When you use the tools in talks with policy makers, the sequence of the presentations captures the dynamic relationships (along the lines of the qualitative-level “if, then” relationships captured by the narrative order in Drew’s TEDx talk, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTS9RY1z_i8 ).

But if these relationships were baked into the model (exogenously, to be sure, but automatically included in any run) this would “land the insight” more readily and prevent some risky misunderstandings and misuse.

I realize it would complicate stuff a lot, but I wonder if the next step doesn’t have to be to bake these relationships (conditional positions) into C-Learn and C-ROADS, so that when I, say, change the input on http://forio.com/simulation/climate-development/index.htm for developed nations (for instance) from -20% by 2020 to -40%, this triggers changes in the gold and purple curves, too, based on existing proposals and/or expert opinions.

Or, perhaps, the changes are simply triggered based on another input parameter (value provided by user), called global impact, or global deal impact, or something.

Either way, the results could show up as a range of curves, as long as it doesn’t get too messy, visually.

If you use the “other input parameter” option, and the interface features this parameter prominently enough, this could really drive the point home.

This would be simpler although perhaps not as ambitious and “accurate” as drawing on actual conditional proposals or expert opinion on conditional effects.

Or maybe consider doing both, if there’s an opportunity?

If what’s coming mid-Oct is anything like this: Wow!

I’m guessing the user-provided input version would also focus more explicit attention on these conditional relationships, teach more of us to talk in the “conditional target language,” maybe resulting in negotiating positions being more transparent.

Thanks!

Stay tuned for our mid-October update of the ’scoreboard’, were we will represent the sort of conditional scenarios you mention (for instance, the EU’s statement that their 20% reduction by 2020 could increase to a 30% reduction with a strong global agreement, or the conditional position that has been reported in some news sources for Indonesia). Our plan is to show rather than a single curve, a range of possibilities from conservative to more optimistic, highlighting the possibilities that could emerge as commitments from some parties create the possibilities for additional commitments from others.

What do you think? Would that be useful? Is there a better way to represent the issues you are referring to?