You’ve heard of the “Wind Chill Factor”. This is a lot like that, except is based on temperature and income. From the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD and the “it’s not the heat, it’s the humanity” department comes this inane study that defines a “temperature equivalence index” that aims to make the effects of increased temperature impacts between low-income nations and high-income nations more “equitable”. It’s another SJW extortion scheme hiding under a veil of a statistical construct.
Who shares similar experiences of climate change in a 1.5°C world and beyond?
A new framework to understand how uneven the effects of a 1.5°C world are for different countries around the world has been published today in Geophysical Research Letters, led by researchers from the Environmental Change Institute (ECI) at the Oxford University Department of Geography.
It has been long understood that climate change will affect some regions more severely than others. However, quantifying these differences in a consistent way across many indicators of climate change has proven difficult in the past, mainly due to differences in how these metrics of climate change are defined.
Lead author Dr Luke Harrington, a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the ECI, explains: “Our paper takes a different approach, by looking at what changes are expected for one specific region after a certain amount of global warming, such as the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C threshold above pre-industrial levels. We then use climate models to identify how much global temperatures need to rise for different locations around the world to experience an equivalent level of change. This is what we refer to as the Temperature of Equivalence Index”.
As an illustration of the framework, the authors find changes to the severity of extreme heat events for low-income nations after 1.5°C of global warming would not be seen for regions of the world with high-income populations until after a global temperature rise twice as high. ‘Our example of low-income nations experiencing more extreme heat earlier than their high-income counterparts is already well-known within the scientific community,” says co-author Dr Andrew King, from the University of Melbourne. “But the novelty here lies in how these results are framed. We can develop an equivalent statement about changes to other types of physical climate hazards, such as extreme rainfall for example, and compare these results side-by-side’.
The authors are now working to expand the TE framework to more impact-relevant metrics of climate change, such as changes to crop yields and exposure to coastal flooding with continued sea level rise. “Eventually, we hope to develop a tool whereby local decision makers could choose which measures of climate change are most relevant to their individual circumstances, and then identify which other regions around the world are projected to have shared experiences of these same indices under future warming,” says Professor Dave Frame, a co-author from the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute.
“The devil in the detail for this work is what choice of climate change metrics should be used. This is a decision that should not be made by scientists, but instead by local decision makers”, says co-author and the ECI’s Deputy Director, Dr Friederike Otto. “Our job is to provide the TE index for an array of climate change indicators as wide as possible, and then let adaptation planners decide for themselves which of these are most useful.”
###
Here’s the load of garbage paper:
How uneven are changes to impact‐relevant climate hazards in a 1.5°C world and beyond?
Abstract
In the last decade, climate mitigation policy has galvanised around staying below specified thresholds of global mean temperature, with an understanding that exceeding these thresholds may result in dangerous interference of the climate system. UNFCCC texts have developed thresholds in which the aim is to limit warming to well below 2°C of warming above pre‐industrial levels, with an additional aspirational target of 1.5°C. However, denoting a specific threshold of global mean temperatures as a target for avoiding damaging climate impacts implicitly obscures potentially significant regional variations in the magnitude of these projected impacts. This study introduces a simple framework to quantify the magnitude of this heterogeneity in changing climate hazards at 1.5°C of warming, using case studies of emergent increases in temperature and rainfall extremes. For example, we find that up to double the amount of global warming (3.0°C) is needed before people in high income countries experience the same relative changes in extreme heat that low income nations should anticipate after only 1.5°C of warming. By mapping how much warming is needed in one location to match the impacts of a fixed temperature threshold in another location, this ‘Temperature of Equivalence’ (TE) index is a flexible and easy‐to‐understand communication tool, with the potential to inform where targeted support for adaptation projects should be prioritised in a warming world.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL078888
There is a huge need
for a “College of Common Sense”
where college graduates go to ‘unlearn’
all the nonsense they were taught
by their liberal professors!
Our planet has warmed AT LEAST
+ 2 degrees C. since the late 1600’s
Maunder Minimum period,
which was one of the few times in history
when a lot of people complained
about the climate (too cold for decades
at a time).
Here is a list of all the bad things
that have happened as a result of
that warming, of at least +2 degrees C.,
and probably more than that,
from the late 1600’s to 2018:
(1) Nothing bad happened !
It seems the “Temperature Equivalence” of these academic brains has become somewhat overheated.
Wow! A new level of stupid every day. I’m boggled and amazed at how truly dumb these highly educated people are!!
Academic woo-woo piled hip deep.
It would be a much more “robust” index if they included living wage, north-south wealth transfer payments, and gender pay equalization in the Index. …..and some tree rings
Now all they need is some measurable actual global warming to test their theory. Or they just could just plot GDP versus average, high or low (or all) annual temperature of a few hundred countries to see if it works. No need to wait.
“Now all they need is some measurable actual global warming to test their theory.”
Love it! 🙂
All anyone ever needs to remember about the political Left (and it is the political Left that ultimately stands behind the CAGW meme in whatever its guise), is that the default position of the Left/liberals is tyranny. Why?
Because it is only the Left/liberals who believe they know what’s best for you, and that only they know what is justice for everyone.
Thinking for oneself is the ultimate heresy for the Left. And they will root it out however they may cf this latest effort….
Watch this utterly nonsensical approach now gather momentum in all the usual forums and support from all the usual suspects.
“It has been long propagandized that so-called “climate change” (i.e., blamed on human fossil fuel burning) will affect some regions more severely than others, so that we can play race cards and invoke other emotional responses among the ill-informed. However, quantifying this nonsense in a consistent way across many purely speculative indicators of such so-called “climate change” has proven difficult in the past, since the imagined catastrophes aren’t actually occurring, mainly due to differences between reality and how these bullshit metrics of such so-called “climate change” are defined.”
There, fixed it for them.
“Our paper takes a different approach, by looking at what changes are expected for one specific region after a certain amount of global warming, such as the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C threshold above pre-industrial levels. We then use climate models to identify how much global temperatures need to rise for different locations around the world to experience an equivalent level of change. This is what we refer to as the Temperature of Equivalence Index”.
So, basically they examine what wild speculation they are making based on their BS models, as more supposed justification for the ridiculous assumption that the “solution” is more CO2 management, rather than allowing the “developing nations” to actually develop, thereby making their “climate experience” more favorable (i.e., similar to the “high-income nations”) no matter what the climate does.
” According to conventional wisdom, these agreements likewise ended hopes for a ‘New International Economic Order,’ under which wealth would be redistributed from rich countries to poor.”
Source: http://admin.cambridge.org/academic/subjects/law/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-and-new-international-economic-order-oligopoly-regulation-and-wealth-redistribution-global-knowledge-economy#55PduVKD7bXQrCDM.97
“Sustainable development, on the other hand, as the successor in many ways to the New International Economic Order [NEIO] is seen as promoting a more equitable global system, where trade preferences and dif- ferential treatment are an intrinsic feature of sovereign equality.”
Source: http://www.cbd.int/doc/articles/2002-/A-00088.pdf
It’s 100% obvious that sustainable development is just another (but on a massive global scale) socialist scheme for wealth redistribution and people control (and a few other unmentioned leftist goals).
And in fact, “Sustainability” became mainstream in 1987 from the report “Our common future”. The person who chaired this report is a VP in socialistinternational.org (Gro Harlem Brundtland).
In 1983, one of the Rockefeller foundations called for the creation of a global sustainable society. No surprises here because this wealthy family often funds ultra-left wing causes.
Do the Koch bro’s have anything close to these left-wing billionaires whose tentacles of NGOs and think tanks and media influence shape and drive public perceptions and views?
“Eventually, we hope to develop a tool whereby local decision makers could choose which measures of climate change are most relevant to their individual circumstances, and then identify which other regions around the world [are best able to pay the cash they demand!],”
.
It’s Dial A Subsidy!!!
>>
It’s Dial A Subsidy!!!
<<
It’s more like “Dial a Redistribution,” but I like your thinking.
Jim
Great line!
If it weren’t for “humanity”, there’d be no stupidity.
It’s not wealth redistribution, it’s “Theoretical Change Equivalence National Balancing”
Exxxxcellent.
I was at university with Prof Frame. He was definitely not left wing back then. After his phd he got an analyst position at Treasury in NZ. Then back into postdoc in the UK. A paper in Nature and a bit of politicking got him an early professorship back in NZ. If you ask me he saw which way the climate winds were blowing back around 98 and has made a successful run at the academic career. Maybe he has come to believe in it all, but I don’t really think so.
Since when is 1.5 degrees ‘extreme heat’?
It’s gonna be 39 C in Beijing today. It was 37 C yesterday. That’s a difference of 2 C which is 33% more than ‘extreme’.
The humidity today will be really low. So low, that the ‘feels like’ temperature will be 37 according to the humidex formula.
So does the extreme heat come with feelings? If the promised drought conditions accompanying global warming are manifest then the temperature will not be feeling any warmer even if it shoots up 2 degrees.
Perhaps these guys didn’t think of everything that happens in the real world. Last night at 8PM it was a lovely 34C. I just love these urban heat islands. The additional heat dries out the air so quickly you can feel the temperature drop as it rises.
“We then use climate models to identify how much global temperatures need to rise for different locations around the world to experience an equivalent level of change.”
What models would they be then?
https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
While Universities should be doing future studies in Climate this would seem to be technically indefenceible when it uses failed GCM’s, in a regional setting for which they were not designed to make predictions for the future. The IPCC didn’t ‘develop thresholds’ it adopted the eeconomist Nordhaus’s guess of 2 degrees and then got to the 1.5 on the basis of shared ambition, totally unscientific. Now we are expected to believe any garbage that comes out of this reseach is based on science and therefore should be given some form of credence. Pull the other one. Governments must stop funding the universities to produce this Alice in Wonderland pseudo science that scientifically illiterate bureaucats at national and regional level will vacum into legislation and local bylaws that will increase poverty for no benefit to the climate or humanity.
My bullshit detector has suffered meltdown.
Actually, for California I support a sort of comfort/survival balancing. The coastal areas are wealthy, leftist and constantly supporting programs that increase energy costs. In the summer they can often cool a home by opening a window. By contrast, the Central Valley farm communities endure very high temperatures and need air conditioning throughout the summer, paying ruinous electrical bills. Why not have the suppliers, like PG&E significantly raise rates for coastal, low usage, areas so the rates can be proportionally lowered for the farming communities? In other words, balance the rates so the cost of comfort (or survival) is roughly the same wherever one lives.
From the political sciences department.
Next, please!
I do not think these people understand the damage they do to their university’s reputation by their failure to communicate properly with, and to respect the skills of, academics outside their own field.
They should consult their own university’s engineering department and have them assess the temperature data critically and honestly using the most up to date and highest standard quality control methods and get a figure for the likely error range.
A talk to historians about climate variation references might just open their eyes to the sloppy, self centred, self righteous and self indulgent mindset of climate department world wide.