Modeling human behavior in response to climate alarmism yields a ‘rational basis for hope’

From the NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR MATHEMATICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SYNTHESIS (NIMBIOS) and the “herding cats is easier” department comes this inane suggestion demonstrating the “importance of factoring human behavior into models of climate change”. Amazingly, their humanized climate model predicts a temperature 3.4 to 6.2°C by 2100, which renders the Paris Climate Accord limit of 2°C completely moot while simultaneously saying “there is indeed some rational basis for hope.”

I wonder if they modeling the effects on humans if they took away CNN, WaPo, NYT, and other media outlets pushing “weather is now climate” news stories? Hmmm, I’ll bet that would have an impact on human behavior.


Curbing climate change

Study finds strong rationale for the human factor

KNOXVILLE — Humans may be the dominant cause of global temperature rise, but they may also be a crucial factor in helping to reduce it, according to a new study that for the first time builds a novel model to measure the effects of behavior on climate.

Drawing from both social psychology and climate science, the new model investigates how human behavioral changes evolve in response to extreme climate events and affect global temperature change.

The model accounts for the dynamic feedbacks that occur naturally in the Earth’s climate system–temperature projections determine the likelihood of extreme weather events, which in turn influence human behavior. Human behavioral changes, such as installing solar panels or investing in public transportation, alter greenhouse gas emissions, which change the global temperature and thus the frequency of extreme events, leading to new behaviors, and the cycle continues.

Combining climate projections and social processes, the model predicts global temperature change ranging from 3.4 to 6.2°C by 2100, compared to 4.9°C from the climate model alone.

Due to the complexity of physical processes, climate models have uncertainties in global temperature prediction. The new model found that temperature uncertainty associated with the social component was of a similar magnitude to that of the physical processes, which implies that a better understanding of the human social component is important but often overlooked.

The model found that long-term, less easily reversed behavioral changes, such as insulating homes or purchasing hybrid cars, had by far the most impact in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and thus reducing climate change, versus more short-term adjustments, such as adjusting thermostats or driving fewer miles.

The results, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, demonstrate the importance of factoring human behavior into models of climate change.

“A better understanding of the human perception of risk from climate change and the behavioral responses are key to curbing future climate change,” said lead author Brian Beckage, a professor of plant biology and computer science at the University of Vermont.

The paper was a result of combined efforts of the joint Working Group on Human Risk Perception and Climate Change at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) at the University of Maryland. Both institutes are supported by the National Science Foundation. The Working Group of about a dozen scientists from a variety of disciplines, including biology, psychology, geography, and mathematics, has been researching the questions surrounding human risk perception and climate change since 2013. More information about the Working Group can be found at http://www.nimbios.org/workinggroups/WG_risk.

“It is easy to lose confidence in the capacity for societies to make sufficient changes to reduce future temperatures. When we started this project, we simply wanted to address the question as to whether there was any rational basis for ‘hope’–that is a rational basis to expect that human behavioral changes can sufficiently impact climate to significantly reduce future global temperatures,” said NIMBioS Director Louis J. Gross, who co-authored the paper and co-organized the Working Group.

“Climate models can easily make assumptions about reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions and project the implications, but they do this with no rational basis for human responses,” Gross said. “The key result from this paper is that there is indeed some rational basis for hope.”

That basis for hope can be the foundation which communities can build on in adopting policies to reduce emissions, said co-author Katherine Lacasse, an assistant professor of psychology at Rhode Island College.

“We may notice more hurricanes and heat waves than usual and become concerned about climate change, but we don’t always know the best ways to reduce our emissions,” Lacasse said. “Programs or policies that help reduce the cost and difficulty of making long-term changes or that bring in whole communities to make long-term changes together can help support people to take big steps that have a meaningful impact on the climate.”

###

Citation: Beckage B. et al. 2017. Linking models of human behavior and climate alters projected climate change. Nature Climate Changehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0031-7

You just have to love doublespeak like this:

Due to the complexity of physical processes, climate models have uncertainties in global temperature prediction. The new model found that temperature uncertainty associated with the social component was of a similar magnitude to that of the physical processes, which implies that a better understanding of the human social component is important but often overlooked.

Modeling humans and climate- double plus good uncertainty.

Here’s his video to go with the press release.

Advertisements

119 thoughts on “Modeling human behavior in response to climate alarmism yields a ‘rational basis for hope’

  1. “builds a novel model to measure the effects of behavior on climate.” Translation—this is all nonsense, worthy only of being the plot of a scifi film.

    I developed a severe headache shortly thereafter and had to give up. All this double-speak and word salad will make any rational person’s head hurt. They’re destroying science, once horrible study/model at a time.

    • My son bought me a copy of Lucretius’s ‘The nature of Things’ for Christmas which sets out a rational explanation of the world, the universe, the Void, Atoms etc based on Epicurean ideas and his own thoughts. It is 7,000 odd lines of poetry written over 2,000 years ago and some parts of it are just the most sublime summations of a what we would call a ‘scientific’ explanation.

      And then you read about this sort of insane psycho-scientific raving and wonder what the heck has happened?

    • once horrible study/model at a time….

      This is not the study they need to do….
      I want to see a study showing how to convince the rest of us to believe this crap….while the people….movie stars, eco nuts, scientists, politicians, ex vic persidents, and ex presidents…who are pushing it
      …leave a CO2 foot print the size of Venezuela

      • With each of these “new revelations”, my Climate Apathy score just cranks up even further!

    • It’s quite rational when you equate the word “novel” as getting published and getting promoted or even getting a grant. Beyond that, it is a waste.

    • “You can’t kill a squadron.”

      But seriously science is something which can never even in principle be killed. You can have a crowd of political activists masquerading as scientists decline to use the methods of science. You can have hordes of grant-snuffling mountebanks turn their backs on the philosophy of science for personal gain. You can have real scientists who choose to accept the political perversion of science rather than not provide for their families. As far as the scientific method is concerned the lot of ’em are the idle wind which it regards not.

    • “Sheri January 2, 2018 at 6:42 am

      Translation—this is all nonsense, worthy only of being the plot of a scifi film.”

      Nonsense yes. Worthy of being the plot in a SciFi movie? No way, no science, just fiction.

    • Co2islife, you aren’t far off. What this so called model is intended to do is to figure out how to manipulate human behavior to get the results the elitist left desire. It is taking polling and focus groups to a whole new level. One of the problems the CAGW crowd have is they cannot figure out how to force the people to buy into their orthodoxy. Right now they blame it on skeptics and deniers. They don’t understand that the average person experiences weather not climate. Climate is a long term phenomena. If you could get an accurate poll today in the northern half of the USA a doubt that even a large minority would believe in AGW or if they did it would be more like “well, bring it on.” If this winter continues as severe as it presently is in North America a good portion of the country may want as much carbon dioxide produced as possible.

      • “One of the problems the CAGW crowd have is they cannot figure out how to force the people to buy into their orthodoxy.”

        The whole point of this exercise is for the Alarmists to be able to understand why skeptics reject Alamist arguments.

        The Alarmists are sure they are correct in their assumptions about climate change, and they can’t understand why others don’t see what they see, so they do psychological and sociological studies trying to understand and change that way of thinking.

        What the Alarmists really need to understand is there is no evidence their CAGW delusion is true. They just assume it’s true, but others do not. As long as the Alarmists wrongfully assume they know the truth, they will never know the truth.

      • The more you see this sort of thing the more respect you have for the wisdom of the common man and the more disdain for the educated classes.

        Educated classes say: Mass unfettered immigration from the third world will pay for your pensions and enrich your culture.
        Common man sees: Millions of unemployable people on welfare with soaring crime, rape, terror and general cultural collapse.

        Educated classes say: Mankind is causing undeniable runaway global warming.
        Common man sees: Outside the temperatures are like springtime on Mars and the diesel is freezing in my fuel pipe.

  2. “The new model found that temperature uncertainty associated with the social component was of a similar magnitude to that of the physical processes, which implies that a better understanding of the human social component is important but often overlooked.”

    Translation: “Uses the same random number generator.”

    • Notice that they don’t point out with similar uncertainties, that a better understanding of the physical processes is important but often overlooked.

      • Also, with similar uncertainties, you should get a wider range of outcomes, unless the human behavior portion is bounded at the lower limit of the climate model so that “do nothing” is the response.

  3. It’s called “post-normal science”. Pick a target, any target, then model support for the target. How easy science has become!

    • I suggest it’s a continuation of indoctrination/brainwashing toward the long game: AI (artificial intelligence) whence the models will determine our everyday activity. Enslavement by none other than elite control freaks. One step closer.

  4. if we were to adopt the massive changes that would be required to limit increases in CO2 production, would the climate stop changing? If not, why bother? We have no idea of what direction the climate is following due to the natural variations that are almost certainly occurring as a result of forces we can’t control. This is akin to being onboard a rudderless ship whose course we are trying to change by sticking a small oar in the water while the ship is being pushed in an unknown direction by the tides, currents and winds. It’s truly hubris in the extreme.

  5. There may be something to this, but I reach the exact opposite conclusion.

    Last year, I added insulation to the attic and had all my old windows swapped out for new/improved.

    I checked NASA/GISS, and lo-and-behold, the warming had gotten even worse than they thought before.

    So I have to conclude that insulation causes global warming. It’s Simple Physics!

    [/sarc], as if needed

  6. I notice Porky Pig in the video is still tucking into his western diet whilst the third world starves.

    Nice to be able to make sweeping statements on climate analysis when living in the lap of luxury.

    • Getting a bit judgmental, aren’t we? It has always been that way in academia. I say, “Bon appétit, Dr. Beckage!” The Earth is becoming more bountiful every day as CO2 greens the planet.

    • “HotScot January 2, 2018 at 7:11 am

      I notice Porky Pig in the video is still tucking into his western diet whilst the third world starves.”

      Yes I often wonder if these people actually have seen real poverty and hunger in people that are are least able to mitigate costs of living expense increases.

      I have been to Africa several times and each time upon my return I am thankful that I live in a modern, industrial based, society with clean air, water, energy and abundant food.

  7. Material like this is indicative of the perversion of science by the virus that is “climate change.” I am not questioning directly the ability of social sciences to provide some form of value, albeit I tend to think it is limited. But when the allure of NSF funding encourages analysis like this . . . . one has to weep at where real science is headed. To think that there is anything here but made up forecasts with wide error bars to make it seem like there is anything to take away from this work is just mind boggling.

    Real scientists everywhere should be criticizing this type of work as THIS is what will drive people away from believing science has not been politicized beyond utility.

    • Well, agreed Michael, it is a good example of scientific perversion, but more than that, it’s an outstanding example of what happens when computers get too cheap.

      • Know where you’re coming from with this but sounds like blaming the tools. Nothing wrong with modeling or powerful computational techniques and hardware. The fault lies solely with politicisation allowing science to be bypassed by the modelling.

  8. Climate models already exist in a world of fantasy and self-reinforcing expectations, so why not throw in some imaginary predictions of what humans will do decades from now? This doesn’t reduce the reliability of the current crop of models one iota.

  9. I think a more appropriate name for the institution that wrote this ‘stuff’ would be the National Institute for Mathematical Ridiculousness and Other Dumb Stuff (NIMRODS) rather than the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBIOS).

    The word “stuff” can be replaced with the ‘s’ word of your choice…

  10. Reminded me of the Star Wars: A New Hope. Seriously, this is scary stuff because this kind of research leads to the suggestion, and subsequent use, of sophisticated techniques of mass psychological manipulation to obtain the desired behavior. Since the visible end is noble–saving the planet–any means are justified. The hidden end–making tons of money–is also well served.

    • been there…done that…got the video
      Obama hired a whole crew to do that when he was running for pres…and kept it up

  11. Hope is not a plan!
    Hope does not require rational thought!
    Hope does not require effort!
    Hope is just a superannuated wish.

    As the old training sergeant used to say — “Prepare for the worse, hope for the best. ”
    Never hope to be prepared —
    Being Prepared take rational thought and effort.
    Rational thought indicates that humans do not, and can not, control the climate.

    • The moms at my children’s swim team have a motto to encourage the children … “try to swim your best”. When I suggested that they drop the “try to” … and just tell the kids to “swim your best” … I was shouted-down as an awful human being who didn’t care for the kids feelings.

      Funny thing … is that my kids always “felt” best after WINNING a race.

    • “As the old training sergeant used to say — “Prepare for the worse, hope for the best. ””

      Or as I learned the 7 Ps:
      Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

      • Mark
        Is that sexist?

        Just askin’ you know.

        But, nowadays, we need to be fully aware [And for all in induced comas, no disrespect – but be aware …

        Auto
        [God – I sound like a grand-daughter with socialist leanings. Nose on the floor, if she leans that way!]

  12. I have a model of human behavior: when people are cold, hungry and without work they build fires; usually around public buildings.

    • Were that only true … however … I read this morning that the poor Muslim African “immigrants” in France lit more than 1,000 automobiles on fire to “celebrate” New Years Jan. 2018… All private autos. Not a single public bus.

      • O/T but wow, my local public broadcasting company didn’t think this is news at all – yeah those boys burn cars every day there, right? We’re being misinformed and uninformed every day. Thanks to wuwt I know now this happened. I’m sure though not all of the young poor gangsters were practising Muslims, though how could I know when the media is not telling things that don’t fit their editorial narrative.

  13. I hate to inform the wonderful folks at NIMBIOS that “Psychohistory” is a FICTIONAL science — it cannot really be used to predict futures — it only works in novels by Asimov.

    • And even then it fails if one unpredictable event occurs, like a Mule. One wonders what would have happened if a donkey had come about instead?

    • The concept of Psychohistory is very similar to the idea of God: every person has individual free will, but their choices still add up to a single, unique path to a Plan.

      Asimov was a stern atheist; I wonder if that was a joke on his part (he loved shaggy dog stories), or could he possibly have done it without realizing it? I don’t think he could have done it accidentally, but I don’t recall ever seeing the question put to him in an interview, or him addressing it in one of his many articles.

      • James ==> If this were a SciFi blog and not a CliSci blog, I would find this comment interesting enough to discuss. My brief would be that Psychohistory was predicitive and malleable by Man — making it possible for psychohistorians to modify the future through tiny changes to the present (sort of like a intentional tiny change of initial conditions causing a predictable future state in a chaotic system .)

  14. Start with a false premise, humans major cause of warming, then build from there. GIGO

    I wonder when our tax dollars via the NSF will stop paying for BS.

    • Possibly.
      It strikes me that humans are the major cause of Global Warming.
      It cannot be defined.Cannot be/has not been measured.Time period is infinitely adjustable.
      Has been sought for near 40 years..
      But the “detection” speculation of CAGW still goes on.
      Our measurements are so short term and unfit for the task,that the claimants are reduced to a 0.8C claimed signal in a noise range of 2C.

      Therefore humans are the only cause of “Global Warming” as an act of faith.
      The “Average Global Temperature”.
      The Emperors Magnificent new clothes.

      • John,
        “Therefore humans are the only cause of “Global Warming” as an act of faith.”
        Thanks.

        May I emphasise ‘as an act of faith.’

        It is very important.
        CAGW is a religious thing. No proof [cf. scientific proof] needed.

        Auto.

  15. Gee, if only economic models were that ‘good’. I predict that if you invest in the right things then in 80 years time your investments will have gained more or less than some arbitrary increase in value. And if the investments are as worthless as my models I won’t care because I’ll have had your money and have died a richer person for it. Why does ANYONE fund this type of academic manure?

  16. Drawing from both social psychology and climate science, the new model investigates how human behavioral changes evolve in response to extreme climate events and affect global temperature change.

    Merging social psychology and climate science. Throw in some phrenology and dowsing and you really might have something.

  17. They really are just making it up as they go, only now they are really getting desperate, with this pseudoscientific pep talk. They really need the True Believers to stay on board for just a little while longer, even as the rats are jumping ship in droves.

  18. You don’t need a model to see how humans respond to and prevent the impact of global warming and climate change. What humans have done over the years is build accomodation that withstands the impacts of climate change ie stronger and more frequent winds, floods, droughts, whatever. That’s why the impact of major weather events causes more damage in 3rd world economies than richer and more advanced economies. Increased wealth is a key to protecting against such events. Regarding the global warming aspect of climate man has invented air conditioning. The only limiting aspect for this absolute solution to higher temperatures is affordable and reliable electricity something that warmist policies seem to be contrary to achieving.
    The only aspect of human behaviour that needs to be factored into climate change models is the level of gullibility of masses of humans which allows those in power to create environments which make the historic human achievements set out in the previous paragraph more difficult to maintain. The deliberate reversal of economic growth and the intended increase in cost of electricity to satisfy the religious convictions of warmists are the major aspects of human behaviour that will impact on solutions to global warming/ climate change. Address these behavioural issues and you have solutions that will impact favourably on all models.

  19. Economists and other social scientists try to model human behaviour. They have a dismal record. Some folks are up front about that. link Usually a dart-throwing chimp makes better predictions.

  20. You know,
    If we took all the money being spent on “global warming/climate change/doo dah/,…”
    and put it in a reserved account invested in the stock market,
    by the time anything happened, we would have trillions of $$$ to handle it.

    But then, these people would have to find something useful to do.

    • Susan, I disagree with your second paragraph.
      Most of them are not capable of doing anything remotely useful.

      • Oldseadog
        I suspect you are right.
        At least to the point that they could do nothing useful, except by dying and then decaying into the ground to improve future crop yields . . . . .

        A suggestion – merely. Of course.

        Auto

  21. Hari Seldon writ small … more eggheads who think they can find a pattern in the chaos and thus control humanity with “math” …

    • There are patterns in the chaos, but they are not described by linear equations. They are described by axioms, like “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” That pattern repeats without fail!

      • This is probably actually a good thing. The people who think the world will soon be ruled by AI have a nasty surprise waiting for them.

  22. My immediate thought was that we’re overdue for another Sokal Hoax. This has all the earmarks: psycho-babble, assigning numbers to the unquantifiable, hand-waving, political correctness. And the lead author is a plant biologist.

    Sokal, as you may remember, was “troubled by an apparent decline in the standards of intellectual rigor in certain precincts of the American academic humanities.”

  23. “…Humans may be the dominant cause of global temperature rise, but they may also be a crucial factor in helping to reduce it…”

    Amazing find. Who would have ever thought that making an adjustment to a possible “dominant cause” could be a possible factor in reducing it’s impact?

  24. Just recieved the Cliff’s Notes version….cover only…no content.

    The bureaucracy speak makes my head hurt. Lots of words….and more words…

  25. “Due to the complexity of physical processes, climate models have uncertainties in global temperature prediction.” If they thought modeling natural phenomena was difficult throwing in irrational human behavior makes the modeling almost pointless. These people like to parade around demonstrating to all their colleagues how brilliant the modeling systems are. But they are totally worhless.

  26. OK , so the NIMBOS from Knoxville and the National Socialists from Maryland have teamed up to alter human behavior. Its getting time to pack up and find a quiet corner somewhere, what, Dodoma, Tanzania or with the Nimbo Mugabe neutralized, Harare, Zimbabwe, maybe.

  27. Roy Spencer wrote: “The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through December 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.

    Dr. Roy does not use this to make a prediction, but let’s say that +0.13 C degrees per decade is extended to the year 2100.

    82 years X 0.013 = 1.07 Celsius increase

    From the paper: “Combining climate projections and social processes, the model predicts global temperature change ranging from 3.4 to 6.2°C by 2100, compared to 4.9°C from the climate model alone.

    At some point (soon, later ??) there is going to have to be an acceleration in the rate of warming to get to 3.4, the lowest of these numbers.
    Can we get a bet going on when that ramp-up will be noticed?
    I’ll hold the cash.

  28. “predicts a temperature 3.4 to 6.2°C by 2100”

    That’s right NIMBOS, keep those “predictions” way out there so nobody and verify !!

    I wish I had some crystal balls. ! If I had , say 10 of them.. I could predict everything. !!

  29. The US taxpayer funded NSF (National Science Foundation) is a large source of NIMBioS funding.
    We can halt many such wasteful spending projects by targeting the NSF 2019 budget with further cuts to AGW alarmist support.

  30. A comment that I came across elsewhere (on a story about frozen sharks)
    Christopher 2 hours ago
    @PJ I’ll give you a couple of life tips champ.

    1. Never outsource your thinking to the point that you cannot ask questions.

    2. If you want to accuse others of never presenting the issue in a fair and balanced manner you better bring something to the table yourself and I don’t mean crying that everyone should outsource their thinking to others.

    To put it in perhaps a simpler way for you rather than argue for science only argue the actual science. I would have imagined you would have had such an abundant supply of facts that you could supply them readily.

  31. People want to control their world and they don’t like death. From this we get big pharma hiding cancer drug cures, just eat antioxidants. We get shamanism about how we run climate. The Left implores us to surrender to all our enemies to set an example of love, which they feel will then be reciprocated. This is delusion of control of a world over which they have very little control. It is a very basal instinct. Religion with a God cures this, just pray. Else, the earth Gods need to be beseached. Then the shaman show up who claim to talk to the Gods, but alas, they need money.

  32. Just when you thought the teats were all occupied, here comes another little piglet shoving his way in for a nourishing suck.

    • When it comes to government, there’s always another teat to be suckled.
      Kind of sounds like the mathematics of infinity.

  33. “The new model found that temperature uncertainty associated with the social component was of a similar magnitude to that of the physical processes”…When the sun comes out and the temperature warms up, people take off to the beach to put on their swimming cozzies, lie on the sand, swim in the sea, soak up the sun and heat up.

  34. Who is paying for this gibberish?

    It seems to be a classic case of garbage in, garbage out (GIGO). They decide that man made CO2 is
    causing climate change and then conclude that if people reduce CO2 emission that will reduce climate change. If you accept the initial premise that is a statement of the obvious. If you want evidence the initial premise in true you will not find it.

    They talk about “extreme weather events” ignoring the differences between weather and climate. Then they expect that this extreme weather will cause us to change to their approved solutions: so I flee a tornado in my car, the tornado destroys all the solar panels in the area and I am supposed to conclude that cars are bad and and solar panels are good!

  35. Climate Change is undeniable. Just look …
    After less than one year as President, Donald Trump has brought about a real Climate Change in DC.
    The quality of the Climate Change will be judged by the historians.

  36. A Multi-Decadal Model Of Human Behavioral Influences On Climate Change

    Imagine the following statements enclosed in rectangles, where arrows point from one rectangle to another in a flow chart:

    * Bad hurricane happens somewhere

    * Major news network runs incessant updates every minute of the day

    * Major news outlets publish incessant updates on incessant updates

    * Minds numbed by incessant updates get fooled into believing in a crisis

    * Some famous fooled minds write journal articles, peer reviewed by juries of mind-numbed referees for Nature and Science, which publish the papers as “science”

    * Major news networks and major news outlets pick up stories about Nature and Science papers reviewed by mind-numbed referees, motivated by original mind-numbing, incessant updates on the local phenomenon

    * Climate catastrophe is further attributed to humans

    * More money is requested to fight humans in this evil cast upon the world

    * More news

    * More Nature and Science papers feeding on it all

    * Rinse

    * Repeat

  37. More news from the “If we beat this dead horse long and hard enough, can we bring it back to life?” department.
    *yawn*
    Nope.

  38. Looks to me like they have started to inject “scapegoat” into the GW computer modeling story line. With “human factor” all deviations in forecasts compared to measured reality, can be explained. Not only do they get away with their pseudo science, but believers will also come to blame deniers for these deviations, not the scientists or models.

    • Hey man, I do not know if you have been keeping up with current events, but they are already, and have long been, blaming “den!ers” for everything.
      It does not matter about carbon footprints anymore, oh no.
      Not since it was revealed the warmista jackasses are the ones that are the most wastefully profligate in their ways.
      Nowadays, it only matters what you say…it is lack of proper virtue signaling by anyone who does not hew to their inanity that is overheatin’ da earf!

  39. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that they are correct about all that they wrote. (follow my logic, now) The result would be fewer emissions. The result of fewer emissions would be cheaper fossil fuels. The result of cheaper fossil fuels would be lower inflation. The result of lower inflation would be greater economic growth. And (finally) the result of greater economic growth would be higher emissions…

  40. The big problem with this study is that it ignores reality. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with climate modeling, on can conconclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over wihch mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has no effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. The AGW conjecture is based on the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, the Earth’s climate sysem or anywhere else in the solar system. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. The radiant greenhouse effect is sceince fiction and thererfore the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. So this study is based on science fiction which makes it science fiction as well..

  41. Did any of the geniuses at NIMBios make an estimate of the human psychological reaction to rising sea levels? How about the reaction of the inhabitants of Galveston after a hurricane storm surge wiped out their city in 1900? By 1905 they had built a 25-foot-high seawall, and problem solved.

    So if Galveston could build a 25-foot seawall in five years using turn-of-the-20th century technology, this generation or their children or grandchildren can certainly find a way to build 8-inch high seawalls in 100 years to match the current sea level rise rate using today’s technology.

    Although they may have to burn some Diesel fuel in their earth-moving equipment, which might increase the average CO2 concentration by a fraction of a ppm. A small price to pay to protect the world’s cities from flooding.

    • Al Gore could mitigate that amount singlehandedly, by turning off some frickin lights in one or two of his mansions!

  42. What climate model could have predicted what a certain huMann would do with a chunk of wood?
    What climate model could have predicted what Hansen and Gavin would do with an eraser?
    What climate model could have predicted what Al would do with a masseuse?
    Who needs a climate model to know what Bill would do with a masseuse?

      • “Auto January 2, 2018 at 4:13 pm

        Gunga
        A bit ad hom.
        But your point is very clearly received – here.

        Auto, within the M25.”

        Don’t remind me. Early 90’s when the M25 was open, the M3/M25 intersection before the A308 exit. Crossing the carriageways, M3/M25, I could see front and rear lights for miles. It was a sea of lights…amazing really to see.

  43. NIMBios somehow seems like an insulting acronym.

    It reminds me of “dimwit”, “nimrod”, “bogus” — all condensed into one word.

    DimNimBogus … or something.

    The latter seems more suitable.

  44. “Humans may be the dominant cause of global temperature rise, but they may also be a crucial factor in helping to reduce it, according to a new study that for the first time builds a novel model to measure the effects of behavior on climate.”

    You build an evil empire based on human induced doomsday scenarios with political seance and then come up with now we’re working on a new model of how only humans can save themselves. What a lovely grants merry-go-round this doomsday stuff is. Hope and grants spring eternal.

  45. It seems to me that they have all this exactly backwards. If we are to follow the precautionary principle it would make sense to make the argument that we are best to have a warmer world than a cooler world. No matter what happens in a warming world, we can adapt fairly well with current and future technology. But in a cooling world, all bets are off as to civilization being able to cope very well with concurrent political, societal and massive environmental collapse, all at once.

  46. Despite the current highly complex yet inaccurate climate models failing to even remotely explain what is happening in the real world, we are going to get better results by incorporating ‘social psychology’ into the model?
    This would have to take the cake!

  47. If we had not been told that world temperatures were rising catastrophically would anyone have noticed just by personal observation?

Comments are closed.