EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:17 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:42 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20577
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2014/ ... nomists-0/

London, 14 March – The study, by the New Economics Foundation (NEF), a UK based independent think-tank, examines the accuracy and precision of projections made by both climate scientists and economists over the past 20 years.

First, the economists. The study looked at measures commonly used in long term UK government economic modelling and decision making, using 1995 as a baseline: the population forecast for England and the forecast for the UK Treasury’s debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio.

In the US, the forecasts on oil prices over the period made by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) were also examined.

Economic inaccuracies
The NEF finds the economists’ projections both inaccurate and imprecise in all three areas. The economists saw the population of England growing at a fairly modest level from 1995 to the present – from around 49 million 20 years ago to 51.5 million now.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:43 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2300
Location: Central Colorado
Prophetic visions can rouse politicians from complacency to save the planet

Obstacles to climate action are starting to crumble. Our leaders now have an opportunity to marry the moral and economic case
"The past year has seen the obstacles blocking action on climate change beginning to crumble. Opposition on scientific grounds looks pretty unpersuasive in the light of what has come from the experts on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their seven-year study states that they are now 95% certain that human activity is a significant and avoidable element in driving climate change around the world. Predicted changes in the climate are now being observed in the most vulnerable countries, confirming the predictive models that have been used."
http://www.theguardi...elp-save-planet

I prefer the nomenclature "real projections" rather than "prophetic visions". People don't listen to 'chicken little'. IMHO -

Here is one;
We Have Five Years to Stop Building Coal Plants and Gas-Powered Cars

http://motherboard.v...-to-end-in-2018

The problem is even 2*C is too much;

Sorry policy-makers, the two-degrees warming policy is likely a road to disaster

As we approach the New York climate summit, there are serious questions about whether the two degrees of warming limit is acceptable.



"The 2°C target, as pointed out recently by climate activist and author David Spratt, is a "very unsafe target" and is "more appropriately considered as the boundary between dangerous and very dangerous climate change".
Scientists and climate policy experts have been saying for this for years. For example, back in 2006, the Independent reported that dangerous climate change would be "likely to be unstoppable" if atmospheric carbon concentration exceeded 400 parts per million. In July 2014, the concentration was 399 and exceeded 400 in April this year.
Stabilisation at two degrees warming is not a policy for a safe climate. A Royal Society paper by Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows in 2008 points out that "The framing of climate change policy is typically informed by the 2 degrees C threshold; however, even stabilizing at 450 ppmv CO2e [parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent] offers only a 46 per cent chance of not exceeding 2 degrees C."
They further point out that the 2°C limit is the result of very optimistic scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that to achieve "stabilisation" would require an unprecedented step change in the global economic model and the rapid deployment of successful CO2 scrubbing technologies". IPCC scenarios have been criticised as systematically underestimating the pace and severity of global warming.
As Glenn Scherer wrote in 2012, we are facing unstoppable, "non-linear "light switch" moments when the climate system abruptly shifts from one paradigm to another", where global warming becomes locked in and self-reinforcing."
http://www.theguardi...policy-disaster

Then we have the UNKNOWN;
"The news is consistent with trends in fossil fuel consumption. But what comes as more of a surprise is the WMO’s revelation that the current rate of ocean acidification, which greenhouse gases (GHGs) help to cause, appears unprecedented in at least the last 300 million years."
http://ecowatch.com/...75cd6a-85901709 [-o<

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:28 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 373
What is common with this story is "economic modeling." And, climate modeling. Both don't work. GIGO. The system on both counts is to big to model with any degree of consistency or accuracy. A model is a model is a model, whether it deals with climate, workplace relationships, the social interactions of honeybees, economics, or the movement of troops on a battlefield. You have in the past attempted to defend your position by holding that others do not possess the skill, the expertise, the abstruse scientific education, to fully understand the implications of the data. Only you and the particular scientists who support your theory are clever enough to understand the meaning of the data. Unfortunately the reality is that there are plenty of people who don't even have to see the data to realize that you don't have enough of it to accurately make the claims that you have.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:55 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20577
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
What is common with this story is "economic modeling." And, climate modeling. Both don't work. GIGO. The system on both counts is to big to model with any degree of consistency or accuracy. A model is a model is a model, whether it deals with climate, workplace relationships, the social interactions of honeybees, economics, or the movement of troops on a battlefield. You have in the past attempted to defend your position by holding that others do not possess the skill, the expertise, the abstruse scientific education, to fully understand the implications of the data. Only you and the particular scientists who support your theory are clever enough to understand the meaning of the data. Unfortunately the reality is that there are plenty of people who don't even have to see the data to realize that you don't have enough of it to accurately make the claims that you have.


Some people will "know" this just as they "know" Elvis is still alive, the UFOs are watching us, the contrails are actually chemtrails, and vaccines cause more diseases than they prevent ...... in other words the
"common sense" appraoch where the sense is not very common.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:15 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:07 am
Posts: 3
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Milton Banana wrote:
What is common with this story is "economic modeling." And, climate modeling. Both don't work. GIGO. The system on both counts is to big to model with any degree of consistency or accuracy. A model is a model is a model, whether it deals with climate, workplace relationships, the social interactions of honeybees, economics, or the movement of troops on a battlefield. You have in the past attempted to defend your position by holding that others do not possess the skill, the expertise, the abstruse scientific education, to fully understand the implications of the data. Only you and the particular scientists who support your theory are clever enough to understand the meaning of the data. Unfortunately the reality is that there are plenty of people who don't even have to see the data to realize that you don't have enough of it to accurately make the claims that you have.


Some people will "know" this just as they "know" Elvis is still alive, the UFOs are watching us, the contrails are actually chemtrails, and vaccines cause more diseases than they prevent ...... in other words the
"common sense" appraoch where the sense is not very common.


I wanted to write something similar but I decided that I ain't gonna repeat it any better than you already did so I ma just gonna say - I agree with you! Wholeheartedly :)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group