tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post6140492045234727462..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Journal of Economic Perspectives Editor Tries Once MoreEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43894741955402231462015-02-09T15:43:07.790-05:002015-02-09T15:43:07.790-05:00Of course, the IPCC reports are based on the liter...Of course, the IPCC reports are based on the literature: they don't do their own studies. Therefore, chastising them for missing studies is an illogical strategy. Is it desirable for the IPCC to push specific lines of research? That would really give the deniers a field day.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07784872872859319666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19073251398018628722015-02-09T08:33:59.879-05:002015-02-09T08:33:59.879-05:00@-Fernando Leanme
"I find the lack of data p...@-Fernando Leanme <br />"I find the lack of data points in the 1.8 to 2.2 deg C range to be quite puzzling. One would think this area would be the subject of intense study, given the 2 degree C limit they claim to have. "<br /><br />I agree, given the intense debate (?!) about the decimal excpansion of climate sensitivity in just this range, the lack of economic projections over the same range is unfortunate.<br /><br />I wonder if it represents a split in method between projections of small changes, that can be derived from existing measured change and limited extrapolation from that; with longer-term modeling of the bigger changes implied by larger climate/sea level alterations.<br /><br />For small increases, the current response to warming in agricultural production and adaption can for econometricians look like a net positive, although as others have pointed out, the climate signal of harm/benefit of extreme weather incidence can be overlaid by changinging technology and infrastructure. Extrapolating those effects much beyond a degree C or so would not look credible from present conditions because of the impact of other changes that are inevitable with a larger increase. The shift of climate/rainfall zones and sea level rise.<br /><br />So as with the issue of climate sensitivity, the values derived from current data look better than the impacts implied by modeling of a more uncertain future. Giving some the opportunity to claim it isn't as bad as we might fear. And other to claim it could be worse than we think.<br /><br />Meanwhile the details of what DOES happen to a climate 2.05degC warmer than the 20thC average, and to the world agricultural economy, seems to be lost in the middle. <br /> <br />izenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56563072051976428752015-02-09T04:18:35.278-05:002015-02-09T04:18:35.278-05:00I find the lack of data points in the 1.8 to 2.2 d...I find the lack of data points in the 1.8 to 2.2 deg C range to be quite puzzling. One would think this area would be the subject of intense study, given the 2 degree C limit they claim to have. <br /><br />The lack of focus on this region tells me the scientific and economics communities are missing a few nuts and bolts. I spent quite a few years assembling and judging complex integrated analyses for a large corporation, and I would give the IPCC, the politicians behind them, and anybody who has any influence in this field a fat ZERO. I realize the models are fuzzy and will have a lot of scatter, but the avoidance of the critical target temperature in these studies is a disgrace. Every time I look at these stupid plots I feel like taking a ruler and smacking the iPCC members on the head. Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86311789090216634932015-02-08T18:20:29.952-05:002015-02-08T18:20:29.952-05:00Perhaps reading something else .....
http://scien...Perhaps reading something else .....<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2015/02/03/reading-diary-bold-scientists-dispatches-from-the-battle-for-honest-science-by-michael-riordan/<br /><br />Where once a healthy skepticism of science was a progressive impulse, more recently a radical, dangerous and insanely unhealthy skepticism of science has become very much a fact on the conservative side of the ledger. Which is the balance that Riordan is striving for in his book: the need to really understand the biases and unspoken politics of science — the relationship between nature, power and science — but at the same time we need to respect and understand the process of science. Scientific consensus has a value in helping us understand the world. In particular for many environmental issues such as climate change and resource exploitation, scientific evidence is the best bet we have to help us understand the past, present and future of our fragile planet. Riordan sees a need to be honest with ourselves about what science is good for. We need to have an honest perspective about the place of humankind in nature. We need a science in the public interest. ...<br />...<br />I would recommend this book to any library that collects about science and society or science policy. This book would also be appropriate for any public library and perhaps even high school libraries where young minds could be inspired to be fearless, speak truth to power and change the world.<br />Riordan, Michael. Bold Scientists: Dispatches From The Battle For Honest Science. Toronto: Between the Lines, 2014. 256 pp. ISBN 9781771131247.<br />Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.com