One wonders how they can make claims like that when we see models vs reality like this:
Future generations will have to pay more for today’s carbon emissions than what governments across the world currently understand. The climate models used by policymakers around the world to estimate the economic and social costs of CO2 emissions have to be improved according to Thomas Sterner, professor of Environmental Economics at the School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, and six other scientists in the prestigious journal Nature.
The seven scientists behind the article, due to be published 10 April (read online), conclude that the reports by the UN climate panel serve an important function in setting the agenda for climate research. Yet the most important role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to inform the global political discussion on how the harm caused by climate change should be handled.
Thomas Sterner, expert on policy instruments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is a Coordinating Lead Author of one key chapter on policy instruments in the Working Group III of the Fifth Assessment Report of the UN (IPCC) climate report that is scheduled to be presented on Sunday 13 April in Berlin.
‘Our purpose with this article in Nature is to discuss models that will enable us to calculate a necessary minimum level for the global environmental damage of emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide. This cost is very relevant given the attempts of the White House to raise the so-called social cost of carbon in the U.S. to 37 dollars per ton. All U.S. authorities (such as the Departments of Energy or Transport) must take this cost into account in calculations of investments in roads and energy supply,’ says Sterner.
The social cost of carbon correspond to the money saved when damages due to climate change are avoided as a result of the countries of the world undertaking policy that leads to reduced emissions of CO2.
‘Sweden has already gone further than what the U.S. is discussing, since we have a CO2 tax of about USD 150 per ton, or SEK 1 per kilo, of CO2 emissions from transports and energy,’ says Sterner.
The article in Nature is entitled Improve Economic Models of Climate Change. The authors point to several weaknesses of the most commonly used climate models. However, they write that the models are useful, notwithstanding the significant uncertainties – since they do provide a minimum level and thus enable politicians to reduce the effects of climate change to some extent.
Also, the authors continue, modelers, economists and natural scientists must leave their ivory towers and cooperate with each other in order to identify research gaps and weaknesses, with a view to continuously improve their models. Economic climate models need to be updated more often to keep up with new research findings. If this is not done, the damage caused by CO2 emissions will be underestimated also in the future, which means that political decision-making around the world will continue to underestimate the true economic effects of climate change.
Link: http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-improve-economic-models-of-climate-change-1.14991
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Models, Schmodels………
levying carbon taxes is simply another scheme to raise revenue for government expansion. If that money actually had to be paid dollar for dollar to developing economies for mitigation, the discussion of carbon taxes would simply vanish from the political landscape.
Sick and tired of this BS.
We’re paying through our noses and not only because of the climate scare but also because the Fed (and the ECB) is robbing buying power as a matter of policy.
Consuming is bad, fossil fuels, bad, eating meat, bad. exhaling Co2, bad, driving an SUV, bad, being alive, bad.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-08/fed-sharks-part-1-robbing-purchasing-power-matter-policy
It’s revolution time. The establishemnt has declared war on the masses and they want them rather dead than alive.
Screw the models.
Looking at that graph (RSS and AMSU v Models) has convinced me/made me, a proud denier: ie C02 has 0 zilch, nada, bu#### all etc….effect on global earth temperatures.
Throw the bums out. These “models” are garbage!
It was announced in a Netherlands news source that Richard Tol has left the IPCC because the panel does not adhere to scientific principles.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/22483313/__Heibel_binnen_VN-klimaatpanel__.html
“This cost is very relevant given the attempts of the White House to raise the so-called social cost of carbon in the U.S. to 37 dollars per ton.”
That’s hilarious, they can barely get $3 a ton for it in the EU.
Of course the climate models underestimate the costs to future generations, they don’t include the enormous and ever-growing cost of ecoterrorism.
Because, Inflation.
That’s only the high-emission scenarios that are warmer than the actual temperatures. If you look at the projections for low-emissions (mitigation) they match the observed record pretty closely.
Almost like CO2 has very little to do with temps. Funny that.
Let’s prepare for stuff that has always happened in the past, but now we will politicize it and blame it on ourselves. Brilliant!
Honestly, why do they even bother sending it to Nature when they could just tell the twittered “It’s going to be worse than we thought” ?
It doesn’t even take 70 characters, never mind 140.
Did they work out the greening biosphere of extra co2?
AR5 WGI are not seeing eye-to-eye with WGII as a result it’s going to be worse than we extrapolated.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/07/un-wgii-report-relies-on-exaggerated-climate-model-results/
Climate and Weather Models are Junk past 15 days out, I should know I have been watching them for 10 years. The ice models are even worse just out a few days.
The amount C02 we put in the atmosphere is very small compared to Natural C02 released into the atmosphere year.
Simple Pie Chart most of the C02 released into the atmosphere is also natural.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NJSnowFan/media/grid?idx=8&tid=453318534550929408
The AMO is about to talk a S&!t and so will N Hem temps. They are pushing hard to pass all the new carbon taxes before their time runs out on the AGW scam.
P.S Climate and weather models are are just like the Candy House in the childrens story Hansel and Gretel. The models are the house and the witch that lives inside. If you eat the candy you will be eaten by the model witch.
Oops sorry, posting on Mobil device and posted wrong picture.
Simple Pie Chart most of the C02 released into the atmosphere is also natural.
====
But Chris…man made CO2 is magical and cumulative
The Warmists (IPCC, Obama, Kerry, you know who you are) lost round 1 of AR5 (WG1) by obscuring what they now call a hiatus and failing to properly address ECS. They are in the process of losing round 2 (WG2) because of fundamental disconnects between the actual meta-analyses and the SPM alarms. That is still playing out, although the IPCC already making a lame defensive PR to Ben Pile innthe UK shows how that will end. All IPCC has left before Paris 2015 is round 3(WG3). We know now how they will play that. Obama raising the cost of carbon, this Nature nonsense…what is needed is a WG3 SOD draft so some of us can get to work debunking the specifics
First we get Stern. Then we get Sterner. Are we to get Sternest next?
Wow! Seven scientists and absolutely no science! Nature is supposed to be a science journal, yet is more a tabloid when it publishes such drivel. Next thing you know, Nature will feature articles on aliens playing croquette with Obama on the White House lawn.
Any real scientist would be ethically and professionally required to consider the benefits of climate change along with the negatives. The absence of such an analysis indicates that authors and the journal have no such compulsion to be ethical or professional. Instead, they are demonstrating a desire to be propagandists, with the sole purpose of enabling governments to confiscate more money from the people through false pretenses and scare tactics.
It is generally accepted that any warming up to 2 degrees C would provide a net benefit to humanity and the biosphere. Do you think that this Magnificent 7 would propose a tax refund for carbon emitters to say thank you for those benefits? Of course not. This is not about climate change. It is about social engineering, the limitations of freedom and the empowerment of a few.
Why do all climate models start at 1979? You’d think people would use the data from the last 35 years and adjust their climate models accordingly.
Every suggestion involves more money.
Stop the wonders, accept the facts, just like we accept the facts on the fraud that Climate Change via the Mike Mann Hockey Stick lies.
Facts:
AP, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, PBS. New York Times, Los Angles Times, Boston Glob, Houston, Austin etal of the MSM lie operation keep the lies afloat.
Lies kill.
Truth is life.
Yes, Rob, but ours, not theirs.
Only OPM Famine will stop the modelling.
“the models are useful, notwithstanding the significant uncertainties – since they do provide a minimum level”
MINIMUM level???? YGBFkiddnme.
It’s a good thing we have all the man made CO2 to keep the world warm. Eyeballing the AR4 temperature graphs, it looks like the models indicate about 1.1 degrees “c” warming from man made CO2 than without.
Put another way, without the CO2, earth temperatures would be about .3 degrees “C” lower than the coldest decades in the instrumental record, if it weren’t for that man-made CO2.
Some might say the models are wrong. I don’t. I think they are right, and ask the IPCC to start producing graphs that would show how cold it would be without the CO2. Brrr. And let’s stick to the AR-4 models. The IPCC was certain enough then, so let’s hold them to it.