Climate Change Is Harming U.S. Economy report says

[Thebobo]

Was "Climate Change" harming the U.S. Economy in 1996?
There has been no warming for over 17 years.

Maybe you should wait for the climate to change first.

Yes there has, did you even bother to read the article? Look at the links I left.

Your science information is from conservative blog with unknow funding sources. http://www.cfact.org/

Here’s a quote from RSS

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) website:

“•Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
•Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
•The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.”

This is from the folks that collect the data? what more do you want?

 

[Paratus]

You did not reply with sea ice, instead you linked what is apparently gravitational measurements of the continental ice sheet. I'm not familiar with this work and I'll make a point to raise it with skeptics, when possible.

June snow extent? You may have claimed it's global, but picking a specific month such as June would call out the southern hemisphere. This does not change the northern hemisphere's increase in winter snow.

I say no warming for 17 years, pointing to RSS only demonstrates that. The isolated warming of the 80s and 90s is clearly visible. Following the established pattern of the 20th century, natural warming will not continue until 2030. Any significant deviations from that would lead to a CO2 signal.




Hopefully they'll utilize those fuels as we spend the next few hundred years learning to transition our society towards something sustainable. If Climate Sensitivity is a mere 0.3C, we have plenty of time before we reach 3,200ppm and a 1C man-made increase in temperature.

I want us to use available energy to maximize human prosperity and energy security.

Well I was pretty sure nothing I said was going to make much of a dent. :\

 

[DrPizza]

Seriously, were you hiding in a cave during and after Katrina? Predictions of Katrina like storms wreaking havoc on our coasts were to be the new norm. They weren't. And as my article points out, we have instead had one of the calmest period of major hurricanes to hit our shores in 100 years.

You completely dodged what I said. It's more or less luck of the draw whether hurricanes make landfall or not. Since Katrina, we've had a couple of the most active hurricane seasons ever. We're simply lucky that the prevailing pressure systems at the time steered most of them out to sea. "Calmest period of major hurricanes to hit our shores" is a very disingenuous argument. It's akin to setting new records for jetliners crashing - when by luck, the majority of crashes occurred at sea - and saying "wow, this is the least amount of jet liners crashing on land in decades. <Hey readers, come to the conclusion that it means there are fewer crashes.>"
Very disingenuous argument indeed. And, to completely dismiss storms like Sandy?? "Well, gee, it wasn't a cat 4 hurricane when it made landfall, and we jack off to the Saffir-Simpson scale, therefore Sandy doesn't count at all."

 

[Burning Bush]

I'm new here. I have a few questions.

If the other planets in our solar system are having a warming trend, can we agree that it isn't man-made? If we were looking for a cause for such warming, would we want to start by looking up into the sky at the large bright yellow object moving east to west? Do we really know everything there is to know about the cycles of our sun?

If the administration in Washington feels they can have a positive impact on the worlds climate by shutting down a dozen coal mines and a half-dozen or so coal power plants each of the next several years, while China and India bring over 50 new coal fired power plants online each year, are they spitting into the wind?

The U.S. represents 4% of the worlds population. If the people who are convinced man has contributed to quickly increasing temperatures, tell us every solution they have suggested will not lower temps more than a small fraction, and they will cause other nations to grow economically while the fragile U.S. economy collapses, why would our government pursue such policies?

How many experts are there? How many climate scientists are there? If 20,000 scientists signed a document saying they do not agree with the findings of what we are told is 97% of the science community, would that mean we have almost 700,000 scientists on board with man-made global warming? Can I see that list?

Albert Einstein defied what 99% of scientist believed about the relationship between space and time. He was right, the 99% were wrong. Smart guys, but wrong in their beliefs.

with kind regards,

The Burning Bush

 

[werepossum]

I'm new here. I have a few questions.

If the other planets in our solar system are having a warming trend, can we agree that it isn't man-made? If we were looking for a cause for such warming, would we want to start by looking up into the sky at the large bright yellow object moving east to west? Do we really know everything there is to know about the cycles of our sun?

If the administration in Washington feels they can have a positive impact on the worlds climate by shutting down a dozen coal mines and a half-dozen or so coal power plants each of the next several years, while China and India bring over 50 new coal fired power plants online each year, are they spitting into the wind?

The U.S. represents 4% of the worlds population. If the people who are convinced man has contributed to quickly increasing temperatures, tell us every solution they have suggested will not lower temps more than a small fraction, and they will cause other nations to grow economically while the fragile U.S. economy collapses, why would our government pursue such policies?

How many experts are there? How many climate scientists are there? If 20,000 scientists signed a document saying they do not agree with the findings of what we are told is 97% of the science community, would that mean we have almost 700,000 scientists on board with man-made global warming? Can I see that list?

Albert Einstein defied what 99% of scientist believed about the relationship between space and time. He was right, the 99% were wrong. Smart guys, but wrong in their beliefs.

with kind regards,

The Burning Bush

Wow, that's an impressive first post!

 

[Paratus]

I'm new here. I have a few questions.

If the other planets in our solar system are having a warming trend, can we agree that it isn't man-made? If we were looking for a cause for such warming, would we want to start by looking up into the sky at the large bright yellow object moving east to west? Do we really know everything there is to know about the cycles of our sun?

If the administration in Washington feels they can have a positive impact on the worlds climate by shutting down a dozen coal mines and a half-dozen or so coal power plants each of the next several years, while China and India bring over 50 new coal fired power plants online each year, are they spitting into the wind?

The U.S. represents 4% of the worlds population. If the people who are convinced man has contributed to quickly increasing temperatures, tell us every solution they have suggested will not lower temps more than a small fraction, and they will cause other nations to grow economically while the fragile U.S. economy collapses, why would our government pursue such policies?

How many experts are there? How many climate scientists are there? If 20,000 scientists signed a document saying they do not agree with the findings of what we are told is 97% of the science community, would that mean we have almost 700,000 scientists on board with man-made global warming? Can I see that list?

Albert Einstein defied what 99% of scientist believed about the relationship between space and time. He was right, the 99% were wrong. Smart guys, but wrong in their beliefs.

with kind regards,

The Burning Bush

While the sun drives the climate, solar output is not driving the climate change we are seeing. In fact solar output was slightly down for a lot of the 00's.

We have satellites pointed at the sun that measure this.

 

[Thebobo]

Wow, that's an impressive first post!

I'm new here. I have a few questions.

If the other planets in our solar system are having a warming trend, can we agree that it isn't man-made? If we were looking for a cause for such warming, would we want to start by looking up into the sky at the large bright yellow object moving east to west? Do we really know everything there is to know about the cycles of our sun?

If the administration in Washington feels they can have a positive impact on the worlds climate by shutting down a dozen coal mines and a half-dozen or so coal power plants each of the next several years, while China and India bring over 50 new coal fired power plants online each year, are they spitting into the wind?

The U.S. represents 4% of the worlds population. If the people who are convinced man has contributed to quickly increasing temperatures, tell us every solution they have suggested will not lower temps more than a small fraction, and they will cause other nations to grow economically while the fragile U.S. economy collapses, why would our government pursue such policies?

How many experts are there? How many climate scientists are there? If 20,000 scientists signed a document saying they do not agree with the findings of what we are told is 97% of the science community, would that mean we have almost 700,000 scientists on board with man-made global warming? Can I see that list?

Albert Einstein defied what 99% of scientist believed about the relationship between space and time. He was right, the 99% were wrong. Smart guys, but wrong in their beliefs.

with kind regards,

The Burning Bush

Not sure if this warrants an answer, your/this post is condescending and seems like a bot-post/copy from a freedomworks talking points post just in time for this new report.

If not I don't think you really want answers, they are already out there. You have already seen them, you just refuse to accept them.

And if definitely not I will answer them. :'(

 

[Burning Bush]

While the sun drives the climate, solar output is not driving the climate change we are seeing. In fact solar output was slightly down for a lot of the 00's.

We have satellites pointed at the sun that measure this.

I enjoy learning more about the sun. Particularly, the corona and the temperatures both near the visible surface of the sun and temperatures further and further away from it. In debates, we often hear people say; the fact of the matter is, or it has been proven that...Well, there was a time when spectral lines emitting from the corona were attributed to a new element, coronium, until that theory was disproven in the early 1940's. Research showed high levels of ionization and atoms being buffeted around at temperatures approaching 1,000,000 C. It's one thing to conclude that the source of the corona's heat was energy created by the sun. But Albert Einstein himself was being contradicted by the notion of temperatures rising from 6000 C at the surface of the sun to 1,000,000 C further away, where they should, in fact, be cooler.

About the best explanation is that it remains a puzzle.

I mention this because what we think is settled science, has yet to be settled, at least outside of political discussions. Variables exist. There are still unknowns. As some scientists like to say, there are unknown unknowns and known unknowns. If, be definition, we don't know the unknown unknowns, and they could be affecting temperatures within our solar system, what are we to conclude about the many elements within our atmosphere that interact in ways we may also not fully understand?

To get a little political, the man, I've forgotten his name, who coined the phrase; global warming, stated that the science does not support the current assertions regarding trace gases profoundly altering global temps. Al Gore's mentor and teacher was wise and taught him much about global warming, according the former Vice President. Well, until that same man publically challenged statements made by Mr. Gore. Then he was referred to as a senile old fool. If our planet was warmer during the Roman Empire than it is today, why is that?

I don't want to see myself as a climate denier. That sounds silly. I want to see more evidence and be convinced. Remember, in the early 70's, over 90% of people polled, believed JFK was killed as part of a conspiracy, and not by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. Even today, the number is still about 50%, despite evidence that seems to prove the lone gunman theory. Both sides can believe untruths, when motivated to do so by politics or financial gain.

 

[Burning Bush]

Not sure if this warrants an answer, your/this post is condescending and seems like a bot-post/copy from a freedomworks talking points post just in time for this new report.

If not I don't think you really want answers, they are already out there. You have already seen them, you just refuse to accept them.

And if definitely not I will answer them. :'(

While I often enjoy political debates, I am not associated with any political groups. I'm not influenced by the Koch brothers or George Soros. I've never heard of Freedomworks. I don't vote or support politicians. While I find this topic interesting, if I had to make a list of the Top 10 things that will end life on this planet, climate change would not be on that list. Long before slowly rising temps and even more slowly rising sea levels impact my life, I would expect somebody somewhere to set off a nuclear weapon, or a number of nuclear weapons, possibly in the Middle East, which would likely cause all sorts of calamities for all of us. If someone asks me what is the one thing we can do to save our planet, my answer is quit breeding. I don't want to go on record as saying we are well past a tipping point, but 7 billion people on such a tiny planet, seems, well, impossible to sustain. And that's if they all like each other and get along well.

 

[sandorski]

Wow, that's an impressive first post!

If turds are impressive.

 

[shira]

How many experts are there? How many climate scientists are there? If 20,000 scientists signed a document saying they do not agree with the findings of what we are told is 97% of the science community, would that mean we have almost 700,000 scientists on board with man-made global warming? Can I see that list?

The relevant group is actively researching climate scientists. Why would you think that opinions of (for example) cosmologists, biologists, or medical researchers are well-informed. The 97% figure is based on this article:

http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.

Albert Einstein defied what 99% of scientist believed about the relationship between space and time. He was right, the 99% were wrong. Smart guys, but wrong in their beliefs.

You're just plain wrong about this. The prevailing theory before special relativity was the electromagnetic theory of the universe (do you recall from your early science classes the so-called "luminiferous ether" that was claimed to fill all space, and was the "medium" by which electromagnetic waves traveled through a vacuum?) But experiments in the late 1800s and early 1900s could find no trace of this ether. In fact, the term "relativity" was coined to describe the fact that the motion of the observer through the "ether" could NOT be detected (contrary to what was expected) as a shorter return path of the light waves bounced off of a mirror.

Yes, there was initial criticism of special relativity when it was first published (but that's true of pretty much any new theory). And there was a period of "transition" between 1905 and the 1930s as experiments testing the two theories continued. But the situation definitely wasn't 99% of scientists resiting relativity. In fact, the "problem" with relativity is that it took time for experiments to finally refute the "ether," as experimental error was difficult to eliminate.

Furthermore, even if you could cite a valid case where 99% of relevant scientists strongly resisted a maverick theory that ultimately turned out to be correct, what exactly does that prove? History has shown that it's far, far, far more likely that theories that are initially broadly rejected end up being . . . . bad theories. By your reasoning, we must reject ALL broadly-supported theories. In fact, by your reasoning a theory's "popularity" somehow proves that it's invalid. Nonsense!

 

[Jaskalas]

In fact solar output was slightly down for a lot of the 00's.

You don't say...

 

[Jaskalas]

The relevant group is actively researching climate scientists. Why would you think that opinions of (for example) cosmologists, biologists, or medical researchers are well-informed. The 97% figure is based on this article:

http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

I'd be a whole step above the minimum requirement to be credited as a 97%er. All you have to do is not oppose the physical properties of CO2. Everyone and their grandmother should make that list. Thus it is rubbish.

12,271 papers surveyed.
Only 65 agreed with the IPCC assessment of blaming man for modern warming.

I'm among the 97%, you can stand proudly among your 0.5%.

 

[Paratus]

You don't say...

Why yes:

But it looks like you are cherry picking again.

Matches pretty well doesn't it?

Strange how the driving force for climate change dropped off a bit yet temps still held or increased. :hmm:

Oh and remember this is not a decreasing trend:

 

[boomerang]

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

 

[michal1980]

why is your scale like 50 years?



global warming

 

[Thebobo]

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

Thats a year old post from IOPScience it has nothing to do with this report.

 

[Jaskalas]

Why yes:

But it looks like you are cherry picking again.

You specifically picked the 00s.

In fact solar output was slightly down for a lot of the 00's.

 

[Jaskalas]

If you wish to speak of long term trends, why did we only warm for 20 years?

Why was the 30s and 40s warming IDENTICAL to the 80s and 90s? Yet they only blame CO2 for one of those identical warming periods.

Why shouldn't we follow the 20th century pattern? According to past experience it won't warm again until the 2030s. I submit that CO2 will continue to rise between now and then, but it won't make much of a difference until the oceans play their part once more.

 

[pcgeek11]

Please provide your alternate theory and data as to why these ten indicators show warming but really don't, or admit it is happening.

Thanks!

I didn't say the climate was not changing!

I said it is a natural event and all of you puny little humans did not cause it nor can you change it. If you think you can you are deluded.

 

[pcgeek11]

That's an awful lot of deluded climatologists then. Where did you gain so much expertise that you were able to so easily dismiss millions of man hours of intensive work and research by the world's foremost experts on the issue?

Yes.

 

[unokitty]

Obama's climate change diversion

A cursory glance of the participants shows no participation by climate realists but leading report authors from environmental political action groups like Second Nature, The Nature Conservancy, Planet Forward, and the misnamed Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that is not made up of scientists at all...

The greatest danger of the latest report from the Obama administration is not the realization that our government is again trying to mislead the American public, like it did on Benghazi and Obamacare, but the cost it threatens to impose on Americans through higher energy costs and job losses, especially in states like West Virginia that rely on coal, and North Dakota which has been booming because of oil exploration....

After all, if Obama follows through on his executive actions in the energy field, the alarmists will receive even more of our taxpayer money through subsidies, and these so-called scientists will continue to receive billions of tax dollars every year to continue their “studies...

Obama's policies failed to fix the economy. They have failed to fix the middle east. They failed to fix health care. And everyone can see how Obama's pivot to Asia is working out...

Now however, Obama wants you to think that he can save the planet...

When in reality, he just wants to keep your money tax flowing to the people that support him.

If you like your Global Warming, you can have your Global Warming.

If you like your Climate Change, you can have your Climate Change.

If you like your Climate Disruption, you can have your Climate Disruption.

I'm all for conserving resources.

I'm just not comfortable with a desperate lame duck politician reaching into my wallet so he can 'spread the wealth around' to his supporters.

Uno

 

[Paratus]

I didn't say the climate was not changing!

I said it is a natural event and all of you puny little humans did not cause it nor can you change it. If you think you can you are deluded.

Great!

Please provide your hypothesis and data that shows this is mostly being caused by natural events.

It should also explain why CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in the lab but not in the atmosphere

And/or

Explain why our measurements of increasing CO2 match with the reported amounts of fossil fuels used and the relative amounts C14 to normal C seem to match with natural and man made sources of carbon are wrong

And/or

Explain how the Earths orbit has changed to naturally provide the increase in temperature but we've missed it yet all our satellites space probes and telescopes continue to point at or reach their targets without issue.

And/or

Explain how our Sun measuring instruments including all the solar arrays pointed at the Sun are off and we are actually seeing an increase in solar output over the last 50 years that matches the heating we've measured.

Thanks!

 

[Paratus]

Obama's climate change diversion



Obama's policies failed to fix the economy. They have failed to fix the middle east. They failed to fix health care. And everyone can see how Obama's pivot to Asia is working out...

Now however, Obama wants you to think that he can save the planet...

When in reality, he just wants to keep your money tax flowing to the people that support him.

If you like your Global Warming, you can have your Global Warming.

If you like your Climate Change, you can have your Climate Change.

If you like your Climate Disruption, you can have your Climate Disruption.

I'm all for conserving resources.

I'm just not comfortable with a desperate lame duck politician reaching into my wallet so he can 'spread the wealth around' to his supporters.

Uno

Climate Change Accomplished!

Climate changes once, shame on me, Climate changes twice..... You can't change the climate again.

Read my lips, no new climate change!

Mr. Gorbachev tear down that climate change!

Am I doing this game right?

Wait what's this have to do with the OP?

 

[WackyDan]

How about if we increase their standard of living to the point their birth rates fall below replacement just like ours?

So what that means is that their standard of living increases so they consume more - even with less children. That seems to escalate the issue long before it has any effect on the number of humans on the planet.