The logic behind solving climate change

May 08, 2014

The looming threat of climate change has been plastered all over the media in recent years. The solution just may lie in the research development of all possible scenarios that the effects of climate change may have. In the latest issue of Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, the article "A New Toolkit for Developing Scenarios for Climate Change Research and Policy Analysis" addresses this.

This article discusses the logic and architecture behind the process of the new approach of building scenarios. In order to project all the possible outcomes that may come from , scenarios must "include (1) the drivers of , (2) the resulting emissions, (3) assumptions about other drivers of socioeconomic that will affect the magnitude and pattern of impacts, and/or the ability to avoid, prepare for, cope with, and recover from climate change, and (4) the adaptation and mitigation environment."

Parallel process is a three step plan that requires scientists to project and reconcile climate change and societal development over during the 21-century.  Then impact researchers use both projections to evaluate consequences for society and ecosystems. The scenario matrix architecture is a way that scientists can develop and tailor-make scenarios. All scenarios are created within the cells of the matrix. It is based on shared economic pathways, which are 'plausible alternative states of human and natural societies at a macro level. When combing these processes Shared Climate Policy Assumptions are used to provide "common assumptions across a wide variety of studies.'

The article explains how these ideas are weaved into a complex system to develop scenarios that are jumpstarting climate change research into innovation in order to create solutions.

Explore further: New research links global crop data in climate change model accounting for emissions mitigation

More information: "A New Toolkit for Developing Scenarios for Climate Change Research and Policy Analysis." Kristie L. Ebi, et al. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. Volume 56, Issue 2, 2014. DOI: 10.1080/00139157.2014.881692

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Models for a more effective response to climate change

Aug 05, 2013

There is now widespread acceptance that the climate is changing due to human-related greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change will affect all sectors of society and the environment at the local, national ...

Climate change: Don't wait until you can feel it

Apr 25, 2014

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence for the impending dangers of human-made climate change, policy decisions leading to substantial emissions reduction have been slow. New work from Carnegie's Katharine ...

Recommended for you

Study urges 15-year plan for low-carbon growth

55 minutes ago

The world can save both financial and environmental costs by shifting toward a low-carbon economy over the next 15 years, a high-level panel said Tuesday ahead of a UN summit.

Specialized species critical for reefs

12 hours ago

One of Australia's leading coral reef ecologists fears that reef biodiversity may not provide the level of insurance for ecosystem survival that we once thought.

Projections for climate change in Vermont

18 hours ago

Here's your northern Vermont forecast for the rest of this century: Annual precipitation will increase by between a third and half an inch per decade, while average temperatures will rise some five degrees ...

User comments : 15

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Z99
2.4 / 5 (12) May 08, 2014
You should note in the above quote the (glaring) absence of any mention of possible benefits to climate change. It is just hysterical to think that there are no benefits - and unsupportable based on the research. Last I heard "bad" and "good" are not scientifically meaningful terms. Do you think in such a biased report that the "logic" will include the question of why WE should pay for remediation/correction when, with a high degree of certainty, our future generations will be more wealthy and hence better able to afford the cost than we are? Of course not; after all, the report is "policy" analysis (ie a political hack job) not scholarship.
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (10) May 08, 2014
"This article discusses the logic and architecture..."

Non sequitur: it is well known that logic is threatened by global warming:
http://www.cato.o...on-logic

supamark23
3.7 / 5 (10) May 08, 2014
You should note in the above quote the (glaring) absence of any mention of possible benefits to climate change. It is just hysterical to think that there are no benefits - and unsupportable based on the research. Last I heard "bad" and "good" are not scientifically meaningful terms. Do you think in such a biased report that the "logic" will include the question of why WE should pay for remediation/correction when, with a high degree of certainty, our future generations will be more wealthy and hence better able to afford the cost than we are? Of course not; after all, the report is "policy" analysis (ie a political hack job) not scholarship.


Other than mass extinctions opening up ecological niches for new species to evolve into... what postives are there? It'll be bad for most plants and animals.
supamark23
3.9 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
"This article discusses the logic and architecture..."

Non sequitur: it is well known that logic is threatened by global warming:
http://www.cato.o...on-logic



Actually, it's well known that the sort of person who would link the Cato Inst. as a source of useful, accurate, or unbiased scientific information doesn't understand science, bias, or accuracy.
TegiriNenashi
1.8 / 5 (10) May 08, 2014
Actually, it's well known that the sort of person who would link the Cato Inst...


Your predictive ability is not that impressive. It is equally well established that as soon as "climate change" is put in the title of anything, it becomes trivial, moralizing, and scientifically impotent piece. And wrong most of the time too.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (10) May 08, 2014
You should note in the above quote the (glaring) absence of any mention of possible benefits to climate change. It is just hysterical to think that there are no benefits - and unsupportable based on the research. Last I heard "bad" and "good" are not scientifically meaningful terms. Do you think in such a biased report that the "logic" will include the question of why WE should pay for remediation/correction when, with a high degree of certainty, our future generations will be more wealthy and hence better able to afford the cost than we are? Of course not; after all, the report is "policy" analysis (ie a political hack job) not scholarship.


But this misses the mark entirely. If there are benefits to AGW, then so be it.

But, perhaps I can exemplify this concept with a simple metaphor --is it really helpful that your front-window view will be improved when a tornado knocks down that scraggly tree in the front yard, just prior to pulverizing your house and killing your family?
TegiriNenashi
1.7 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
...is it really helpful that your front-window view will be improved when a tornado knocks down that scraggly tree in the front yard, just prior to pulverizing your house and killing your fa...


Suppose, some poor dude living in tornado prone area has $10000. Would you suggest donating all his money to Global Warming Mitigation Fund, rather than just hiring contractor who would enforce roof structure with Steel Roof Braces?
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (10) May 08, 2014
...is it really helpful that your front-window view will be improved when a tornado knocks down that scraggly tree in the front yard, just prior to pulverizing your house and killing your fa...


Suppose, some poor dude living in tornado prone area has $10000. Would you suggest donating all his money to Global Warming Mitigation Fund, rather than just hiring contractor who would enforce roof structure with Steel Roof Braces?


METAPHOR, you moron.

supamark23
4.2 / 5 (10) May 08, 2014
Actually, it's well known that the sort of person who would link the Cato Inst...


Your predictive ability is not that impressive. It is equally well established that as soon as "climate change" is put in the title of anything, it becomes trivial, moralizing, and scientifically impotent piece. And wrong most of the time too.


So, in other words... you are full of crap and are completely ignorant of the natural sciences. Good to know. On a related note - why, when you neither understand nor believe in science, do you read and post on a science news aggregation site? You're just proving that you are an ignorant troll.. seems counterproductive and a bit dumb but if that's how you get your jollies... it's kinda sad.
supamark23
4.1 / 5 (9) May 08, 2014
...is it really helpful that your front-window view will be improved when a tornado knocks down that scraggly tree in the front yard, just prior to pulverizing your house and killing your fa...


Suppose, some poor dude living in tornado prone area has $10000. Would you suggest donating all his money to Global Warming Mitigation Fund, rather than just hiring contractor who would enforce roof structure with Steel Roof Braces?


tornado's still gonna rip that roof off and flatten the house, and now you've wasted $10k. Do you ever have any *good* ideas?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2014
...is it really helpful that your front-window view will be improved when a tornado knocks down that scraggly tree in the front yard, just prior to pulverizing your house and killing your fa...


Suppose, some poor dude living in tornado prone area has $10000. Would you suggest donating all his money to Global Warming Mitigation Fund, rather than just hiring contractor who would enforce roof structure with Steel Roof Braces?


tornado's still gonna rip that roof off and flatten the house, and now you've wasted $10k. Do you ever have any *good* ideas?

Insure the house and build a shelter.
And when one rebuilds, build a monolithic concrete dome.
Doug_Huffman
4.2 / 5 (5) May 08, 2014
The logic behind solving climate change ...
... lies in The Logic of Scientific Discoverery and its falsification as the boundary of Demarcation, science from non-science nonsense.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (8) May 08, 2014
Despite rumors of amended building codes in tornado valley there is some reason why not to "overbuild":
http://www.livesc...des.html

Let's return to the subject, though. When you claimed that you have discovered a universal cause explaining everything, but your qualification and research focus is nowhere close to theoretical particle physics, people are legitimately skeptical of your finding.
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) May 08, 2014


Let's return to the subject, though. When you claimed that you have discovered a universal cause explaining everything, but your qualification and research focus is nowhere close to theoretical particle physics, people are legitimately skeptical of your finding.


Hey TugNads,

What happened --did rygsuckn' give you a copy of its key to the Vault of Irrelevant Inanity?

runrig
5 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014

Insure the house and build a shelter.
And when one rebuilds, build a monolithic concrete dome.


Absolutely - you can talk sense ryggy.
The INSURANCE you talk of is the acceptance and mitigation of anthro GHG's being the problem and bloody well doing something about it.
NOTE the insurance comes first to stop the spiral into further feed-backs of warming and then, yes we will have to rebuild to fit the changing world as we go along, as even with zero CO2 emission from tomorrow there are decades of further warmth built in.
How many times have I argued here for the common sense need for the implication of insurance re a stance against AGW, even, in your world, if it's not happening?
Yet you illustrate the obvious common sense of it in a scenario that is a microcosm of AGW dangers.
FFS.