one!

So go there again tomorrow and video the violence on display at Ann Coulter's speech in the Free Speech Zone. Maybe you'll get something really good!

Edit: don't take your wife. Probably dangerous.

I believe that she has cancelled her appearance. For once, Berkeley College Republicans came to their senses.

OK, let's say that in 100 years, sea levels have risen two feet.

Hell, the tide varies more than that in San Francisco twice a day. Sure, it could be a problem, but that level of sea rise not the end of the world by a long shot.

Make sure to wear all your Trump gear, liberals are very progressive thinking and not only tolerate ideologic diversity they fucking love it.

Hater says

Did I get it right.

Scientists would not label CO2 as evil. It's just known that we have hugely increased the quantity of it in the atmosphere and that CO2 warms the planet. Science also tells us approximately how much this extra CO2 is warming the planet, melting water, and increase sea levels. You got that part correct. Scientists don't use terms like salvation of the planet, and the don't prescribe specific solutions. They provide expected outcomes and the risks of those outcomes. They provide costs for mitigation of those outcomes. They also provide options for avoiding those outcomes. Currently those options do include alternative energies and conservation.

There is no evil or salvation involved.

This is what Reagan did when he was California governor:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/this-is-how-ronald-reagan-dealt-with-uc-berkeley-protestors-in-1969/
www.youtube.com/embed/Bpg0UfpuUAs

Dan8267 says

Buy yourself a drone with a camera and fly it over the protest. Best of all, the assholes can't stop you

I wonder if the drone would survive.

Hater says

no.

How do you suggest we make decisions if not based on science?

rando says

Hell, the tide varies more than that in San Francisco twice a day. Sure, it could be a problem, but that level of sea rise not the end of the world by a long shot.

The daily variation is irrelevant. It's the maximum that's important. If high tide near my house is 1 foot below the bottom of my front door, and low tide is 15 feet below my front door, 2 feet would not seem like a big deal based on your argument. On the other hand, 2 feet of rise would ruin my house. I could pay a bunch of money to raise the house, but then the road to get there would be under water at high tide. On top of that, the high tide water level varies with the moon, so even if the water did not rise enough for most high tides did not flood my house, some might. Even if the highest high tide won't flood my house, higher water levels might cause storm surges from small storms to ruin my house.

Maximum temperature follows the same argument.

Hater says

But not by CO2.

You think that humans cause global warming, but not by CO2 emissions?

Wear a pink wig, a stuffed brassiere under your shirt, and secretary glasses and you'll be OK, but you might have to rinse your mouth out after being grabbed and kissed.

Here's sea level rise from the 4th assessment report for scenario SRES A1B. This scenario is based on population peaking in 2050 and a balanced outlook of fossil and alternative energy use (https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/029.htm)
The range is 0.2 to 0.5 meters by 2100, and the 4th assessment report was published in 2007, so this is nowhere near new.

To make matters worse, the sea level is not going to rise equally in all locations. It will rise much more in some locations.

Dan8267 says

If you say that losing Miami is OK, I say fuck you. You don't get to say that the cities I love, live in, and work in are acceptable casualties just so some rich, lazy fuck can have a third yacht. Fuck that.

Dan, Miami is thriving partly because rich people want a place to dock their yachts.

Then again, rich people with superior information advantage are still buying $30M waterfront homes in South Florida. Perhaps the rising sea level threat is overrated.

Hater says

You would agree that co2 is essential for life on planet Earth, wouldn't you? You would also agree that the main source of Earth's warmth is the sun, yes?

Yes. Neither of these is inconsistent with global warming theory. Watch the very basic introduction that Dan posted earlier. CO2 amplifies the warming by the sun.
Do you think that CO2 being essential for life on earth means that it cannot be bad or that too much of it cannot be bad?

Hater says

Nope, it's the Sun.

Has anybody measure the output of the sun and used that to predict the ocean and atmospheric temperature? If it's so simple, someone must have proven it, no?

YesYNot says

You seem to have determined that climate models are bad. Did you use any specific criteria to make that determination?

Let's say I spend a lot of time on quantitative models...

Note that I definitely believe that global temperature is rising. I am a bit less sure about whether the change is caused by human activities. There is no plausible way to link extreme weather events to climate change.

Using those "models" to make long-term projections for policy decisions is batshit crazy. Those "climate scientists" are asking you to take a leap of faith by appealing to your fear.

It is a sleight of hand. They try to conflate the statistically robust claim of rising temperature with the questionable predictive power of their long-term models. And they want to effect policy decisions.

Carry a KKK hood to wear in a pinch.

Peter P says

It is a sleight of hand. They try to conflate the statistically robust claim of rising temperature with the questionable predictive power of their long-term models. And they want to effect policy decisions.

It's understood that the models can be off. There's a margin of error there to be sure. And maybe quantifying the exact margin of error is tricky becasue of the complexity of climate. But all you need is a significant risk, not a well defined exact metric for risk in order to justify it affecting policy.

Otherwise smart people don't even know when they are being manipulated by big business.

I think it would be cool if another patnetter or three went with him, if they live around the Bay Area. I'd go but I'm in LA and have to watch the kiddos tomorrow evening.

marcus says

But all you need is a significant risk, not a well defined exact metric for risk in order to justify it affecting policy.

The wrong policy decision can also have significant risks. We live in a complex, nonlinear world with huge socioeconomic dislocations. Big moves like a shift in energy policy can potentially cause more harm sooner.

marcus says

Otherwise smart people don't even know when they are being manipulated by big business.

Not just big businesses. All large organizations are self-serving. One can also be duped by the scientific community who seeks attention like everybody else.

Nothing is holy in this world.

Peter P says

Let's say I spend a lot of time on quantitative models.

I'm guessing based on your other comments that you are in financial engineering. Is that so? I've worked with applied mathematicians at a top University, and also have plenty of experience with complex models and nonlinear dynamics. Here's what I think is very well known: The CO2 we emit is pretty much added to the atmosphere and ocean kg for kg. It's easy to predict this. It's probably pretty easy to predict roughly what portion of that ends up in the atmosphere, but ocean currents probably complicate that. The impact of the CO2 in the atmosphere is pretty well known. What's difficult in the near term is measuring a relatively small signal when there is a lot of noise caused by other things. But we've been doing it for long enough to see that the models are basically working. Also, predicting human behavior accurately 50 years out is impossible. In order to separate the uncertainty in the emissions scenarios from the model uncertainty, they run different scenarios for the emissions. This is pretty transparent and useful for people who are making policy.

The alternative solution, which is just to ignore the problem due to lack of familiarity or certainty with the model doesn't seem good to me.

Peter P says

The wrong policy decision can also have significant risks. We live in a complex, nonlinear world with huge socioeconomic dislocations. Big moves like a shift in energy policy can potentially cause more harm sooner.

This is always a danger. For example, if we develop electric cars, but fail to develop clean electricity and then develop self driving cars, we might create the ultimate climate destroyer. Electricity can be cheap, so who wouldn't want a van that they could turn into a sleeper car and wake up Saturday morning 8 hrs away from home? It would be much cheaper and easier than flying up and down the coast.

Environmental scientists and economists are aware of these issues, though. Politicians have the tools if they have the willingness to use them.

YesYNot says

The alternative solution, which is just to ignore the problem due to lack of familiarity or certainty with the model doesn't seem good to me.

Would you stop a CAT 5 hurricane if there is a chance it might run into something else?

With multiple actors in this world, big policy moves can have very undesirable side effects.

In finance, some models are good enough even if they are wrong 60% (!) of the time because they still produce profits in the long run. It is very hard to make decisions using models when you cannot shrug it off and try another day.

Hater says

How much co2 is not enough?

Look, I know that more CO2 helps plants grow. It's especially good for tomatoes. I have seen plans to pump CO2 into greenhouses for growing tomatoes. But I think that the benefit of this will be tiny relative to the costs. Excess heat is bad for plants, so plants will have to be engineered and moved or replaced with other plants. Much more importantly, the effects of a global increase in temperature of 2-4 oC are greatly underappreciated.

YesYNot says

This is always a danger. For example, if we develop electric cars, but fail to develop clean electricity and then develop self driving cars, we might create the ultimate climate destroyer. Electricity can be cheap, so who wouldn't want a van that they could turn into a sleeper car and wake up Saturday morning 8 hrs away from home? It would be much cheaper and easier than flying up and down the coast.

Car-as-a-service (using self-driving cars) will be much better. Also, VR/AR technology can eliminate the need for many types of travel.

YesYNot says

Environmental scientists and economists are aware of these issues, though. Politicians have the tools if they have the willingness to use them.

They are, within their domain. But experts are known to be domain dependent. Worse yet, politicians will game the system and the experts might play along.

Peter P says

In finance, some models are good enough even if they are wrong 60% (!) of the time because they still produce profits in the long run.

I would say that the same is true for climate change. They don't have to tell you what is happening year to year. They just have to predict what is happening over 25 years to be useful for decision making. They don't have go get everything just right to be useful either.

There are lots of financial models are useless for year to year predictions, but are useful for planning over longer periods.

YesYNot says

I would say that the same is true for climate change. They don't have to tell you what is happening year to year. They just have to predict what is happening over 25 years to be useful for decision making. They don't have go get everything just right to be useful either.

True. And the models will be less problematic if they are used mostly by cities for better preparedness.

If the models are used to make big policy changes, it will be Battle Royale. Will large interest groups agree to proposals based on a minor statistical probability?

Scientists have made questionable suggestions before, like eugenics. Science might be objective, but the human layer on top is not.

YesYNot says

This is always a danger. For example, if we develop electric cars, but fail to develop clean electricity and then develop self driving cars, we might create the ultimate climate destroyer. Electricity can be cheap, so who wouldn't want a van that they could turn into a sleeper car and wake up Saturday morning 8 hrs away from home? It would be much cheaper and easier than flying up and down the coast.

What are the chances of success and probability of catastrophe if you try to do several things at once?

Nuclear Power first, then electric cars. And it has to be nukes, nothing else scales right now. Future Technology that seems feasible today may run into major implementation problems tomorrow, or be discovered to be less efficient, more costly, or simply not possible.

And in actuality, the real solution to an input problem is finding a way to do without the input (ie get rid of cars, entirely). Since huge human cities with skyscrapers and electric were around before car ownership was widespread and common, this is something we already know how to do.

I'd sell suburbs short over the next 50 years if I could.