Thursday, November 26, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
email me if you want the full report
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
WMO UNEP
Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties
WMO UNEP
Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties
IPCC (for Gotham)
search for the word likely
look on p. 27
Treatment of uncertainty
The IPCC uncertainty guidance note1 defines a framework for the treatment of uncertainties across all WGs and in this Synthesis Report.
This framework is broad because the WGs assess material from different disciplines and cover a diversity of approaches to the treatment of
uncertainty drawn from the literature. The nature of data, indicators and analyses used in the natural sciences is generally different from that
used in assessing technology development or the social sciences. WG I focuses on the former, WG III on the latter, and WG II covers aspects
of both.
Three different approaches are used to describe uncertainties each with a distinct form of language. Choices among and within these three
approaches depend on both the nature of the information available and the authors’ expert judgment of the correctness and completeness of
current scientific understanding.
Where uncertainty is assessed qualitatively, it is characterised by providing a relative sense of the amount and quality of evidence (that is,
information from theory, observations or models indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) and the degree of agreement (that is,
the level of concurrence in the literature on a particular finding). This approach is used by WG III through a series of self-explanatory terms
such as: high agreement, much evidence; high agreement, medium evidence; medium agreement, medium evidence; etc.
Where uncertainty is assessed more quantitatively using expert judgement of the correctness of underlying data, models or analyses, then
the following scale of confidence levels is used to express the assessed chance of a finding being correct: very high confidence at least 9 out
of 10; high confidence about 8 out of 10; medium confidence about 5 out of 10; low confidence about 2 out of 10; and very low confidence less
than 1 out of 10.
Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations
or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%;
extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very
unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.
WG II has used a combination of confidence and likelihood assessments and WG I has predominantly used likelihood assessments.
This Synthesis Report follows the uncertainty assessment of the underlying WGs. Where synthesised findings are based on information
from more than one WG, the description of uncertainty used is consistent with that for the components drawn from the respective WG reports.
Unless otherwise stated, numerical ranges given in square brackets in this report indicate 90% uncertainty intervals (i.e. there is an
estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that
range). Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the best estimate.
look on p. 27
Treatment of uncertainty
The IPCC uncertainty guidance note1 defines a framework for the treatment of uncertainties across all WGs and in this Synthesis Report.
This framework is broad because the WGs assess material from different disciplines and cover a diversity of approaches to the treatment of
uncertainty drawn from the literature. The nature of data, indicators and analyses used in the natural sciences is generally different from that
used in assessing technology development or the social sciences. WG I focuses on the former, WG III on the latter, and WG II covers aspects
of both.
Three different approaches are used to describe uncertainties each with a distinct form of language. Choices among and within these three
approaches depend on both the nature of the information available and the authors’ expert judgment of the correctness and completeness of
current scientific understanding.
Where uncertainty is assessed qualitatively, it is characterised by providing a relative sense of the amount and quality of evidence (that is,
information from theory, observations or models indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) and the degree of agreement (that is,
the level of concurrence in the literature on a particular finding). This approach is used by WG III through a series of self-explanatory terms
such as: high agreement, much evidence; high agreement, medium evidence; medium agreement, medium evidence; etc.
Where uncertainty is assessed more quantitatively using expert judgement of the correctness of underlying data, models or analyses, then
the following scale of confidence levels is used to express the assessed chance of a finding being correct: very high confidence at least 9 out
of 10; high confidence about 8 out of 10; medium confidence about 5 out of 10; low confidence about 2 out of 10; and very low confidence less
than 1 out of 10.
Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations
or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%;
extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very
unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.
WG II has used a combination of confidence and likelihood assessments and WG I has predominantly used likelihood assessments.
This Synthesis Report follows the uncertainty assessment of the underlying WGs. Where synthesised findings are based on information
from more than one WG, the description of uncertainty used is consistent with that for the components drawn from the respective WG reports.
Unless otherwise stated, numerical ranges given in square brackets in this report indicate 90% uncertainty intervals (i.e. there is an
estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that
range). Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the best estimate.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
by request
Is sustainable development compatible with human welfare?
The purpose of this essay is to argue both that sustainable development is and is not compatible with human welfare. In order to make this argument, first, I will define sustainability. Second, I will provide reasons for why it’s problematic within the context of environmental ethics. Third, I’ll discuss the benefits of sustainability. Finally, I’ll conclude that there’s not enough evidence to make a definitive determination.
Sustainable development has been defined by
Sustainability has the following complications: to truly live sustainably, there would have to be certain “mandatory minimums” in place—these could be minimums in terms of carbon, number of people on the planet, aggregate number of resources used, etc. For population, for example, Jared Diamond explains that population is one of 12 variables that are necessary to control in order to live more sustainably. Every new person has/makes demands on the planet’s resources. How then are we to achieve population reduction? Simply asking people to limit the number of children will be fruitless (pun intended). It would seem that some type of government programs that is enforceable would be necessary. There would also need to be a regulatory apparatus that enforce (police), adjudicate (courts) and punish (penal systems). Even if all of this was in place, however, the US could not enforce this across international boundaries. Thus, sustainability is problematic because it has the potential to undermine democratic processes and institutions. Any enforcement of population laws, for example, would necessarily conflict with broad democratic principles.
Sustainability does have advantages. Most importantly, if environmentalists are correct, then we are at a potentially species threatening juncture. Valuing human life, it seems to be an intrinsic good for the human population to survive. That said, even if these estimates are overblown, it cannot be denied that we’re facing extreme ecological conditions which adversely impact us. For example, the number of landfills that are at or near capacity has dramatically increased in the last 15 years. Consequently, well water and underground leakage has commensurately increased. This has placed people, particularly the economically disadvantaged, in an even more vulnerable position, as cancer rates (testicular, breast, bone) have radically increased.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE HERE. In sum, the benefit of living more sustainably is creating more healthy living environments and possibly thwarting ecological calamity.
Given the consequence to democracy, and the threat of extinction, there are no easy choices to be made. I don’t think that this question has a correct answer. There are simply too many variables and too many conflicting deontological interests. How does one, for example, weigh clean air against the possibility of electing officials that discharge the will of the people? Or, how can we accurately asses, “weigh” or measure clean water, lower cancer rates, etc., against the fact that we may be beyond the tipping point? We simply do not have the tools to make an accurate assessment of the issue.
Finally, I’ve argued that sustainability has pros and cons. At this juncture, frankly, I’m not sure what I believe. We simply do not have enough evidence to make an accurate determination of the issue.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Coal
read
"In 2005, Congress set about finding out just what these external
costs of energy production and use amount to. It requested that the
National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Science)
attempt to place a number on them. On Monday, the NRC released its
report: “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy
Production and Use.”
"First, note that the report did not attempt to quantify the damage to
ecosystems and agriculture wrought by climate change. It did not
attempt to quantify the national security costs of securing energy
supplies. It did not attempt to quantify the land-use costs of
biofuels. It didn’t attempt to quantify the costs of mercury
pollution, which as Bill Chameides documents, are substantial. It
didn’t attempt to quantify the impact on taxpayers that subsidies to
the coal industry impose.
"So a huge chunk of costs were written out, meaning the results are
extremely small-c conservative. Nonetheless, the NRC found that hidden
costs amounted to $120 billion in 2005.
"Of that $120 billion, a whopping $62 billion—over half—came from one
source: coal-fired electricity plants."
"In 2005, Congress set about finding out just what these external
costs of energy production and use amount to. It requested that the
National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Science)
attempt to place a number on them. On Monday, the NRC released its
report: “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy
Production and Use.”
"First, note that the report did not attempt to quantify the damage to
ecosystems and agriculture wrought by climate change. It did not
attempt to quantify the national security costs of securing energy
supplies. It did not attempt to quantify the land-use costs of
biofuels. It didn’t attempt to quantify the costs of mercury
pollution, which as Bill Chameides documents, are substantial. It
didn’t attempt to quantify the impact on taxpayers that subsidies to
the coal industry impose.
"So a huge chunk of costs were written out, meaning the results are
extremely small-c conservative. Nonetheless, the NRC found that hidden
costs amounted to $120 billion in 2005.
"Of that $120 billion, a whopping $62 billion—over half—came from one
source: coal-fired electricity plants."
Monday, October 19, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
August 30: Mandatory Read
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/business/energy-environment/29iht-sustain.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Power%20for%20the%20future&st=cse
An outstanding analysis.
An outstanding analysis.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Test last term
TEST INSTRUCTIONS
Very legibly, PRINT your name on the cover of the Blue/Green Book.
Your answers will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:
• Clarity of thought
• Organization (Week 1: introduction with thesis statement, body, conclusion)
• Demonstrated use of applied theory (utilitarianism, egoism, deontology, precautionary principle, adaptation vs. mitigation, tragedy of the commons, Malthus, etc.)
• Critical thinking (Week 1 and 2: PP/C, argumentative structure, validity and soundness, “How to Make an Argument” paper)
• Use of real world current events from your readings (the blog, the text)
Formulate a clear, cogent and relevant ethical argument in defense of your position. Please print legibly.
1. Should the US move towards full or near full use of nuclear power? Why or why not? Please provide as many specifics as possible in your response.
2. What is the precautionary principle? Please be as specific and as exact as possible in your definition. How does the precautionary principle relate to issues surrounding global warming? Please provide at least two other examples where one could apply the precautionary principle. Explain.
3. How does the text define sustainability? Is this realistically achievable? How would this be achieved? Must sustainability lead to tyranny? How could it (not) lead to tyranny? If it does lead to tyranny then is living sustainably worth it?
Very legibly, PRINT your name on the cover of the Blue/Green Book.
Your answers will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:
• Clarity of thought
• Organization (Week 1: introduction with thesis statement, body, conclusion)
• Demonstrated use of applied theory (utilitarianism, egoism, deontology, precautionary principle, adaptation vs. mitigation, tragedy of the commons, Malthus, etc.)
• Critical thinking (Week 1 and 2: PP/C, argumentative structure, validity and soundness, “How to Make an Argument” paper)
• Use of real world current events from your readings (the blog, the text)
Formulate a clear, cogent and relevant ethical argument in defense of your position. Please print legibly.
1. Should the US move towards full or near full use of nuclear power? Why or why not? Please provide as many specifics as possible in your response.
2. What is the precautionary principle? Please be as specific and as exact as possible in your definition. How does the precautionary principle relate to issues surrounding global warming? Please provide at least two other examples where one could apply the precautionary principle. Explain.
3. How does the text define sustainability? Is this realistically achievable? How would this be achieved? Must sustainability lead to tyranny? How could it (not) lead to tyranny? If it does lead to tyranny then is living sustainably worth it?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Practice test discussed in class
TEST INSTRUCTIONS
Your answers will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:
• Clarity of thought
• Organization (Week 1: introduction with thesis statement, body, conclusion)
• Demonstrated use of applied theory (utilitarianism, egoism, deontology, precautionary principle, adaptation vs. mitigation, etc.)
• Critical thinking (Week 1 and 2: PP/C, argumentative structure, validity and soundness, “How to Make an Argument” paper)
• Use of real world current events from your readings (the blog, the text)
Formulate a clear, cogent and relevant ethical argument in defense of your position. Please print legibly.
1. Is having children a right or a privilege? In your response, please discuss the population problem and the tragedy of the commons.
2. What is the precautionary principle? Please be as specific and as exact as possible in your definition. How does the precautionary principle relate to issues surrounding global warming? Please provide at least two other examples where one could apply the precautionary principle. Explain.
3. Is nuclear power green? Ought the US move towards more nuclear solutions to our energy problems? What should we do with our nuclear waste? Are we morally justified in shipping our nuclear waste to the third world? Justify your response.
4. How does the text define sustainability? Is this realistically achievable? How would this be achieved? Does sustainability lead to tyranny? How could it lead to tyranny? If it does lead to tyranny then is living sustainably worth it?
Just for fun:
If it really is the case that ExxonMobil executives engaged in a vast conspiracy to dis-inform the American public, how should they be held accountable (that is, penalized)?
Your answers will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:
• Clarity of thought
• Organization (Week 1: introduction with thesis statement, body, conclusion)
• Demonstrated use of applied theory (utilitarianism, egoism, deontology, precautionary principle, adaptation vs. mitigation, etc.)
• Critical thinking (Week 1 and 2: PP/C, argumentative structure, validity and soundness, “How to Make an Argument” paper)
• Use of real world current events from your readings (the blog, the text)
Formulate a clear, cogent and relevant ethical argument in defense of your position. Please print legibly.
1. Is having children a right or a privilege? In your response, please discuss the population problem and the tragedy of the commons.
2. What is the precautionary principle? Please be as specific and as exact as possible in your definition. How does the precautionary principle relate to issues surrounding global warming? Please provide at least two other examples where one could apply the precautionary principle. Explain.
3. Is nuclear power green? Ought the US move towards more nuclear solutions to our energy problems? What should we do with our nuclear waste? Are we morally justified in shipping our nuclear waste to the third world? Justify your response.
4. How does the text define sustainability? Is this realistically achievable? How would this be achieved? Does sustainability lead to tyranny? How could it lead to tyranny? If it does lead to tyranny then is living sustainably worth it?
Just for fun:
If it really is the case that ExxonMobil executives engaged in a vast conspiracy to dis-inform the American public, how should they be held accountable (that is, penalized)?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Reminder
Please make sure that you attend this Wednesday's class. (That's April 29th).
Also, please feel free to invite your professors, friends, or anyone who's interested.
Also, please feel free to invite your professors, friends, or anyone who's interested.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Important
Our guest lecturer has requested that you read the following before class this Friday (April 24).
The Civil Heretic
On the media
Climate Change
The Civil Heretic
On the media
Climate Change
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Guest Lecture
April 24, Howard Silverman, will be our guest lecturer for the hour. Please do not miss this class!
Monday, March 30, 2009
experts
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/26/opinion/edkristof.php
The expert on experts is Philip Tetlock, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. His 2005 book, "Expert Political Judgment," is based on two decades of tracking some 82,000 predictions by 284 experts. The experts' forecasts were tracked both on the subjects of their specialties and on subjects that they knew little about. The result? The predictions of experts were, on average, only a tiny bit better than random guesses — the equivalent of a chimpanzee throwing darts at a board. "It made virtually no difference whether participants had doctorates, whether they were economists, political scientists, journalists or historians, whether they had policy experience or access to classified information, or whether they had logged many or few years of experience," Mr. Tetlock wrote. Indeed, the only consistent predictor was fame — and it was an inverse relationship. The more famous experts did worse than unknown ones. That had to do with a fault in the media. Talent bookers for television shows and reporters tended to call up experts who provided strong, coherent points of view, who saw things in blacks and whites.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)