From the University of Gothenburg , some appearance of sanity.
The identified critical threshold for dangerous climate change saying that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius seems not to have helped the climate negotiations so far. New research from the University of Gothenburg and Columbia University shows that negotiations based on such a threshold fail because its value is determined by Nature and is inherently uncertain. Climate negotiators should therefore focus on other collective strategies.
Presenting their results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Astrid Dannenberg, Postdoc researcher at the Environmental Economics Unit, University of Gothenburg and Columbia University, and Professor Scott Barrett, Columbia University, explain the paradox of why countries would agree to a collective goal, aimed at reducing the risk of climate catastrophe, but act as if they were blind to this risk.
If the critical threshold for climate catastrophe could be identified with scientific certainty, their research suggests that countries very likely would propose a collective target certain to avoid catastrophe, would pledge to contribute their fair share to the global effort, and would act so as to fulfill their promises. However, if there is scientific uncertainty about the climate threshold, countries are very likely to do less collectively than is needed to avert catastrophe. Dannenberg and Barrett, who provide experimental evidence, grounded in a new analytical framework, show that failure of negotiations is practically certain, because the climate threshold is determined by Nature, and uncertainty about its value is substantially irreducible.
“Climate negotiations are more complex that the game played by the participants in our experiment. The basic incentive problem, however, is the same and our research shows that scientific uncertainty about the dangerous threshold changes behavior dramatically,” Dannenberg says.
Their research may explain why the UN climate negotiations have been framed around meeting the 2 degrees Celsius threshold and why negotiators wanted the threshold to be determined by science rather than by politics because only the former would be credible. Yet, the emission reductions countries have pledged in Copenhagen in 2009 virtually guarantee that this target will be missed.
“We will not know until 2020 if the Copenhagen Accord pledges will be met, but if our results are a reliable guide, countries may end up emitting even more than they pledged – with potentially profound and possibly irreversible consequences. Our research suggests that negotiators should focus their attention on alternative strategies for collective action, such as trade restrictions or technology standards,” Barrett says.
Yea Gods Nature is conspiring against their CAWG negotiations. And no, we the taxpaying public, know the Copenhagen Pledges will not be met not by 2020 or any future date. Its over the politicians have run out of easy money.And climatic negotiators will need a new scam.
“explain the paradox of why countries would agree to a collective goal, aimed at reducing the risk of climate catastrophe, but act as if they were blind to this risk”
Yes, why ever would a government agency agree to embrace an idea that involves more regulation, laws, and taxes, and yet act as if they really don’t believe in it… It’s quite a puzzle.
I think it is a scam. I completed the survey and stated that “Anthropogenic climate change and claims of extreme weather caused by it are false.” Because I did not believe in the propaganda, I received the following message upon completing the survey: “Unexpected Error (SFC)”. Sounds like the typical way to bias a survey.
“However, if there is scientific uncertainty about the climate threshold, countries are very likely to do less collectively than is needed to avert catastrophe.”
Maybe they feel that the proposed actions will not stop a catastrophe or that a catastrophe in not certain. Why commit?
Are those goals I can hear moving?
Weren’t temperatures more that 2C warmer than today during the Holocene Optimum?
I wouldn’t expect too much sanity from a Postdoc researcher at a Environmental Economics Unit or from anyone from Columbia University. Seems to me like a similar career path to Franziska Hollender. Inmates of the warmist cult.
So why don’t these “climate negotiators” simply reveal the uncertainties in their predictions for all to see? Oh, wait… That would mean the climate catastrophe would cease to exist.
Never mind.
/sarc
Astrid doesn’t have a clue what a climate catastrophy looks like. It will be apparent when the ice advances down from the Arctic, covering productive farm fields and shortening growing seasons. All of the natural resources which lie north of Kansas will be denied to us, and the United States will have to figure out how to house and feed 40 million Canadians for the next 40,000 years.
Why is everyone still referring to catastrophe!? It must be because MSM, for some reason, has not checked the latest CRU GMT. They are certainly slow to publish this now official milestone. I don’t see how anyone can include the word “catastrophe”, in any discussion involving CO2 or AGW, from here on in. CO2 must be factored out or recast into a new modality.
There may be catastrophe ahead and it would sure be nice to see it coming before it hits. Remove the CO2 smokescreen and we might do… just that. GK
“Environmental Economics Unit” ……
Sounds like a “Unit” studying how to find a reason for increasing taxes…….
“potentially profound and possibly irreversible consequences”
So dramatic! I can almost hear the background music. Of course, the precautionary principle demands we act and uncertainty favors action just as that “scariest video” on YouTube illustrates with a decision matrix.
Well, I think if we don’t prepare for an Alien Invasion there could be profound and possibly irreversible consequences.
Decision Matrix:
SCN | AI | NAI
PAI | 1 | 2
DPAI | 5 | 0
AI = Alien Invasion
NAI = No Alien Invasion
PAI = Prepare for Alien Invasion
DPAI = Don’t Prepare for Alien Invasion
As the matrix depicts, the absolute worst case scenario is the one in which an Alien Invasion occurs and we haven’t prepared for an Alien Invasion, scoring a 5 on the precautionary principled catastrophic scale (PPCS*).
The next worst case scenario is the one where we have prepared for Alien Invasion but an Alien Invasion doesn’t happen, but this only rates a 2 on the PPCS since we’ve only spent money needlessly.
The best case scenario is the one in which there’s no Alien Invasion and we didn’t prepare for it rating a 0 on the PPCS.
The next best case scenario is the one in which there’s an Alien Invasion and we have prepared for it, rating only a 1 on the PPCS.
The decision is clear, the precautionary principle demands we prepare for Alien Invasion. Much more research is required in order to determine how much money will be required for Alien Invasion preparations. As little as 1% GDP might be enough, but 10% GDP or even 50% GDP is not out of the realm of possibility considering the high stakes, limited time, and uncertainty involved. We must determine all modes of possible Alien Invasion from chemical or biological warfare to Nano-bots or giant monsters and then determine and implement the best counter to each mode of attack. This research is essential and should be well funded, if an Alien Invasion should occur we don’t want to be in the position of having to say “it’s worse than we thought” it would be. We need our Best and brightest on this global problem of immense proportions immediately and they shouldn’t be shackled by budget anxieties. While some may cite a lack of absolutely conclusive evidence for impending Alien Invasion as a reason to delay preparation, this should not deter us from this vital task of preparation in order to avoid global disaster. The evidence that we do have is consistent with imminent Alien Invasion. Those that spread doubt and deny the need for Alien Invasion preparations will most likely be charged with crimes against humanity once the Alien Invasion has been successfully repelled. It has been conclusively shown through surveys of people that do support preparing for Alien Invasion that Alien Invasion preparationdeniers are also prone to not accept the standard NASA explanations for Global Warming and resulting Catastrophe, the existence of the Nibiruans/Anunnaki, the existence of phlogiston, or the validity of most any doomsday prophecy. These people (if we can call them that) are obviously paid off by the Alien Invasion denial machine. The time to prepare is now!
(* PPCS: The Precautionary Principled Catastrophic Scale is a scale from 0 to 5 where 5 is a global catastrophe which threatens the very survival of all life on earth and 0 is no catastrophe. Every rating in between 0 and 5 is speciously chosen.)
PS: Global preparations for the Zombie Apocalypse is similarly lacking in funding and hysteria.
PSS: AI (Alien Invasion) could also be Artificial Intelligence, another underfunded concern of all Precautionary Principled People (PPP).
This message brought to you by the Precautionary Principled Populaces of Paternal Planet Protectionists for Pretentious Preparation Provisions.
(For those that need it: ….. /sarc)
I caught a BBC Radio 4 programme “Costing the earth” this afternoon as i drove home from a business meeting. Apparently Climate change is still going to be catastrophic, we are all going to starve – we are still going to hell in a hand cart.
What impressed me most tho’ was the fact that the presenters seemed almost desperate to get the bad news across to the listener.
The recent bad weather was put forward of “proof” that climate change is real. My passengers both said uncomplimentary comments about the BBC’s bias – I did not prompt them at all! So the reality is that the spin is backfiring if what happened to me is representative.
Sadly this seems to be the BBC at its “best”
The sooner we in the UK, get the `BBC’ to be pay per view rather than each household being taxed via a “TV Licence” (for those not of the UK – the TV Licence is a tax and you have to pay it) the sooner we will get this unbelievable bias and spin off our airways and TV screens.
Answer to MarkW:
“Most of the Viking expansion took place during what scientist refer to as the dimatic optimum of the Medieval Warm Period dated ca, A.D. 800 to 1200 (Jones 1986: McGovern 1991); a general term for warm periods that reached chere optimum at different times across the North Atlantic (Groves and Switsur 1991). During this time the niean annual temperature for southem Greenland was 1 to 3°C higher than today.” Julie Megan Ross, Paleoethnobotanical Investigation of Garden Under Sandet, a Waterlogged Norse Farm Site. Western Settlement. Greenland (Kaiaallit Nunaata), University of Alberta, Department of Anthropology Edmonton. Alberta Fall 1997, page 40
Apart from that. In US you do have some of the older maps where all can see that what’s now called Hudson Bay was known more than 100 years before anyone officially sailed to that area. In fact the cartographer was there in second half 14th century. Never mind that, that’s an other story. What’s interesting if you look at Medieval maps and other maps up to 1570’s is that on many of them you will find the Arctic Ice far north of Ruin Island where Norse artifacts from long before Columbus set sail has been found.
It’s a long story not directly connected with the CO2-debate but with real hard facts that should give politicians something to worry about. Facts and Fiction isn’t the same no matter how much they try real facts are hard evidence against their theoretical beliefs where so called specialists shown they aren’t even up to taking all factors and premisses for writing a computer program. (Back in 1971 I became a systemprogrammer)
Tried to send this and more a few minuits ago. But this is the essential parts
Most of the Viking expansion took place during what scientist refer to as the dimatic optimum of the Medieval Warm Period dated ca, A.D. 800 to 1200 (Jones 1986: McGovern 1991); a general term for warm periods that reached chere optimum at different times across the North Atlantic (Groves and Switsur 1991). During this time the niean annual temperature for southem Greenland was 1 to 3°C higher than today.” Julie Megan Ross, Paleoethnobotanical Investigation of Garden Under Sandet, a Waterlogged Norse Farm Site. Western Settlement. Greenland (Kaiaallit Nunaata), University of Alberta, Department of Anthropology Edmonton. Alberta Fall 1997, page 40
In US you do have old maps showing Hudson Bay cartographed more than 100 years before anyone officially sailed there. Look at those maps please. Also look up Ruin Island where Norse Artifacts from centuries before Columbus set sail westwards been found.
Yes it was much warmer and the Artic Ice was much more withdrawn than today….
I thinl the greenies should tell the sun to cool down and not get heated and bothered about it.
“Our research suggests that negotiators should focus their attention on alternative strategies for collective action, such as trade restrictions or technology standards,” Barrett says.
–
What does he mean by “trade restrictions or technology standards”? Whatever he’s getting at, wouldn’t it require a global authority, with more power than the UN, to enforce such “collective actions”? It always seems to come back to this, which makes me think that power is what they’re really after. Climate alarmism is just the means to an end.
Everybody knows most drunks would recommend their drinking buddies for AA but won’t attend any meetings themselves. It’s just human nature–few people think of themselves as having a problem.
In the ~35 years since the end of the “global cooling” scare and after the expenditure of more than $100 billion in the US alone:
– there is no unique global emissions reduction GOAL which all agree must be achieved to avoid catastrophe;
– there is no PLAN which all agree to pursue to achieve that GOAL; and,
– there is no TIMELINE which all agree must be met.
All we have is a WISH that the global average temperature anomaly not exceed 2C. I would suggest that is a hugely expensive WISH. However, we are probably fortunate that is all we have.
collectively… collectively… collectively…
Yep, just as I thought, a bunch of leftists whose primary goal is to chain others.
If the critical threshold for climate catastrophe could be identified with scientific certainty, their research suggests that countries very likely would propose a collective target certain to avoid catastrophe, would pledge to contribute their fair share to the global effort, and would act so as to fulfill their promises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How utterly naive. They created a model and presume that the world will act in accordance with it. They should have instead studied history. The words of Winston Churchill in 1949 come to mind:
“I was however a little disquieted that you find it necessary to debate the question, to quote Dr. Burchard’s opening address, “Whether the problem of world production yielding at least a minimum living to the whole population can be solved, and whether man has so destroyed the resources of his world that he may be doomed to die of starvation.” If, with all the resources of modern science, we find ourselves unable to avert world famine, we shall all be to blame, but a peculiar responsibility would rest upon the scientists. I do not believe they will fail, but if they do, or were not allowed to succeed, the consequences would be very unpleasant because it is certain that mankind would not agree to starve equally, and there might be some very sharp disagreements about how the last crust was to be shared. This would simplify our problem in an unduly primordial manner. “
An odd statement: The certain scientific outcome espoused by the IPCC and Hansen et al is the element that is said to be uncertain and political by these writers. And the actual number is to be determned by “nature”, suggesting that the outcome is not certain and the science, therefore, far from settled.
If the temperature rise was said to be a MINIMUM of 2C, then would that not be a “certainty”? But apparently this IPCC exercise cannot even say what the minimum would be, because “nature” not man or – most significantly – man-made CO2 doesn’t actually control the outcome.
So the settled science and certain outcome is … what? I don’t know, and the authors are saying the governmental strategists and negotiators don’t know.
All that work, all those reports, all the harangue, and nobody can say what the minimum WILL be?
And I thought consulting experts were supposed to decide something … other than the contracts need extending.
Can someone enlighten us all on what a ‘climate catastrophe’ actually _is_? Catastrophe is a nice word but it would be a lot more scientific to state what was expected to happen.
However, thinking about it that is why such an ambiguous but threatening word is used – the goal posts can be moved to fit any event that could be called catastrophic and blame heaped upon the miscreant frequent flying, SUV driving, big-oil shills.
It is good news indeed that the fake “climate negotiations” to cripple our economies with panic-stricken carbon-strangulation policies are likely to fail.
I have just finished reading the “Climate Change Education, Formal Settings K-12” report released today by the US National Academy of Science. If you live elsewhere hang on, they are citing research from all over the world on how to use education to get around widespread climate skepticism. The plan is not to teach Climate Science and Climate Change specifically but to teach what I have previously described as a collectivist political theory masquerading as a learning theory-the Bronfenbrenner Ecological Systems Theory.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/develop-learners-who-think-and-behave-and-view-themselves-as-systems-citizens/ is a good overview of what Systems Thinking looks like in the classroom. It is designed to create a FEELING there is a crisis. Beliefs and emotions are what gets manipulated and the constant refrain that the individual must give way to the consensus of the Group and Humanity and the Common Good.
The report speculates that this systems thinking approach will make it harder for this to be controversial because it is harder to spot. The idea as always with systems thinking is to adjust the individual values, attitudes, and beliefs so that future behavior is affected in
predictable and desired ways. Most of my posts on systems thinking go back to the work of either Peter Senge or Bela Banathy. But Senge is currently training US teachers on bringing systems thinking and climate modelling based on the Meadows’ work and the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth scenarios to classrooms as part of the Common Core implementation now being rolled out in a school near you. Actually all over the world.
So this is the bypass around actual temps and weather and sun activity and all the other real things that are in the way of gaining acceptance of these controlling political theories.
Heads up on Systems Thinking and how nefarious it is. NAS and UNEP think we will not catch this subterfuge.
We already have.