Discussion Global plan 2014

I've been trying to communicate with Daniel Rossetto, "dmrossetto" for two days, to no avail. I was a recipient of the comment (below), a version of which was sent to most Global Plan participants by either Daniel or Jasmine. My "comment on the comment" is twofold: One, requiring the model submission for all contestants in Global Plan commits the category error in those proposals that cannot be logically linked to firm climate emissions reductions outcomes. To be frank, my suspicion is that no proposal exists that can jump from a real "global plan," ie, one that suggests realistic ways to establish economic and geopolitical preconditions for climate emission reductions, to actually quantifying those reductions with any certainty, but my main problem is that the rules of any intellectual contest ought not force category errors and make-work on participants. I "did" the model and so met the requirement, but just wanted to point out the logical error, and the make-work characteristic of the requirement. Having done so, I can move on. My second point is that I have linked to numerous sup-proposals. I can't imagine that dmrossetto had actually read past the first parts of my submission in this section or he would have seen that I had done so. But I accept that it's possible that there something I don't understand about the sub-proposal requirement and so I haven't actually linked to sub proposals in the way the contest is supposed to work. In other words, and specific to my case, I need Daniel to tell me how my sub-proposal linkage doesn't currently meet the requirements. I'm sure I'm not the only participant in this boat. It may be that this comment blast was just cut-and-pasted from participant to participant and so didn't apply exactly to each participant. Perhaps we're just supposed to be able to guess that this is the case? I can see the wisdom in drafting a "one size fits all" comment blast to let participants know that rules will be enforced. But, if this is to be a truly cooperative venture, participants need to know that the judges, fellows and other officials have actually read our work and have serious specific concerns they would like participants to attend to. Bottom line: better communications will be required, folks, if we're all to live up to our ideals. Here's the offending comment >>>>> Thank you for your entry in the global plan contest! Please note that — unlike other Climate CoLab contests -- two central elements of this global contest is for authors to (1) link together proposals from other contests into an integrated plan for the world as a whole, and (2) complete the climate model for their proposal’s impact on climate change and our economic systems. Please revise your proposal to incorporate these two elements, or else your proposal is not likely to be rated highly in this contest. If you wish to submit an idea to the Climate CoLab without including other proposals and how they fit together into a larger vision, we recommend moving your proposal to another contest. Kind regards, Daniel

I agree with mwomersley. I tried to use the En-ROADS modeling tool. and it wouldn't even allow my inputs. When I tried to run the model with what it would accept, it just refused to function. You might be interested in my reply to Daniel, although at the time I wasn't aware that it was a form letter sent to everyone. It's in the comment section of my proposal: Using Natural Systems Principles to Transition toward a Sustainable Future.

Hi Robert, I would not interpret "(1) link together proposals from other contests into an integrated plan for the world as a whole" that the 'global plan' proposals should be just summing up the proposals of others. I am confident that the judges would not consider a such summing up proposal for the top prize. My interpretation of this sentence is that you should look around for proposal from the other contests that have synergy with your proposals. For certain, I would not mind, if you would state that any of my proposals could support your global plan. I would be honored if a plan with any kind of links to my proposals would win this contest.

I have talked about this many times, I have the solution. But no one will believe me Researchers,have many new research to make renewable energy become a reality, efficiency pic.twitter.com/13t4WFLX7D Here Model for islands, rural areas

Hello, Do we need to allocate how climate CoLab points are allocated to contributors? This was mentioned in the video, but I do not see any links to this on the CoLab webpage. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance Delton https://www.climatecolab.org/resources/-/wiki/Main/Global+plan?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Video%3A%20how%20to%20complete%20a%20proposal%20for%20the%20global%20plan%20contest&utm_campaign=whatsnext_16closed2open

well, tried to log in and finish submission in pain, broke, demoted, feel it's useless anyways -- http://earthsky.org/earth/scientists-discover-vast-methane-plumes-escaping-from-arctic-seafloor all the info so far updated on what needs to be done is projectcharles.org that's the basics, there's more that would be hard for you to understand especially since the physics of controlling the eye wall of a hurricane escapes you. i'll put up a video of the physics concerning the creation/capture/control and dissipation of a hurricane eye wall as well as my tornado killer by end of next weekend, taking a few more days off, you might be interested. Charles Duemler 541-543-7548

Thank you for your comments and feedback. We apologize if you had trouble with the website and modeling tools, and we readily acknowledge that what was asked of members in this contest was complex. This is the first time the Climate CoLab has run a contest that seeks integrated proposals, and we recognize there are many ways we could improve the prompt, template, and modeling tools. We appreciate your willingness to participate while we're piloting this new approach; your input will help us to make improvements for future integrated contests. Regarding the modeling requirement, we remain convinced that this a key element in ascertaining whether the combination of actions outlined in a global plan will in total make real headway against the problem of climate change. Integrated assessment models, like EnROADS and EMF27, which have been developed to project the future impact of actions taken to address climate change can only include a small number of inputs. They typically use as inputs a range of future policy regimes and various rates of development/adoption of low carbon energy technologies. Translating a suite of concrete actions, of the kind usually found in Climate CoLab proposals, into inputs for such models is a challenging task, but we believe that explicitly connecting the actions proposed in a global proposal to the model inputs is a key part of what makes such a proposal sound. As noted above, the Climate CoLab is exploring ways to improve future integrated contests. One way we're doing this is by conducting telephone interviews with contest participants. If you'd like to be a candidate to be interviewed, please send a message to us at admin@climatecolab.org. Thank you again for your participation, and as always, we welcome your feedback on how we can make the Climate CoLab more effective.

. For the ocean, the July global sea surface temperature was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), tying with 2009 as the warmest July on record. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/7 Underwater Suspension Tunnels anyone???????

Underwater Suspension Tunnels get us to 300 ppm to 350 ppm Co2 in 20 years once built and placed into operation otherwise we face 5000 years of warming... Who wants run away warming? http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

The Gulfstream has enough heat energy to power the industrialized world over 100 times my underwater suspension tunnels only need 1% of that heat energy not including the kinetic energy to power the industrialized world. Scroll to 2 min 25 seconds here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hD52H7rQak Build them now or face 5000 years of warming.

So none were picked?

Is the zero proposals advancing a computer glitch? If not, some thoughts: 1. Remove the "11 days to revise." 2. All the Climate CoLab staff should read "The Zombie Workplace Survival Guide" or at least the highlights from: http://blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/10/the-zombie-workplace-survival.html. 3. If zero proposals advancing is the Climate CoLab staff's carefully considered result, you just did a textbook maneuver for an organization that prides itself on stifling innovation. Seriously, consult some management experts. You told people your objective. Then you told people their was only one way to accomplish your objective. One very narrow way. Few U.S. Department of Energy Funding Opportunity Announcements do that good a job of stifling innovation.

We may need to, for a few days, put the entire subject of climate change mitigation aside and take a close look at the foundational premises used within the conceptual paper: Harnessing Collective Intelligence to Address Global Climate Change: Thomas W. Malone and Mark Klein Can we harness, even briefly, the collective intelligence of the people who have invested their time in crafting entries, and offer a collective/collaborative list of suggestions to the PI of this lab/experiment? (We do need to keep in mind that we, the entry authors, are the lab mice here.) So where to start? One potentially fruitful place to begin would be listing the assumptions within the above paper which seem to provide frustration at the 'experimental subject' level. 1)As the paper does not deal with hard STEM issues and is, my best interpretation being, a conceptual narrative of the possibility of combining digital tools to enhance/facilitate/draw-out the potential power of 'collective' intelligence(consensus building), we need to actually first explore what do we mean by 'intelligence'. In many real world situations, going against the normally accepted and firmly held beliefs, within the surrounding community, generates a high degree of sociological friction which typically ends with the contrary actor, and his/her views, being rejected by the community. However, what if the contrary actor is actually correct and the surrounding community is incorrect on the issue in question? The lengthy and firm rejection of plate tectonics is one hard science example of the contrary actor being correct. Obviously, this philosophical paradox goes back to Plato/Socrates as, in many ways, it is the normally accepted and firmly held beliefs of the community which typically dictates many aspects of communal life (i.e. right and wrong/good or bad). Rule breakers are typically punished in socially/physically significant ways. So, with the above paradox in mind, we have to ask the obvious question(s); 1) Is the contrary actor intelligent or not? 2)Is the community 'capable' of being wrong if it is the community which establishes 'the rules' of right or wrong? I would appreciate gathering, within this comment venue, the views of the other authors on the issue of the 'intelligent' factor within this experiment. In simple experimental hypothetical language, can the lab mice properly and effectively evaluate, not the researcher but the research protocol, in a way which produces an improvement within the original experimental protocol? Starting with the basic question of 'what is intelligence', within the context of this experiment/protocol, does seem to be a logical place to start. Please post your thoughts and any supporting links here. Best regards, Michael

The planet doesn't need discussions about intelligence, collective or otherwise, it needs a global plan to be implemented immediately. Given that this was the original intention of this contest's organizers, please don't let the planet down, and at least identify from the proposals' the most'workable innovation', its funding source and the most appropriate strategic leadership to advance it, and put that to the Security Council Members as soon as possible.

And if you are still unconvinced that painting ice bereft rock white doesn't lower its daytime temperature by as much as 15C and initiate re-glaciation at higher altitudes, perhaps you should encourage students to use this experience for research purposes so you can see for yourselves. In the meantime, this contest has contributed nothing to preventing runaway warming because it has failed to recognise let alone address loss of reflectivity. It therefore does not provide a meaningful global plan, just more of the same carbon reduction endeavours - useful long term but of little immediate effect. Though limiting climate action to emission reduction is in line with the official thinking of the UNFCCC and most scientists who cannot understand that retaining excess sunlight in the biosphere is an equally significant driver of climate change, it's not going to stop the extreme weather events. Should any of the judges be sufficiently alert to recognise the contest's shortcomings, please ensure my global plan is not relegated to obscurity.

You have directed me to an explanation of why my global plan was not worth forwarding to the next phase, but there is no explanation. Please provide an explanation and redirect. Earlier, you made out I should continue with my proposal despite its main tenet making it ineligible by your own admission - that is the suggestion the UN should lead on the plan's coordination. You remember, just before the contest closed, you wrote the UN was not capable of such enactment, or words to that effect, that there is no organisation capable of such enactment. What was that about ? To request a global plan and deny the relevance of strategic leadership is unreasonable, isn't it ? You say my proposal includes some 'intriguing elements' but then, if you are so competent at judging other's contributions (and in language which I find condescending) why don't you provide a proposal for a global plan yourselves, and present it to the Security Council immediately ? We came to the contest in good faith, but look at the effect you have had on at least some of the entrants. You ask that I continue to be involved in the CoLab, that is with regard to the 4 carbon reduction proposals, but how can I be when they are long term solutions to only half the problem and you are denying the need for short term responses essential to preventing widespread grief and devastation ? If you are prepared to hold a non-contrived contest on how to get us out of the fix we are in, and without any preconditions or without binding it to any outmoded modelling procedures devised by scientists who are unable to see the total picture, please let me know. rosjonesenvedu@hotmail.com

CRISTOBAL has seemed to slow down a bit delaying its arrival on the East Coast in this real time simulation. So far the tunnels have been hard at work in cooling phase thus cooling a swath of the Gulfstream 35 miles wide by 432 miles long to 70 degrees F. instead of the smoking hot 90 degree surface temperature assuming a 6 mph current... This means the whole state of Florida is now protected from Cristobal should it strengthen prior to its arrival to the Gulfstream... The now cooler water would be the death of Cristobal. Stay tuned for further projections as time evolves in this real time simulation... A few of the computer models now show it impacting Florida.

"The only accolade from MIT for my proposal was that it contained 'intriguing elements', but obviously not intriguing enough to be named. Typical academic speak meaning nothing. The only immediate positives coming from this contest as far as I can see are the pointers to the barriers to sorting the climate problem, in part so well exemplified by the unalert scientists at MIT. " I don't see them wanting a real solution to the climate change problem here. All I see are solutions that will guarantee 5000 more years of warming as the ideas are not aggressive enough. It is as if Richard Lindzen is running the contest.

waghhm, Sure 20 billion now for tunnels or 60 trillion in damages by 2050.. I report you decide.. They are the only 20 year solution or we face 5K years of warming... Nuff said?

Dear Steven, My first impression of your suggestion above is that is seems to have the same background philosophy as in my proposal: Settle the carbon debt and release the power of example! https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300701/planId/1308202 We both are looking for a step-wise solution where local actions shows example for others to follow. I need to take a further look at your webpage http://www.polisplan.com.au/client/pages/Home.aspx ? I would anyway be happy to welcome a continued discussion on the synergy between our proposals.