Tag Archives: uncertainty

Game Theory – Roger A McCain

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Game Theory

A Nontechnical Introduction to the Analysis of Strategy

Roger A McCain

Genre: Mathematics

Price: $41.99

Publish Date: August 2, 2010

Publisher: World Scientific Publishing Company

Seller: Ingram DV LLC


This book serves as an introduction to game theory for students with no prior game theory knowledge, or with limited background in economics and mathematics. It is specifically designed to provide an intuitive and accessible interdisciplinary approach to game theory, while simultaneously exploring cooperative games, repeated play, correlated equilibrium, and a range of applications. The Instructor Manual is available upon request for all instructors who adopt this book as a course text. Please send your request to sales@wspc.com. Contents: FundamentalsTwo-Person GamesLarger Numbers and UncertaintyGames in Extensive Form and Repeated PlayCooperationBehavioral and Evolutionary Game TheorySelected Applications Readership: Undergraduates and graduates studying game theory or those interested in knowing more about game theory.

See original:

Game Theory – Roger A McCain

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Game Theory – Roger A McCain

This GOP Presidential Candidate Actually Believes in Climate Change. But He Doesn’t Want to Fix It.

green4us

Ohio Gov. John Kasich doesn’t “want to overreact” to global warming. John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio, is announcing his bid for the presidency Tuesday. Unlike most of his GOP opponents, Kasich actually believes that climate change is real. “I happen to believe there is a problem with climate change,” he told the Hill 2012. “I don’t want to overreact to it, I can’t measure it all, but I respect the creation that the Lord has given us and I want to make sure we protect it.” He made a similar statement in the video above, taken at a conference last month, but he added that the environment shouldn’t be “worshipped,” because that would be “pantheism.” Despite his comparatively reasonable views on climate science, Kasich has been pretty noncommittal about actually addressing global warming. And over the last few months, he has stepped up his opposition to President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. He’s rolled back Ohio’s clean energy goals and has joined a legal challenge against the Environmental Protection Agency. “Gov. Kasich seems less extreme than some other presidential candidates because he couches his views on climate change with uncertainty, rather than disagreement,” said Dan Weiss, a senior vice president at the League of Conservation Voters. Still, Weiss said, Kasich’s record tells a different story. It’s no surprise that climate change would be on Kasich’s radar. His state is a leading producer and user of coal, which is the country’s top source of carbon dioxide pollution. Kasich has said he is “not going to apologize” for burning coal. He’s also been a proponent of so-called “clean coal” technology, which aims to capture carbon emissions and store or repurpose them. (So far there’s only one commercial-scale CCS project in the country, at an astronomically expensive coal plant in Mississippi.) In the video above, Kasich claimed that his state “reduced emissions by 30 percent over the last 10 years.” According to federal data, total carbon emissions in Ohio fell only about half that amount between 2002 and 2012. (Rob Nichols, Gov. Kasich’s spokesperson, did not return multiple requests for comment about this statement and the governor’s overall climate record.) Either way, Ohio’s energy sector is among the nation’s dirtiest. It ranks fifth nationwide for total carbon emissions and has one of the nation’s highest rates of carbon emissions per unit of energy produced, a measurement that experts refer to as “carbon intensity.” That’s because of the state’s heavy reliance on coal, which provides 63 percent of its electricity (as opposed to just 2 percent from renewables). And Ohio is home to American Electric Power, one of the country’s biggest power companies and the number-two producer of electricity-related carbon emissions. The upshot of those statistics is that if the United States is going to “protect” the Earth, as Kasich claims to want to do, Ohio clearly has an important role to play. And yet, Kasich’s administration has been a leading opponent of Obama’s Clean Power Plan, a slate of regulations for power-related emissions that aims to reduce the nation’s carbon footprint 30 percent by 2030 and that forms the backbone of the president’s climate agenda. The rules, which set a different targets for each state, treat Ohio relatively lightly—according to a Bloomberg analysis, Ohio would be required to reduce its carbon intensity, but its overall carbon emissions could remain more or less unchanged. Last year, the Ohio EPA called the proposed rules “flawed” and said the federal EPA had “radically underestimated” their cost. Meanwhile, Ohio Attorney General Michael DeWine joined with a dozen other states in asking a federal court to block the EPA from implementing the plan. The court ultimately declined to hear that challenge, as the rules haven’t yet been finalized. Ohio may have a difficult time meeting the EPA target anyway, thanks to a law Kasich signed last year that effectively shelves the state’s own clean energy targets. The measure, which was backed by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, puts a two-year freeze on requirements for power companies in the state to procure more of their electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar, and to reduce energy demand overall. Clean energy targets like that would have helped the state meet the EPA mandate in a cost-effective manner; without them, the state may have to rely more heavily on curbing its coal use, according to one clean energy industry group in the state. So while Kasich might seem like a moderate on climate, undermining climate-friendly policies is hardly better than opposing the science outright. The quest for a climate-savvy GOP candidate continues.

Source article: 

This GOP Presidential Candidate Actually Believes in Climate Change. But He Doesn’t Want to Fix It.

Related Posts

Obama Just Vetoed the GOP’s Keystone Bill
Watch a US Senator Cite the Bible to Prove That Humans Aren’t Causing Global Warming
Obama’s Budget Calls for Billions in Climate Funding
We Finally Found a GOP Congressman Who Believes in Science. Too Bad He’s a Felon.
Obama Campaign Launches Plan to Shame Climate Sceptics in Congress
Republicans Portray Obama Climate Push As A Distraction

Share this:






See the original post:

This GOP Presidential Candidate Actually Believes in Climate Change. But He Doesn’t Want to Fix It.

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This GOP Presidential Candidate Actually Believes in Climate Change. But He Doesn’t Want to Fix It.

We Know Humans Are Causing Global Warming; Here Are Some Things We’re Less Sure About

Melting Greenland glaciers will have an effect on the global climate by affecting the strength of ocean circulation patterns. Exactly how much of an effect they’ll have is stll up in the air. Photo: Christine Zenino

This morning in Sweden representatives from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change presented a summary of the current state of scientific knowledge about climate change, a brief version of part of the IPCC’s upcoming full report. Most of the attention is being paid—and rightly so—to the things we know we know for sure: the temperature is rising, the sea level is, too. And we and our carbon emissions are largely to blame.

The IPCC report speaks a language of certainties and uncertainties—what do we think we know? how certain are we about it? The headline news from this new IPCC report is that we’re overwhelmingly certain that people are causing climate change. But what are we less confident about? The short answer is: we’re less sure about what’s happening in places where there’s less data— whether because historically there’s been less funding for science there, as in places outside the northern hemisphere, or less human presence, as in Antarctica.

This doesn’t undermine the IPCC’s claims: these sources of uncertainty were all taken into consideration when the IPCC said that we’re the dominant driver of climate change. Rather, they’re a reminder that though the science of climate change is settled, it isn’t complete. There’s a lot more work for scientists to do, and many open questions—some of them quite large. Answering these questions will do a great deal to help us answer the really important question: what’s next?

So here, gleaned from the IPCC’s briefing, are some of the things we’re still trying to work out:

What’s up with clouds?

We’ve touched on this one before, but it’s just as true as ever: we don’t really know what’s going on with clouds. We know that they’re important in determining the “climate sensitivity,” the measure of how much warming you’d expect for a given increase in greenhouse gases. And they’re also obviously relevant to figuring out how the weather will be affected. But, as the IPCC says, trying to make clouds in a computer model is tricky.

The southern hemisphere

The bulk of long-term scientific research has been focused on the northern hemisphere, and those gaps in the observation grid mean that we know less about how things work down under.

We’re not quite as sure how all the extra energy in the Earth’s atmosphere, trapped by greenhouse gases, is warming the air in the Southern Hemisphere. This isn’t to say it isn’t warming. The question is about how much warming we’re seeing at different altitudes.

We’re also not quite sure how the rain has, or will, change. We know that over the northern hemisphere rainfall has been going up, but we’re not so sure what’s going on over the ocean or in the southern hemisphere.

Changes in Antarctic ice

The vast Antarctic glaciers are a focus of a lot of research, but we’re not really sure how they work. Scientists are trying to figure that out, because all of that ice could mean a lot of sea level rise. National Geographic says that if Antarctica and all the other ice melted we’d get something like 216 feet of sea level rise. (This is never going to happen, but it’s not fun to think about.)

We also don’t know as much as we’d like about the gigantic floating sheets of ice that ring Antarctica. Scientists are having trouble understanding why they sometimes seem to be growing, and there’s a lot of uncertainty in our predictions of what will happen to them as the world continues to warm.

Arctic permafrost bomb

The Arctic reaches of Canada and Siberia and Scandinavia and other polar regions are full of permafrost—land that’s frozen year round. As the world gets warmer, it makes sense that this permafrost will start to thaw (and it has been). What people are really worried about is that, trapped within this frozen soil, there is whole lot of carbon in the form of decaying plant material known as peat.

Peat likes to catch on fire. Peat also releases carbon dioxide and methane as it breaks down. So, there’s a big worry that if we keep thawing out the frozen peat, that there will be a big surge in greenhouse gases. But that’s exactly what it is—a worry. We’re not really sure how much extra greenhouse gases will be released from all this frozen land. A lot of it depends on how much we can limit global warming.

The power of the sun

Some people like to claim that changes in the amount of energy coming from the Sun are what’s actually causing climate change, and that greenhouse gas emissions aren’t to blame. If it’s all the Sun’s fault, then we’re off the hook. Those people are wrong.

That being said, of course changes in the amount of energy coming from the Sun affect the climate. How this happens, though, is the question. Scientists think that there may be a connection between the 11-year solar cycle and medium-term changes in the climate, changes that happen from decade to decade. This matters because these decade-to-decade changes can stack on top of the long-term changes caused by anthropogenic climate change.

The fate of the AMOC

There’s a gigantic circulation system running all throughout the world’s oceans, linking them together, transporting nutrients and salt and heat between the Pacific and the Atlantic and the Indian and the others. The Atlantic Ocean branch of this system is called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation—meridional because it flows “along the meridian,” and overturning because, from north to south, it flows along the bottom of the ocean, and from south to north, it flows along the top. This circulation system is very important for keeping everything moving, and its behavior affects everything from the temperature in Europe to the strength of the monsoon in China.

Scientists are worried that if climate change melts enough of the ice in Greenland and the rest of the Arctic that this circulation pattern could slow down, or even stop entirely. The IPCC says it’s “very unlikely” that the AMOC will stop in the next 100 years, but, after that, they’re not so sure.

What’s the takeaway here? We’re already locked in to a certain amount of climate change, thanks to the greenhouse gases we’ve already let into the air. We know that the world is going to change, but in some cases we’re not quite so sure what exactly is going to happen. We know a lot about climate change—we know that it’s happening and that it’s our fault—but that doesn’t mean scientists can take a break. There’s still a lot of work to be done to understand how the planet’s going to react to these changes we’ve wrought.

More from Smithsonian.com:

It’s 95 Percent Certain That We’re the Main Cause of Climate Change
Melting Greenland Ice Has Consequences

Link – 

We Know Humans Are Causing Global Warming; Here Are Some Things We’re Less Sure About

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Smith's, solar, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Know Humans Are Causing Global Warming; Here Are Some Things We’re Less Sure About

Statement on the Corker/Manchin Bill

back

Statement on the Corker/Manchin Bill

Posted 17 May 2013 in

National

Fuels America released a statement today in response to new legislation introduced by Sens. Bob Corker and Joe Manchin designed to chip away at the Renewable Fuel Standard:

The RFS was designed to drive growth in our domestic renewable fuel industry, and it is working. The private sector has made substantial investments based upon the RFS – and it is ready to make more. Changes to the policy jeopardize those investments and send a signal of uncertainty to investors, companies and scientists. Fuels America opposes any effort to modify the RFS.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
See original article here: 

Statement on the Corker/Manchin Bill

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Statement on the Corker/Manchin Bill