When I used AI in my 1969 master's thesis, "AI" meant computational techniques that would solve problems that are difficult or impossible for a human. It still does. For your information, this is how "AI" itself answers the question I posed to Professor Pielke, the question being "what are applications of ai in climate science" see: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-are-applications-B61XpWSHS3usMWIOEQgoCQ My concern was, how much of this is hype and how much can we expect the new computational techniques and associated hardware used in "AI" to impact the field of climate science. The problem seems to require an "Honest Broker" since the general public has no idea how climate models work. If you are concerned about bias, this is a general issue when it comes to climate models, which include a tremendous amount of guesswork and arbitrary decisions.
I have loved the irony of the energy problems posed by AI, Bitcoin and other technology. These technologies need massive amounts of efficient, cheap, consistent and reliable electricity, none of which is possible with “sustainable “technologies, only with fossil fuel or, God forbid, Nuclear Energy. What is a climate obsessive, green, anti nuke loon to do. The ultimate conundrum is upon them.
The risk of AI is replacing climate change for the chicken littles of the world. Do you have any thoughts about this matter? For example, many "experts" are predicting that "Artificial General Intelligence" is right around the corner, as it has been since I entered the field in 1969. Many are saying that AI will somehow help to address the climate change problem. Is it possible that the ridiculous amount of money and computer power devoted to AI could give us climate models that can at least model a planet with hurricanes?
Wonder if I could work something out for my town in Texas. We are only a few feet above sea level and although the Gulf is 9 hours away, one never knows. Be prepared I was once taught so bring me some of that World Bank money and we'll build a protective wall, or maybe a new stadium.
It's unfortunate you feel obligated to bend a knee to the leftists by STARTING your article by stating..... "First, climate change is real and poses significant risks for our collective futures". If you think this will assuage radicals to accept your positions.... It won't.
It’s a good thing New York is planning based on RCP8.5, because that means they have factored in replacing their remaining clean electricity generation (what’s left after they cancelled the offshore wind and closed Indian Point) with lots of new coal generation, which is what RCP8.5 assumes; although it may be bad for New Jersey and Connecticut because they will have to deal with the effects, although they may be planning based on the same scenario.
Historically I have been politically left of center. In the last couple years, my views have changed, and now I am right of center. My friends, and all but one member of my family, are politically liberal. As you might expect, they trust more liberal news sources. They will however engage with me. I see that Wayne Brown is suggesting that you move off the RPC 8.5 conversation. He’s probably right for this group. It would however be very handy for me to have a one or two page lightly technical PDF document that I can share with friends and family that talks about why RPC 8.5 is not a credible scenario and what the implications of that are. They don’t subscribe to your Substack, so I can’t forward links to them. Would you be willing to write something shareable and mildly technical that we could use with friends to talk about RPC 8.5? I think the key to any conversation is to present material that is consumable and factual but doesn’t imply that they are idiots or morally wrong. I have been able to use some material from Robert Bryce’s Substack to talk with friends about energy topics.
Just the other day I was looking at some travel information and ran across an article on the Maldives. The article was recommending a visit to those wonderful beaches.
I was stunned when I remembered the absolute certainty of that island chain being lost to the rising sea level. That talk was from 20 years ago and has been drummed into the mainstream media constantly ever since. Something is amiss. Either some sort of mitigation plan has worked or, as I suspect, money has been paid and those responsible for the BS are off to other projects. NY perhaps?
Could this ramping up of government mitigation policies for over-projected climate change be the equivalent of having enough nuclear weapons to bomb the earth 10 times over or having a military complex large enough to fight a dozen wars at the same time? My data on military capacity is obviously unresearched, but hopefully you catch my drift. Believe me, I don't like the crazy climate cult either, but to ignore the fact that all government agencies over project their threats and necessary risk mitigation is hypocrisy.
Oh boy. Deja vu all over again ... i.e., the GWP misuse story all over again. Although I disagree, I can
see some sliver of logic underlying use of RCP8.5. But policymakers should also consider lower (lower than RCP4.5) scenarios ... specifically ones consistent with the Paris Agreement (PA). In this regard, I note that RCP4.5 gives a long-term warming (for ECS = 3C) of 2C ... which some would say is consistent with the PA (a bit of a stretch really). For the 1.5C PA goal, my 2018 Climatic Change article
gives sea level rise estimates consistent (based on the 1.5C warming case) with the PA. But it also discusses some more extreme cases.
It is embarassing to be from New York. Get a load of this quote from the regulatory impact statement
Amendments to Part 490, Projected Sea Level Rise Regulatory Impact Statement
Thus, the question for decision makers is not if a critical sea level will be reached, but when. Strauss (201338) calculated that historic emissions have already committed the globe to a mean sea level rise of 6.2 feet. Levermann et al. (2013) estimated that the current international target of 2°C warming will result in an eventual mean global sea level rise of more than 15 feet after 2000 years. Thus, a full range of projections in Part 490 that includes higher values is appropriate to allow for consideration of a level of sea level rise that will likely occur at some point, even if the timing of such occurrence is uncertain.
The timing is 2,000 years but they think this should be considered. Nuts is too kind.
Those of us in private industry have long understood that in order to optimize the utilization of limited capital in the presence of a variety of opportunities of variable risk those risks MUST BE quantified. Governments have to choose between many priorities. They could direct funds towards improved public safety through enhanced policing, reduced driving fatalities through more effective interchanges, or they could reinforce seawalls and raise piers to account for increasing sea levels. The relative value of spending for an RCP8.5 world vs a more plausible world can only be calculated by using the best estimate of the probability associated with RCP8.5. If New York mandates that planning and the associated capital expenditures must assume RCP8.5 then they’ve effectively set the probability of that scenario at 100% and directed capital away from more pressing priorities.
I appreciate your efforts very much! It is crazy that organizations are using such scenarios. And yet, I wonder to what extent the people New York asked about it responded 'why not' because they can afford to indulge in protecting against very remote possibilities. I have a question, however, I would love to see you address: what does success mean to the climate change movement? If it is just the lessening/elimination of CO2, that suggests that CO2 is THE determining factor of climate and -- based on all you've written -- it is hard to see that as true. So, is it a 'climate" like 1850 to 1899? Or? What is it that is implicitly being promised if only we can get off of fossil fuels? As they say, inquiring minds would like to know! The other area I feel could use some of your excellent attention is what scientists -- climate scientists in particular -- are doing in terms of experiments to test their theories about how the earth's climate systems work? Of course, this comes back to what is climate anyway, other than a human-constructed characterization of weather over a time and area chosen, typically by averaging various weather phenomena such as temperature, wind speed and the like. So, does anyone talk about climate change success in terms of weather phenomenon or is it all to be the characterization of climate, determined after the fact and over some period of time and space? Thank you again for all your hard work!
When I used AI in my 1969 master's thesis, "AI" meant computational techniques that would solve problems that are difficult or impossible for a human. It still does. For your information, this is how "AI" itself answers the question I posed to Professor Pielke, the question being "what are applications of ai in climate science" see: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-are-applications-B61XpWSHS3usMWIOEQgoCQ My concern was, how much of this is hype and how much can we expect the new computational techniques and associated hardware used in "AI" to impact the field of climate science. The problem seems to require an "Honest Broker" since the general public has no idea how climate models work. If you are concerned about bias, this is a general issue when it comes to climate models, which include a tremendous amount of guesswork and arbitrary decisions.
I have loved the irony of the energy problems posed by AI, Bitcoin and other technology. These technologies need massive amounts of efficient, cheap, consistent and reliable electricity, none of which is possible with “sustainable “technologies, only with fossil fuel or, God forbid, Nuclear Energy. What is a climate obsessive, green, anti nuke loon to do. The ultimate conundrum is upon them.
Does Piltdown Mann live in NY?
Would explain a lot.
The risk of AI is replacing climate change for the chicken littles of the world. Do you have any thoughts about this matter? For example, many "experts" are predicting that "Artificial General Intelligence" is right around the corner, as it has been since I entered the field in 1969. Many are saying that AI will somehow help to address the climate change problem. Is it possible that the ridiculous amount of money and computer power devoted to AI could give us climate models that can at least model a planet with hurricanes?
Wonder if I could work something out for my town in Texas. We are only a few feet above sea level and although the Gulf is 9 hours away, one never knows. Be prepared I was once taught so bring me some of that World Bank money and we'll build a protective wall, or maybe a new stadium.
Not sure if the seas were rising but that's for history to tell us. One thing for sure however, The Maldives made bank.
It's unfortunate you feel obligated to bend a knee to the leftists by STARTING your article by stating..... "First, climate change is real and poses significant risks for our collective futures". If you think this will assuage radicals to accept your positions.... It won't.
Stay strong and fight like hell.
It’s a good thing New York is planning based on RCP8.5, because that means they have factored in replacing their remaining clean electricity generation (what’s left after they cancelled the offshore wind and closed Indian Point) with lots of new coal generation, which is what RCP8.5 assumes; although it may be bad for New Jersey and Connecticut because they will have to deal with the effects, although they may be planning based on the same scenario.
Historically I have been politically left of center. In the last couple years, my views have changed, and now I am right of center. My friends, and all but one member of my family, are politically liberal. As you might expect, they trust more liberal news sources. They will however engage with me. I see that Wayne Brown is suggesting that you move off the RPC 8.5 conversation. He’s probably right for this group. It would however be very handy for me to have a one or two page lightly technical PDF document that I can share with friends and family that talks about why RPC 8.5 is not a credible scenario and what the implications of that are. They don’t subscribe to your Substack, so I can’t forward links to them. Would you be willing to write something shareable and mildly technical that we could use with friends to talk about RPC 8.5? I think the key to any conversation is to present material that is consumable and factual but doesn’t imply that they are idiots or morally wrong. I have been able to use some material from Robert Bryce’s Substack to talk with friends about energy topics.
Just the other day I was looking at some travel information and ran across an article on the Maldives. The article was recommending a visit to those wonderful beaches.
I was stunned when I remembered the absolute certainty of that island chain being lost to the rising sea level. That talk was from 20 years ago and has been drummed into the mainstream media constantly ever since. Something is amiss. Either some sort of mitigation plan has worked or, as I suspect, money has been paid and those responsible for the BS are off to other projects. NY perhaps?
Could this ramping up of government mitigation policies for over-projected climate change be the equivalent of having enough nuclear weapons to bomb the earth 10 times over or having a military complex large enough to fight a dozen wars at the same time? My data on military capacity is obviously unresearched, but hopefully you catch my drift. Believe me, I don't like the crazy climate cult either, but to ignore the fact that all government agencies over project their threats and necessary risk mitigation is hypocrisy.
Oh boy. Deja vu all over again ... i.e., the GWP misuse story all over again. Although I disagree, I can
see some sliver of logic underlying use of RCP8.5. But policymakers should also consider lower (lower than RCP4.5) scenarios ... specifically ones consistent with the Paris Agreement (PA). In this regard, I note that RCP4.5 gives a long-term warming (for ECS = 3C) of 2C ... which some would say is consistent with the PA (a bit of a stretch really). For the 1.5C PA goal, my 2018 Climatic Change article
gives sea level rise estimates consistent (based on the 1.5C warming case) with the PA. But it also discusses some more extreme cases.
It is embarassing to be from New York. Get a load of this quote from the regulatory impact statement
Amendments to Part 490, Projected Sea Level Rise Regulatory Impact Statement
Thus, the question for decision makers is not if a critical sea level will be reached, but when. Strauss (201338) calculated that historic emissions have already committed the globe to a mean sea level rise of 6.2 feet. Levermann et al. (2013) estimated that the current international target of 2°C warming will result in an eventual mean global sea level rise of more than 15 feet after 2000 years. Thus, a full range of projections in Part 490 that includes higher values is appropriate to allow for consideration of a level of sea level rise that will likely occur at some point, even if the timing of such occurrence is uncertain.
The timing is 2,000 years but they think this should be considered. Nuts is too kind.
Honestly you need to get off the 8.5 subject. I generally just ignore your hundredth comment on this matter. I get it. Really. Move on.
Those of us in private industry have long understood that in order to optimize the utilization of limited capital in the presence of a variety of opportunities of variable risk those risks MUST BE quantified. Governments have to choose between many priorities. They could direct funds towards improved public safety through enhanced policing, reduced driving fatalities through more effective interchanges, or they could reinforce seawalls and raise piers to account for increasing sea levels. The relative value of spending for an RCP8.5 world vs a more plausible world can only be calculated by using the best estimate of the probability associated with RCP8.5. If New York mandates that planning and the associated capital expenditures must assume RCP8.5 then they’ve effectively set the probability of that scenario at 100% and directed capital away from more pressing priorities.
I appreciate your efforts very much! It is crazy that organizations are using such scenarios. And yet, I wonder to what extent the people New York asked about it responded 'why not' because they can afford to indulge in protecting against very remote possibilities. I have a question, however, I would love to see you address: what does success mean to the climate change movement? If it is just the lessening/elimination of CO2, that suggests that CO2 is THE determining factor of climate and -- based on all you've written -- it is hard to see that as true. So, is it a 'climate" like 1850 to 1899? Or? What is it that is implicitly being promised if only we can get off of fossil fuels? As they say, inquiring minds would like to know! The other area I feel could use some of your excellent attention is what scientists -- climate scientists in particular -- are doing in terms of experiments to test their theories about how the earth's climate systems work? Of course, this comes back to what is climate anyway, other than a human-constructed characterization of weather over a time and area chosen, typically by averaging various weather phenomena such as temperature, wind speed and the like. So, does anyone talk about climate change success in terms of weather phenomenon or is it all to be the characterization of climate, determined after the fact and over some period of time and space? Thank you again for all your hard work!