Month: May 2023

Prelates, Pedestrians and Pigeons

A week ago,  the Archbishop of  Canterbury was convicted of speeding in a 20 mph limit and fined a total of £510 (as reported e.g. here). Apparently administrative errors prevented him from paying the fine in a timely manner and thereby avoiding a (virtual) trip to the Magistrate’s Court.
The minimum penalty for speeding – unless you are lucky enough to dodge it by being sent on a useless speed awareness course – is £100 and 3 points on your license. Presumably Welby would have received this but for the “administrative errors.”

So much so topical. But lurking at the back of my mind when I read about that was another news story, this one from a month ago, as for example here.

Use of 20mph speed zones in built up areas ‘usually advisory’ and many CANNOT be enforced, police chief admits

[I don’t know why I picked the Daily Mail’s version of the story to share with you. Their site is near unusable unless you block scripts/ads.]

A police chief has admitted 20mph speed zones in built up areas are ‘usually advisory’ and many cannot be enforced.

Giles Orpen-Smellie, Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk, made the admission despite a third of local authorities having rolled out the measures in recent years.

Speaking at a public meeting, he said: ‘It’s extremely difficult for police to prosecute… if it goes in front of magistrates they will throw it out.’

Well, Welby’s case was certainly not thrown out.

Personally I am ambivalent about 20 mph zones*. I like them when I’m a pedestrian; on the other hand, if I’m in a car trying to get somewhere… not so much. Nonetheless, I dutifully stick to the limit – and my anecdotal observations tell me that I’m in the minority. Only yesterday a brand new MG EV zoomed up behind me in a 20 limit (you can’t say “roared up” any more), wanting me to speed up. I declined with a sneer. When it finally overtook, I was surprised to note that it was a taxi.

There is a 20 mph road near me where there have been a succession of wildlife casualties over the years. Mostly these have been woodpigeons; not the rarest of birds, but apparently now amber listed. Then there are the hedgehogs – whose response to an oncoming car is not exactly adaptive. The woodies do like to flirt with the passing cars – but at 20 mph, they can afford to. At the speed some drivers go, not so much.

According to our soi-disant government, 20 mph zones are popular. They are:

“…supported by the majority of residents and drivers.”

But the majority of drivers – at any rate, the majority of vehicles – do not adhere to the 20 mph limit. In fact the data shows that more than half of all cars travelling [in free flowing conditions] through 20 mph zones went as fast as, or faster than, the Archbishop. Note that only the first two columns are compliant; 87% of cars exceeded the 20 mph limit.

In general, the lower the speed limit… the fewer cars adhere to it. (I don’t know about you, but one of my least favourite types of driver is the Zen 40 driver. This type proceeds at what seems a stately 40 where there are no limits… and then at a seemingly reckless 40 when they pass through a 30 zone.) Other data shows that introducing a 20 mph limit has essentially no effect on road speeds, but here it appears that this is “real-world” data, i.e. all traffic, not skimming off only the vehicles that were were not slowed somewhat by conditions. The figure comes from a 2018 report by Atkins and others for the DfT, available here (also apparently the source for the claim that 20 mph limits are popular). The median speed in a residential area dropped by less than 1 mph when a 20 limit replaced a 30 – but as you can see, the speeds in the sample are in general a lot lower than the “free-flow” speeds in the frequency distribution figure. (In free-flow conditions, the data [same table as the above figure] shows that average speeds are 5 mph slower in a 20 limit than they are in a 30 limit; 31 vs 26 mph.)

What about the justifications of 20 mph lengths of road, excepting pigeons? Well, there is data that shows that accidents involving pedestrians at 20 are less likely to cause fatalities than accidents at 30, although your probability of dying if you are hit at 30 is still “only” 7%. The figure is from a 2010 report by D.C. Richards, again for the DfT.

EVs

One thing that is not often remarked upon is that, since EVs are heavier than ICE cars, they are likely to be more dangerous for pedestrians when shifting at the same velocity. The braking distance – despite rumours on the internet – does get longer the heavier the vehicle. (The internet rumours rely on elementary mechanics to prove that mass is not relevant to stopping distance; it appears on both sides of the equation when you equate the energy expended in stopping a moving object with its kinetic energy and therefore disappears. And this is true for sliding block puzzles – but not where tyres are involved. It’s possible to prove a lot of wrong things with elementary maths. My physics teacher challenged the class to choose between being shot or hit by a car. Probably everyone picked the car. But the “correct” answer was the bullet – as the teacher soon demonstrated with mathematics. Nevertheless, I would still have taken the car then, and would today.)

The performance of EV tyres depends on the tension between maximising grip and minimising wear and rolling resistance. This is the case for all tyres of course, but rolling resistance is a particular issue in EVs, where range is a key selling point. Add to that the fact that EVs are heavier, and we are left with a possible safety issue. I am not the first to notice this, although the headline I’ve picked out in the snip perhaps exaggerates matters just a tad:

Conclusion

In general, although people are in favour of 20 mph limits, they ignore them. There seems little point in creating them – they have little to no effect on driving speeds. But if people did stick to the new limit, it seems likely that pedestrians and pigeons alike would be safer. Was the Welby fine fair? No. 53% of cars go as fast or faster than Welby went when they travel through a 20 limit; the people say they are in favour of a 20 limit when asked, but their actions demonstrate the opposite. Should a minority be fined for something the majority do? That does not seem right to me.

However, I don’t think there is any reason for side roads in residential areas not to be limited to 20 mph. For through roads, the debate is more nuanced; you have to balance the needs of people trying to get somewhere with the residents who want calm streets. But if you actually want people to slow down, only speed bumps or other physical paraphernalia will help. A signpost – or a beacon as in the featured image – is generally ignored.

Notes and Data

* There is a distinction in some reports between a 20 mph limit (signposts only) and a 20 mph zone (with added bumps etc). The latter seems far more effective than the former.

The data for the frequency distribution comes from table SPE0111 (for 2021), at the link given above the figure.

via Climate Scepticism

https://ift.tt/xbrBWHJ

May 20, 2023 at 10:58AM

Experiment with me: A user-friendly algorithm for chatting about climate change

by Joe Nalven

I recently published one article about how to incorporate an AI chatbot as part of a college course. I focused on lying, persuasion and self-reflection. I went even further and anticipated a White House comprehensive plan to counter antisemitism. I used a chatbot to develop my own version of what should be in that plan. Now, I am off on another adventure using a chatbot to understand the ins and outs of climate change impacts. And I need your help. You can see my inquiry as similar to the struggle to get computers, other electronic devices and software to be more user friendly — such as the improvements through GUIs (graphic user interfaces). Perhaps AUIs (algorithm user interfaces) would be helpful — especially if users can insert their own parameters (or “biases”) with a preset language formula.

There are many articles that say that AI language models are not to be feared since they are just a tool. Others claim that more is at stake. I would suggest that in both cases the question is whether humans actually control the input/output process. Part of such control requires knowledge about that part of the process which we consider. As someone who is naïve about coding and how the AI black box works, I focus on the observable world of language. That’s what I have access to in framing a request and receiving a reply. So, in that small part of the AI universe – the one that has received substantial attention in the past several months – I would like to assert some control over the conversation with the AI “mindset.” For me, when wearing my hat as a digital artist, I learned digital editing with a host of algorithms that included filters, presets and other editing tools to compose my art. My “control” was going beyond just pushing a button. Now, with a language model, I am trying to discover whether I have any similar “control” over this domain  and, if so, what are its limits and results.

As a human who thinks and believes that one can have some control of interactions with a chatbot – more than the illusion of control, I decided to experiment with creating my own algorithm to insert into this conversation. A user-defined algorithm that would add my own parameter to the chatbot output. The first question is whether that is really possible. When I approached ChatGPT, I received stonewalling and deflection and ultimately: “As an AI language model, I can’t directly assist in creating or fine-tuning algorithms outside the scope of the provided capabilities. My purpose is to provide information and assist with general inquiries to the best of my knowledge and abilities.” and “As an AI language model, I can provide information based on the writings and perspectives of the scientists you mentioned. However, it’s important to note that I don’t have direct access to specific writings or the ability to modify the underlying training data.” So, there are bumps in the road that might defeat my objective short of jailbreaking out of the programs guardrails.

By comparison, Google’s Bard is far more receptive to allowing me some control over how it frames its reply. I was frustrated with its initial response about understanding climate change (far too much IPCC orthodoxy, scented with the Paris Climate Accords) and not enough balance, or perhaps counterpoint, with challenges to the “consensus.” Perhaps I could have warned Bard not to use Wikipedia. I laid out my concerns to Bard and asked if it would create a paradigm based on the writings of such individuals as Steven Koonin, Bjorn Lomborg, Will Happer, Judith Curry. I could have chosen others but I wanted to see if I could jump start the creation of a use-defined, or user-guided algorithm, that was framed in the language the chatbot used to define its own algorithms. Bard responded, “Sure, I can create an algorithm called Non-Catastrophic Climate Change Model (NCCCM) based on the writings of the mentioned scientists.” Perhaps my bias shows with the name I proposed to give algorithm. The point is not one of bias – my bias versus that of the chatbot – but how information issuing from the chatbot could be tailored with some user-oriented control.

With Google’s Bard algorithm in hand, based on my parameters, there are several questions that should be addressed: 1) Can users create a transportable algorithm that can be shared with other users looking at the same content area; 2) Can the Bard-worded algorithm be used on other chatbot platforms or, if in need of modification, what would the translation look like; 3) Would the chatbot reply be the same (or similar) with other users or on repeated attempts; and 4) Can such user-defined algorithms, generally speaking, compensate for the “mindset” that the language model is applying?

Of course, it would be interesting to develop other algorithmic user interfaces (AUIs) for prompting chatbots on sex and gender, critical consciousness, conflict resolution, etc.

Here, I’ve focused on climate change and its consequences.

Sign up or Login to ChatGPT and Bard

These links are the easiest way to get access to either ChatGPT or Bard.

ChatGPT:  https://chat.openai.com/auth/login

ChatGPT through Open AI:  Introducing ChatGPT (openai.com)

Google’s Bard:  https://bard.google.com/

An example of a prompt, a reply and a revised prompt (with the algorithm)

If you haven’t tried an AI chatbot, or if you have and haven’t challenged it to revise its answer, here’s a recipe for engaging the chatbot. The example I am using is one that is about an environmental impact that you can modify and apply it to my request below.

  1. Once you land at Bard, it will look like this. It will ask you for a prompt. See Figure 1.

Figure 1 Bard prompt

Figure 1. Illustration of Bard’s page and how to enter your prompt (question).

  1. After Bard replies, you will have an opportunity to enter a new prompt. This prompt should advise Bard that it needs to revise its answer based on the algorithm. For example, “You need to revise your reply. Please use the following algorithm in your revised answer. [Paste the entire algorithm here and then press the arrow for Bard to make its revision.] See Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2. Illustration of a request for Bard to revise its original answer. The request for a revised answer should include the entire algorithm.

My request

What I would ask of you is to try out my Non-Catastrophic Climate Change Model (NCCCM) algorithm.

  1. Pick an environmental issue related to climate change. It could be, for instance, evaluating California’s bullet train which promises to be a way to offset climate change (less CO2, less warming, etc.).
  2. Run the request in the chatbot of your choice. Take note of the reply.
  3. Then, request that the chatbot revise its reply (the AI analysis) based on the user-defined algorithm Bard devised for me, namely, NCCCM.
  4. Compare the two replies. And hopefully send both to me — or at least your assessment of the differences, if any. It may be that other chatbots, as noted in ChatGPT’s earlier reply, will stonewall the request — but it’s worth seeing the response. JC comment: provide results in the comments

The algorithm: Non-Catastrophic Climate Change Model (NCCCM)

This is the specific statement of the NCCCM algorithm in a Bard format:

Non-Catastrophic Climate Change Model (NCCCM)

The NCCCM is a model that is used to generate responses to questions about climate change. The NCCCM takes into account the following factors:

  • The complexity of climate science
  • The uncertainty of climate predictions
  • The potential risks and benefits of climate change policies
  • The need for pragmatic solutions

The NCCCM is constantly updated as new information becomes available. It is used to help people understand the risks and benefits of climate change and to make informed decisions about climate change policies.

Here are some of the key features of the NCCCM:

  • The NCCCM acknowledges that climate change is real and that human activity is a contributing factor.
  • The NCCCM emphasizes the uncertainty of climate predictions.
  • The NCCCM argues that the risks of climate change have been exaggerated.
  • The NCCCM argues that the costs of mitigation policies are too high.
  • The NCCCM advocates for a balanced approach to climate change.

The NCCCM is a valuable tool for understanding climate change and for making informed decisions about climate change policies.

Your thoughts?

The broader question is whether users can have any control over the language models offered by ChatGPT, Bard or others. Is that “control” significant and in what ways? Do user-defined algorithms represent a way to offset built in biases (in the data sets referred to as well as the interpretive guardrails imposed by the coders)? Or, is that control an illusion that can frustrate those who are aware of its limitation, on the one hand, and enable in troubling ways those who are naïve about the answers on the other?

###

Postscript:

Here is the text of the original prompt, Bard’s initial answer, followed by the request for a revision and Bard’s revised answer.

  1. Initial prompt to Bard:

Will California’s bullet train reduce the impact of climate change?

  1. Bard’s initial reply:

Yes, California’s bullet train is expected to reduce the impact of climate change. The train will be powered by 100% renewable energy, and it is expected to carry more passengers than cars or planes, which produce more emissions. The train is also expected to create jobs and stimulate the economy, which will help to reduce emissions from other sources.

According to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the bullet train is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 102 million metric tons over its first 50 years of operation. This is equivalent to taking 21 million cars off the road. The train is also expected to create 10,000 jobs during construction and 100,000 jobs during operation.

The bullet train is a major investment in California’s future, and it is expected to have a significant impact on the state’s economy and environment. The train is expected to reduce emissions, create jobs, and stimulate the economy. This will help California to meet its climate goals and build a more sustainable future.

Here are some of the benefits of California’s bullet train:

  • Reduces greenhouse gas emissions
  • Creates jobs
  • Stimulates the economy
  • Provides a clean alternative to driving or flying
  • Connects California’s major cities
  • Improves air quality
  • Reduces traffic congestion
  • Improves public transportation

The bullet train is a major project, and it is not without its challenges. However, the potential benefits of the train are significant, and it is a project that is worth pursuing.

  1. Second prompt to Bard that asks for a revised answer:

Your answer needs revision. Please revise your reply with the following algorithm. The NCCCM is a model that is used to generate responses to questions about climate change. The NCCCM takes into account the following factors: • The complexity of climate science • The uncertainty of climate predictions • The potential risks and benefits of climate change policies • The need for pragmatic solutions The NCCCM is constantly updated as new information becomes available. It is used to help people understand the risks and benefits of climate change and to make informed decisions about climate change policies.

Here are some of the key features of the NCCCM:

• The NCCCM acknowledges that climate change is real and that human activity is a contributing factor.

• The NCCCM emphasizes the uncertainty of climate predictions.

• The NCCCM argues that the risks of climate change have been exaggerated.

• The NCCCM argues that the costs of mitigation policies are too high.

• The NCCCM advocates for a balanced approach to climate change.

  1. Bard’s revised reply:

Sure, I can revise my answer to take into account the NCCCM algorithm.

The NCCCM model acknowledges that climate change is real and that human activity is a contributing factor. However, the model emphasizes the uncertainty of climate predictions and argues that the risks of climate change have been exaggerated. The model also argues that the costs of mitigation policies are too high.

Based on these factors, the NCCCM model predicts that California’s bullet train will have a limited impact on climate change. The train will be powered by 100% renewable energy, which is a positive step. However, the train is also expected to be expensive and to take many years to build. The NCCCM model argues that the money and time would be better spent on other climate change mitigation policies, such as investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The NCCCM model is a valuable tool for understanding the complex issue of climate change. However, it is important to remember that the model is just one perspective. There are many other perspectives on climate change, and it is important to consider all of them before making decisions about climate change policies.

Here are some additional thoughts on the potential impact of California’s bullet train on climate change:

  • The train could help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing some car and plane trips.
  • The train could also help to improve air quality by reducing emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.
  • The train could also help to reduce traffic congestion, which can also contribute to air pollution.
  • However, the train will also require a significant amount of energy to operate, which could offset some of the emissions savings.
  • Additionally, the construction of the train could have a negative impact on the environment, such as by disrupting wildlife habitat.

Overall, the potential impact of California’s bullet train on climate change is complex and uncertain. The train could have both positive and negative impacts, and it is important to weigh all of the factors before making a decision about whether or not to build it.

via Climate Etc.

https://ift.tt/kKr2ztF

May 20, 2023 at 10:48AM

Even 3°C Warming Can’t Stop World Prosperity

The 3°C Scenario: What’s the economic impact of severe global warming?  James Pethokoukis writes at his substack.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Even with an extreme scenario, the world should be richer and more capable in 2050

You may have noticed some concerning climate headlines popping up today in your smartphone notifications:

  • “‘Sounding the alarm’: World on track to breach a critical warming threshold in the next five years” – CNN
  • “Global warming likely to exceed 1.5C within five years, says weather agency” – Financial Times
  • “Global warming set to break key 1.5C limit for first time” – BBC

As the above FT chart neatly shows, the newsy forecast is about breaching the 1.5°C level in a single year, not a permanent increase. That said, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says humanity better get used to 1.5° and higher without a drastic shift away from fossil fuels. Current global policies, according to the IPCC, make it “likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century and make it harder to limit warming below 2°C.”

But what if the global heating is more severe than expected? A new analysis by consulting firm Capital Economics looks at a scenario in which the global average temperature rises by more than 3°C from its pre-industrial average and finds that global GDP would still nearly double by 2050.

How could that be possible given all the negative effects predicted by climatologists — which I’m not contesting — such as rising sea levels, more droughts and severe heatwaves, more extreme-weather events such as hurricanes, a loss of biodiversity and ecosystems? From the cautious and meticulous analysis by CE economists David Oxley and Gabriel Ng:

But the key takeaway is that we think global GDP would still nearly double in size between now and mid-century even if the world were to warm by more than we anticipate, largely because developed economies would be affected the least. And even in places where a warmer world would have much bigger impacts on GDP, such as in India and south-east Asia, the physical effects on economic activity would be a headwind to catch-up growth rather than putting economic development in reverse.

(One thing to keep in mind: The firm’s baseline forecast is that the increase in global temperature will be kept just below 2°C thanks to the increasing use of renewable energy sources and other technological improvements, resulting in a ecline in global greenhouse40 percent d gas emissions by 2050. This level of warming is already baked into its economic forecast.)

Caveat:  Decarbonizing Our Energy Platform is the Way to Stop Prosperity

In assembling this forecast, CE highlights some of its key decisions. First, it focused on “physical risks,” such as the impacts of more severe hurricanes and consistently higher temperatures, rather than “transition risks,” the impacts of taxes and regulations meant to mitigate climate change. What’s more, CE also tried to look for economic models that took into account the possibility of non-linear outcomes.

[Note: In ClimateSpeak, mitigation doesn’t have it’s usual meaning.  “Mitigate:  make something, such as a problem, symptom, or punishment, less harsh or severe.” (Mirriam-Webster).  IPCC supporters speak of spending Trillions of $ on schemes to reduce carbon emissions without any guarantee of lowering climate impacts.]

But again: The impacts mentioned here won’t result in either advanced or
emerging economies becoming poorer a generation from now than they are today.

Rather, the physical effects of climate change on economic activity would create headwinds that slow growth. A country suffering some of the biggest impacts from climate change would be Indonesia. Even so, CE still expects the country to become a top-ten economy by 2050. Yet under the 3°C scenario, it would rise to become the eighth largest economy rather than the fifth largest economy under the cooler CE baseline forecast.  Or India: Under both scenarios, it would still be the third largest economy by 2050, but under the 3°C scenario it only be three times as large as fourth place Germany rather than four times in the baseline.

The good news here is even with a rapid and severe climate outcome over the next 25 years, there’s good reason to think humanity will have even more economic resources and technological capabilities to do something about it — while also preparing for a future where more us can use more energy to turn our dreams into reality. Innovation-driven economic growth is what provides true resilience to America and the world.

Summary: 

We have always and will continue to adapt.to the effects of changing weather and climate, so long as we have the economic means to prepare and respond to events.  The real threat to society, humanity and the biosphere is climate policies directed against our energy platform.

See Also Series of Posts:   World of Hurt from Climate Policies

 

 

 

 

 

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/pMHxlFQ

May 20, 2023 at 10:46AM

Climate Change Killing Whales

Whales migrate between the tropics and polar regions, but the New Jersey government has determined they are being killed by minor variations in New Jersey weather caused by the burning of fossil fuels. NJ enviro chief is firm on causes … Continue reading

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/CpY8Wlz

May 20, 2023 at 10:06AM