CLIMATEER ECONOMICS

Psychologist wins world poker championships:

2007-07-22T15:21:00.000-07:00

Jerry Yang, a 29 year-old psychologist and social worker who works for a fostering agency, has won a cool $8.25 million at the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas.

Yang put some of his success down to his training in psychology, but do psychologists make better poker players?

From Mind Hacks

Western consumption may cause famines

2007-07-01T14:39:00.000-07:00

The livelihoods of more than three billion people in the world are being undermined by the wealth of the privileged few, said the director of the Stockholm Environment Institute, Johan Rockstroem.

The Stockholm Environment Institute is one of the world's top five research organisations in climate change and it is pushing for a broader dialogue on social and economic change.
From the Herald Sun (Australia)

And from the Stockholm Environment Institute website:

Vacant position as Managing Editor for Climate and Energy Programme

Some 500 politicians, scientists, business leaders and aid workers from 60 countries gathered in a small Swedish forest town

2007-07-01T13:34:00.000-07:00

The annual conference is held in the resort village of Taellberg, located 250 kilometers (155 miles) north of the Swedish capital of Stockholm.

These folks sure seem to fly around, a lot.

...James Hansen, warned that "we are on the brink of a climate crisis and much closer than we realise. The world has already passed several tipping points in terms of climate change."

...The Taellberg Forum is sometimes criticised as a mere talkfest, since its resolutions are non-binding....

...Hans Joachim Schellnuber, advisor to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said talkfests were a must.

From AFP by way of France24

Here's Thursday's program:

Thursday, 28 June 2007

Morning
Morning exercize

Pre-Forum Sessions

Tällberg New Leaders Program
(for invited participants)

Preparatory session for the Track chairs and moderators

09.00
Nature walk (start from Majstångsplatsen)

10.00
Introduction to carbon simulator tool

12.00
Lunch at hotels

12.45 – 13.45
Warming-up sessions
open conversations after lunch at hotels.

13.45 – 14.40
“Music on the green”
Concert with the choir and orchestra from Leksand’s music school and twin cities (in Estonia, Finland and Norway), Majstångsplatsen by the Forum tent.

15.00
Session I:Opening session of the Tällberg Forum 2007:

Welcome to Tällberg

Birgitta Fröstad, Chairperson, Village of Tällberg

Welcome to Dalarna

Maria Norrfalk, Governor, County of Dalarna

Welcome to Sweden

HRH Princess Victoria, Crown princess of Sweden

Forum keynote:

HM Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan

Setting the framework

Bo Ekman, Chairman, Tällberg Foundation, Sweden
With Nayan Chanda, Editor, Yale Global Online, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, India,
Koosum Kalyan, Senior Business Development Advisor, Africa, Shell International, UK,
Alexander Crawford, Tällberg Foundation, Sweden,
Carl Mossfeldt, Tällberg Foundation, Sweden,
Manfred Max-Neef, Rector, Universitad Austral, Chile

What the poets tell us

Lena Endre, Actress, Sweden
Barbara Hendricks, Musician and President, Barbara Hendricks Foundation for Peace and Reconciliation, Sweden.
Mathias Algotsson accompanies on the piano.
Break and refreshments, conversations at small tables
Song by Mikael Samuelson

What science tell us – Understand and protect the home planet

James Hansen, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, USA
C. S. Kiang, Chairman, Beijing University Environment Fund, China
Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Cheif Government Advisor, Germany

Chair: Fred Pearce, Author, UK

Introduction to the Carbon Simulator:

Peter Senge, Chairman, Society of Organizational Learning, USA

What we must accomplish – will leadership deliver?

Vaira Vike-Freiberga, President, Republic of Latvia
Ruud Lubbers, Chairman, Supervisory Board of the Netherlands Energy Research Center (ECN), The Netherlands
Achim Steiner, Executive Director, UNEP, Nairobi

20.00
Outdoor “Gästabud” at Holen in Tällberg
Fiddlers, raising of the traditional maypole, buffet and festivities

Global warming's Keystone Kops

2007-06-16T12:15:00.000-07:00

"The simple task of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by a set amount is being lost in side skirmishes on the Hill. These have more to do with powerful lobbies, regional preferences, and presidential ambitions than the national interest."

"Public will to tackle global warming through federal mandates on energy use may still be too weak to overcome the usual political pressures in Washington. At the least, lawmakers should do no harm by passing the wrong measures."

Not sure if I agree with "The simple task..." but it has a good headline.

From the Christian Science Monitor

People Often Think An Opinion Heard Repeatedly From The Same Person Is Actually A Popular Opinion

2007-05-21T14:11:00.000-07:00

"...However, the study also showed that hearing one person express the same opinion multiple times had nearly the same effect on listener's perception of the opinion being popular as hearing multiple people state his/her opinion."

From ScienceDaily

Countries Warn UN Weather Agency Of Damage Over Fraud Case

2007-05-08T06:07:00.000-07:00

"Any allusion suggesting that the current secretary general of the WMO may have benefitted from influence peddling is defamatory..." From: TerraDaily

The actual IPCC Working Group II report is online!

2007-04-11T17:41:00.000-07:00

The full report is here.
It looks like I've got my evenings reading material.

HT: Prometheus

Plug it in, fire it up, Mr. President

2007-04-09T10:53:00.000-07:00

From the Detroit News:

"Credit Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally with saving the leader of the free world from self-immolation."

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070407/AUTO01/704070338/1148

HT: Junkscience

East Africa Greens Up from Heavy Rains

2007-04-07T16:52:00.001-07:00

I'm not sure how this relates to the IPCC WGII Summary but I hope it's good news for our friends, the Masai.

BREAKING NEWS

2007-04-06T12:06:00.000-07:00

I am a moron (or getting forgetful in my senescence)

The science blog Climateer was started on Feb. 2, 2007 the day the IPCC WG I Summary was released. That same day I linked to the blog of Lubos Motl (asst. Prof. Physics, Harvard).

Through a tortuous series of links I find that Prof. Motl wrote that day:

"Also, the report has changed some standards how to evaluate the confidence in science. Instead of 95% or 99% confidence intervals, they use 90% confidence. The probability that "A" (anthropogenic) belongs to "GW" (global warming) is 90%, the report effectively says: the verbal form of "more than 90%" is "very likely", according to a footnote.
In all other branches of science, such a "high" confidence level would be viewed as a hint to start to consider a speculative hypothesis as a remote possibility: even the recent Higgs signal has a higher confidence.
In climate science, 90% (calculated by not exceedingly transparent methods) is apparently enough to close the debate. ;-)Just to remind you, 90% is the probability that a randomly chosen digit such as 7 is not equal to 7. :-)."

I obviously read his post and this morning, thinking such profound insight could spring fully formed only from my own highly evolved consciousness, started babbling on rather than giving one simple link. Sorry.

(maybe) I Am Not A Moron

2007-04-06T11:38:00.000-07:00

at least out to two standard deviations.

I found a (Warning: Anthropogenic causation skeptic ahead) blog post which raised some of the same statistical questions that I had in the post below. This blogger was referring to the WG I Summary released in February but the IPCC terminology is the same in both.

First read: The IPCC WG II Summary for Policymakers

2007-04-06T09:14:00.000-07:00

To quote Vinnie Barbarino "I'm so confused"
Starting with the top of the second page. This Summary refers to a report that hasn't been released yet:
"A full consideration of observed climate change is provided in the IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment."

By the middle of page two we're off to language I didn't learn in high school statistics:
"That Assessment concluded that “there is high confidence 3"; dutifully following footnote 3 to:

"Endbox 2. Likelihood and confidence language

In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate: the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result:

Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%.

The following terms have been used to express confidence in a statement:

Very high confidence At least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct, High confidence About an 8 out of 10 chance, Medium confidence About a 5 out of 10 chance, Low confidence About a 2 out of 10 chance, Very low confidence Less than a 1 out of 10 chance."

Where is the 95% confidence interval? It's not a probability statement.

The confidence interval is the range where you expect something to be. By saying "expect" you leave open the possibility of being wrong. The degree of confidence measures the probability of that expectation to be true.

The degree of confidence is linked with the width of the confidence interval. It's easy to be very confident that something will be within a very wide range, and vice versa. Also, the amount of information (typically related with the sample size) has an influence on the degree of confidence and the width of the confidence interval. With more information you will be more confident that "the thing" will be within a given interval. Also, with more information, and keeping a given degree of confidence, you can narrow the interval.

An example:
In a given city a survey is made. The question is: "Do you prefer Coke or Pepsi?" 60% answer Coke, and 40% answer Pepsi. So an estimation is that, in this city, 60% prefer Coke. Does it means that 60% of the population in this city prefer Coke? No unless the survey had been answered by all the population. However, you can be somewhat "confident" that the actual proportion of people choosing Coke will be within some interval around the 60% found in the sample. How confident? How wide is the interval?

If the survey is based on a sample of 100 persons, you can be 90% confident that the actual proportion of Coke will be between 52% and 68%. Also, you can be 99% confident that the actual proportion will be between 48% and 72% (for the same sample size, more confidence, wider interval).

If the survey had been on a sample of 1000 persons instead of 100, you could be 90% confident that the actual proportion is between 57.5% and 62.5% (compare with 52% and 68% for the same confidence with a sample of 100. Larger sample, narrower interval for the same degree of confidence). And you could be 99.99998% (let's say 100%?) confident that the actual proportiion will be between 52% and 68% (compare with a degree of confidence of 90% for the same interval with a sample of 100. Larger sample, better degree of confidence for the same interval).

This Summary for Policymakers looks more like a political document than a scientific one.

The IPCC and Climate Change

2007-04-06T07:05:00.000-07:00

The early version of the WG II Summary for Policymakers is out.
Here's the link. I'm going to read it before deciding whether to post on the science site or here.

An Inconvenient Tax - Issue #1

2007-04-05T06:24:00.000-07:00

From the Carbon Tax Center.
They talk about accomplishments to date and ask for money.

HT: Environmental Economics

EPA Global Warming

2007-04-02T15:08:00.000-07:00

I think it's fair to let the Volokh Conspiracy have the last word (for today). Scroll down.

Supreme Court ruling on Mass. v. EPA

2007-04-02T10:32:00.001-07:00

SCOTUSBLOG has the opinion, and many links.

EPA and Global Warming

2007-04-02T10:12:00.000-07:00

The Jurist at The Pitt law school has the Appeals Court decision which was reversed today.

The Climate's Changed at the Supreme Court

2007-04-02T10:03:00.002-07:00

Ann Althouse warns "Just you wait for the next post"

Global Warming and the Supremes

2007-04-02T09:46:00.000-07:00

The WSJ.com Energy Roundup has links and reactions.

The Volokh Conspiracy also has a second post.

Justices: EPA Can Control Car Emissions

2007-04-02T09:40:00.000-07:00

From the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html

Supreme Court-Global Warming

2007-04-02T09:37:00.000-07:00

Here's the New York Time's first read on the decision.

EPA CO2 Supreme court ruling

2007-04-02T09:28:00.000-07:00

The Volokh Conspiracy is quick off the mark:

[Orin Kerr, April 2, 2007 at 11:45am] Trackbacks
Supreme Court Decides "Global Warming" Case: The Supreme Court handed down its decision in the "global warming" case, Massachusetts v. EPA, and it looks like a significant victory for environmental interests. Stevens managed to keep Kennedy on board, so it was a 5-4 ruling that will make the EPA go back and reconsider the petition to regulate greenhouse gases. There were two forceful dissents filed in the case. Chief Justice Roberts dissented on standing, joined by Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Scalia dissented on the merits, joined by Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. I'll let others with more expertise offer commentary on the major issues in the case, but there's one minor side issue that I found somewhat amusing. In his majority opinion, Justice Stevens relies in part on a 1907 case for his view that the presence of a state in litigation alters the standing thresholds. Chief Justice Roberts objects to this in his dissent, and Justice Stevens inserted a footnote in the majority opinion with this response to Roberts:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE accuses the Court of misreading Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230 (1907), see post, at 34 (dissenting opinion), and "devis[ing] a new doctrine of state standing," id., at 15. But no less an authority than Hart & Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System understands Tennessee Copper as a standing decision. R. Fallon, D. Meltzer, & D. Shapiro, Hart & Wechslers The Federal Courts and the Federal System 290 (5th ed. 2003). Indeed, it devotes an entire section to chronicling the long development of cases permitting States "to litigate as parens patriae to protect quasisovereign interestsi.e., public or governmental interests that concern the state as a whole." Id., at 289.Chief Justice Roberts responds:
The Court seems to think we do not recognize that Tennessee Copper is a case about parens patriae standing, ante, at 17, n. 17, but we have no doubt about that. The point is that nothing in our cases (or Hart & Wechsler) suggests that the prudential requirements for parens patriae standing, see Republic of Venezuela v. Philip Morris Inc., 287 F. 3d 192, 199, n. (CADC 2002) (observing that parens patriae is merely a species of prudential standing (internal quotation marks omitted)), can somehow substitute for, or alter the content of, the irreducible constitutional minimum requirements of injury in fact, causation, and redressability under Article III. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Does anyone with the latest edition of Hart & Wechsler handy want to weigh in?

Supreme Court-EPA

2007-04-02T09:21:00.000-07:00

Even Instapundit doesn't have it yet.
Mr. Reynolds does have this, however. Very timely.

A LOOK AT THE AUTOMOTIVE X-PRIZE:
The race is on to develop a commercially viable car that can travel 100 miles on a gallon of gasoline.
The same group that awarded $10 million to a team that built the first private spacecraft to leave the earth’s atmosphere is expected to announce today the rules for its automotive competition.
The group, the X Prize Foundation, says that the automotive contest, expected to carry a prize of more than $10 million, could have a significant effect on the automobile industry by speeding up efforts to use alternative fuels and reduce consumption. The average fuel economy of vehicles sold in the United States has remained nearly stagnant — around 20 miles a gallon — for decades.
“The industry is stuck, and we think a prize is perfect to disrupt that dynamic,” said Mark Goodstein, executive director of the Automotive X Prize. “Failure is frowned upon in this industry, and that doesn’t make for big advances. It makes for incrementalism.”
You could get a 100 mpg car now (""If you combine a clean-burning diesel with a hybrid electric drive system in a lightweight car, I think 100 mpg is doable.") but we need better. Plus, there's this spinoff: "However, working out the requirements of a 100-mpg car makes it clear just how feasible it would be to build, say, a 75-mpg car--for far less money."
UPDATE: This isn't quite what the X-Prize is looking for, but it's pretty cool.

Carbon Dioxide is Pollution

2007-04-02T09:14:00.000-07:00

From the Wall Street Journal Energy Roundup

http://blogs.wsj.com/energy/2007/04/02/scotus-rules-in-favor-of-environmentalists/

This is a really, really big deal. I'm off to check some law blogs, more later.

Vermont lawmakers identify new source of global warming

2007-04-01T16:21:00.000-07:00

From the Vermont Guardian