Help: 2200 Stern

By stoat on January 8, 2007.

Stern (presumably to inflate his damage estimates (or am I being unfair? After all, climate change will continue beyond 2100...) runs scenarios out to 2200 (see fig 6.5).

But if you look at those pics, the lines are suspiciously straight from 2100 to 2200. So they are interpolated. But from what? SRES only runs out to 2100 (doesn't it?). Do they assume constant CO2 emissions, or levels, from 2100 on?

In short, can anyone tell me what fig 6.5 is based on?

Tags
climate economics

More like this

Meinshausen et al.
Did you notice that RC called it "Meinshausen et al"? Barbarians :-). Anyway, they liked the paper whilst I'm less sure. As far as I can tell its not really a question of science in dispute, just what you make of it. So what M et al. do is instead of the std.ipcc "force a GCM with CO2 and see how…
Yet more Stern sh*t*
OK, I'm desperately trying to understand Stern, and failing. Things just don't seem to connect together properly. Possibly if I actually read the entire thing carefully... but who has the time. So, if anyone can explain to me: Stern sez: Using the results from formal economic models, the Review…
Don't tell Hansen
Because Kevin Anderson says that it is "improbable" that levels could now be restricted to 650 parts per million (ppm). Which blows Hansens target 350 out of the water. Not that it requires a luminary of KA standing to do that. Quite why the grauniad is using breathless climate-snuff-porn prose to…
Bad Science from Queensland's Land and Resources Tribunal
Queensland's Land and Resources Tribunal has rejected objections to a new coal mine by environmental groups who wanted offsets for the carbon emissions of the mine. Unfortunately, the Tribunal got the science badly wrong, understating the emissions by a factor of 15, making inappropriate…

Dear William, could you please try to reduce the number of typos in your texts? Exactly when you start to write reasonable although arguably too brief postings, you also start to look illiterate.

Examples: Pooter, cliamte, stabalisation, etc.

Figure 6.5 is obviously based on nothing. The right explanation of this figure as well as all other figures and numbers you will find in that report was provided by O'Leary:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/11/07/cnrya…

Quite generally, it is such an incredibly stupid thing to be making similar projections up to the year 2200 that I can't believe that a person who is doing such things is not only running outside an asylum but even has a government job.

Can you imagine that people in 1800 would be making similar projections until 2000? They would be computing how many soldiers a future Napoleon would need by an exponential growth in 2000. Impossible to get that many soldiers.

Volta just discovered the first battery in 1800. So they would use this battery to predict how much zinc and copper would be everywhere. I don't want to continue, it's just stupid.

In 200 years, it is likely that people will master fusion in one way or another, start to create viable units on Moon and Mars, will have a very cheap technology to boost the weather. No Stern can do such a planning right.

Various Sterns live in a world in which the society is crippled and progress stagnates for 200 years and they control it using their dirigistic methods for centuries. If this happens in Great Britain, Great Britain will become less important than Ethiopia that can meanwhile become an African tiger. At any rate, there will always be places where progress can continue and where these silly 200-year-long predictions can be falsified in dramatic ways.

We should be making it sure that the people in 2200 have the freedoms and resources to grow but we should never try to behave as if they were children and we were their grandparents because they will undoubtedly be more sophisticated than anyone of us unless the civilization is gonna destroy itself. The most likely way how the civilization can get destroyed is the communist idiots like Stern will take over but I hope that it will never happen.

I can't believe that a person who is doing such things is not only running outside an asylum but even has a government job.

You obviously don't work for someone who asks for such things.

You, surely, (judging by your assertive, confident, suave, lady-attracting tone) must work in some completely proven, nonabstract realm where your work projects so perfectly into the fyoocher that you can call them 'predictions', and back them with hard data.

Surely.

D

Of course that - fortunately - these places don't ask for predictions about 2200 because all of us would become complete charlatans. Certain things simply can't be predicted rationally and only very limited people think otherwise.

Predicting details of physics of scattering at the Planck scale is probably easier than predicting events of the year 2200.