"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Saturday, August 2, 2008

Angry Red Chart

From DoE carbon-intensive simulations via the Pew Trust courtesy of Nature blogs with H/T to The Way Things Break.


bernie said...

Is this the proposed replacement for the infamous "hockey stick"? If so, in my opinion, it is propaganda that will backfire and diminish the legitimacy of those trying to identify meaningful and viable mitigation strategies.

thingsbreak said...


Is this the proposed replacement for the infamous "hockey stick"?

The comparison was made by the Nature News reporter. This isn't indicative of an IPCC take on the issue.

Read the entires series (from bottom to top). It's pretty straightforward.

Dano said...

The replacement for the hockey stick is this.

Which is better IMHO because it shows just how many studies back the larger conclusion of the infamous first paper.

Decisionmakers know this, of course, and have moved on from 'hockey-stickness' to adaptation and mitigation of man-made climate change. Would that everyone would catch up instead of beating dead horses.