Posts tagged…Model

Critical mass agreement vs the Doha Round

Thu, Jul 02 2009

Projected welfare impacts of a CM agreement on agriculture

We'll cut to the chase, shall we, in this fourth of my posts on modeling the impact of a 'critical mass' agreement in agriculture? Click on the tags at the left-side or at the bottom of this article to find the earlier posts.

A 'critical mass' agreement among 38 countries that account for 80 percent of world trade in the 30 top-traded agricultural products (all of them food) to eliminate import…

 Read moreRead more

Opening food markets in a CM agreement

Wed, Jun 24 2009

Breughel Banquet

The immediate net global gains from a 'Critical Mass' (CM) trade agreement to open markets for some 30 products in 38 of the world's largest markets would be about $10 billion. World trade in these products would expand by a third with most of the export gains won by developing countries.

This is the third post in a series of five intended to share with you the results of some simulations of an…

 Read moreRead more

A Critical Mass Agreement on cereals trade

Wed, Jun 17 2009

VanGoghWheatField.gif

In this post I'll describe the simulated impacts of a Critical Mass (CM) trade liberalization agreement on global trade in cereals. This is the second of five posts about some simulations I've created to investigate whether CM agreements could be an alternative to the standard WTO approach to opening up world markets for agriculture.

The bottom line: an improvement in global welfare of between…

 Read moreRead more

Modeling ‘critical mass’ trade agreements

Mon, Jun 15 2009

38682_tmb.jpg

In the past couple of weeks, I've been modeling the economic impacts of an alternative way to open up world agricultural markets using 'critical mass' trade agreements.

I thought I would share some of the results of the modeling with you, here on my website, over the next couple of weeks.

The simulations run inside the trade model suggest that there would be huge wins from adopting a new, more…

 Read moreRead more

Plimer review: more from G Schmidt

Sat, May 23 2009

Dr Gavin Schmidt has further criticisms of my review of Plimer (and of Plimer's book). I'm happy to reproduce them as emailed (presuming again that he has no objection). He has three main points concerning the Wegman 'cluster' analysis of the Mann authorial relationships; whether the Hockey Stick article was a 'fraud', and; whether Plimer's account of paleo-climate variability matters to current…

 Read moreRead more

Evidence and muddling through

Wed, Apr 15 2009

The difference is that 'muddling through' is a strategy bound to evidence, evaluation, and adaptation. In policy as in business entreprise, grand visions and definitive models, like 'settled science', call for commitment and resist new enquiry or contrary fact.

"Prof Lindblom contrasted what he called the ‘root’ method of decision-making with the ‘branch’ approach. The root method required…

 Read moreRead more

Can the G20 get Doha done?

Fri, Mar 20 2009

G20 duties in Agriculture & NAMA. See text for explanation of highlights

The EC Commissioner for Trade, Catherine Ashton, gave a talk in the past couple of days to the Carnegie Endowment in Washington in which she urged, among other things, a G20 commitment to the quick resumption and completion of the Doha WTO negotiations.

"To truly deliver on our G20 commitment, we need to turn the rhetoric into reality and complete the Doha Round of world trade talks. This…

 Read moreRead more

Naive forecasts outperform IPCC

Tue, Feb 17 2009

Mean and maximum errors in a naive forecast of temperature 1850-2008 [Green et. al.]

In a straightforward but important paper, Green, Armstrong and Soon demonstrate that there is no reason to develop elaborate 'forecasts' of temperature. The forecasts of the CGM models, they predict, will be no better over policy-relevant periods of 20, 50 or even 100 years than a naive forecast that assumes future temperatures will be the same as today's.

"Global mean temperatures were found…

 Read moreRead more

You need a model?

Fri, Jul 04 2008

I can't get a response out of the Garnaut Review website—probably overloaded—to download the Review report. But here's an extract from Prof Garnaut's address to the Press Club on a 'curious turn' in AGW 'dissent':

"The dissent took a curious turn in Australia in 2008, with much prominence being given to assertions that a warming trend had ended over the last decade. This is a question that is…

 Read moreRead more

The net benefit of emissions controls

Tue, May 27 2008

English mathematican Freeman Dyson, has reviewed Wm. Nordhaus' account of his economic models of emissions controls. Nordhaus claims that passive 'backstop' measures significantly outperform the catastrophists' preference for strangling carbon emissions. But, as Dyson points out, Nordahus has not considered the scientific merit of any of the controls he models and has not provided much detail of…

 Read moreRead more

Climate models do not justify even precautionary action

Sun, May 11 2008

In an article that is itself a model of its kind, Patrick Frank shows that the documented uncertainties in General Circulation Models (GCMs) are so large that it is impossible they could make falsifiable predictions of the climate, even over the next few years. Illusory precision in the IPCC's trend lines, he points out, does not amount to accuracy and does not support the sort of precautionary…

 Read moreRead more

The Garnaut Climate Review Interim Report—I’m not convinced

Fri, Feb 22 2008

HadCrutAnomaly1850-2008_Tmb.gifMy difficulty with the Interim report of the Garnaut Climate Change Review is that it is headed toward a recommendation that looks disproportionate to the climate risk.

Publicly available data on climate change does not seem to call for extreme measures such as a 70% to 90% cut in Australia's carbon emissions. This data has not been examined by the Garnaut team because it's not their business to…

 Read moreRead more

 1 2 >