PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

PeakTrader said...

There are at least two problems with climatology models:

1. How can climatologists create a sound general equilibrium model to explain the climate when economists cannot create a sound general equilibrium model to explain a macroeconomy, which is smaller than a (global) climate model?

2. Human history has been short. So, how can the data explain human influence on the climate when humans didn't exist in almost 100% of the data?

---------

Jim Lippard said...

1. Financial models have the problem that participants in the system are trying to use the models themselves as a basis for interventions in the system, which isn't a comparable problem for the climate system. (It could perhaps become one with geoengineering.) The projections of future temperature change James Hansen presented to Congress in 1988 turned out to be pretty accurate (scenario B).

2. There doesn't seem to be any model that accords with observed temperature changes without human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions as a primary factor. The physics of greenhouse gases is well established.

---------

PeakTrader said...

A macroeconomy has hundreds of major dynamic forces, pushing and pulling the economy.

I suspect, there are also hundreds of major dynamic forces affecting the climate. The significance of human influence is unknown.

The global economy could give up a hundred trillion dollars in lost output over several decades and it may not have a significant impact on global warming.

--------

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=4744323032975280180