Climate Change Is Harming U.S. Economy report says

[fskimospy]

As opposed to where you hear theirs views of CAGW proponents being scrutinized by scientific critique?

Absolutely. Our understanding is constantly challenged and refined through the scientific process. Any scientist that was able to disprove AGW would become famous beyond his wildest dreams.

Deniers are free to submit papers to the scientific community. Instead they usually stick to friendly denier communities because their work infrequently has sufficient scientific rigor. (If you are going to allege a global science conspiracy to keep them out of journals I'm uninterested)

 

[shira]

The falling value of the Dollar is impacting the Economy the most.

That's odd; I've read that the falling dollar has been great for the U.S. economy, leading to increased on-shoring of labor and a reduced trade imbalance.

But in any event, your implied point is nonsensical. You're essentially claiming that if there's a larger contributor to a problem, we should ignore smaller contributors to the same problem. So (for example) focus on distracted driving as the major cause of car crashes but ignore driving under the influence because it doesn't cause as many car crashes.

Nobody can even define global warming.

This is nonsense. The Assessment makes completely clear what it means by "climate change." It contains entire sections on what these changes are. The fact that there's no simple 10-word definition of all of the various elements the make up "climate change" doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the concept. Would you argue that if cosmologists can't provide a simple definition of "gravity waves" that means that the concept of gravity waves is invalid?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Absolutely. Our understanding is constantly challenged and refined through the scientific process. Any scientist that was able to disprove AGW would become famous beyond his wildest dreams.

Deniers are free to submit papers to the scientific community. Instead they usually stick to friendly denier communities because their work infrequently has sufficient scientific rigor. (If you are going to allege a global science conspiracy to keep them out of journals I'm uninterested)

You talk as if a paper being peer reviewed makes what it says truth.

You may believe that peer review means that someone goes trough all the data, calculations and algorithms used, making sure all is correct.

That isn't how it works.

That is why in many cases after a paper being published (which meant it passed peer review) errors are detected and papers have to be changed and sometimes are withdrawn.

Then there are papers that are created, peer reviewed and published, that exist solely to contest another peer reviewed paper.

Additionally many times the data (and more important the raw data) and algorithms/calculations aren't provided with claims that it is IP.

How can one review something if the data and the algorithms aren't present?


And if the ocean heat content was increasing and the ice that exists on land was melting due to increased temperatures, the sea level should be increasing at an accelerated level in the recent decades.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002750

"Abstract
We use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyse the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration. In particular we use new data from the polar regions and remote islands to improve data coverage and extend the reconstruction to 2009. There is a good agreement between the rate of sea level rise (3.2 ± 0.4 mm·yr− 1) calculated from satellite altimetry and the rate of 3.1 ± 0.6 mm·yr− 1 from tide gauge based reconstruction for the overlapping time period (1993–2009). The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm·yr− 1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 ± 0.5 mm·yr− 1 since 1970. Regional linear trends for 14 ocean basins since 1970 show the fastest sea level rise for the Antarctica (4.1 ± 0.8 mm·yr− 1) and Arctic (3.6 ± 0.3 mm·yr− 1). Choice of GIA correction is critical in the trends for the local and regional sea levels, introducing up to 8 mm·yr− 1 uncertainties for individual tide gauge records, up to 2 mm·yr− 1 for regional curves and up to 0.3–0.6 mm·yr− 1 in global sea level reconstruction. We calculate an acceleration of 0.02 ± 0.01 mm·yr− 2 in global sea level (1807–2009). In comparison the steric component of sea level shows an acceleration of 0.006 mm·yr− 2 and mass loss of glaciers accelerates at 0.003 mm·yr− 2 over 200 year long time series."

Bold is mine.

 

[werepossum]

You talk as if a paper being peer reviewed makes what it says truth.

You may believe that peer review means that someone goes trough all the data, calculations and algorithms used, making sure all is correct.

That isn't how it works.

That is why in many cases after a paper being published (which meant it passed peer review) errors are detected and papers have to be changed and sometimes are withdrawn.

Then there are papers that are created, peer reviewed and published, that exist solely to contest another peer reviewed paper.

Additionally many times the data (and more important the raw data) and algorithms/calculations aren't provided with claims that it is IP.

How can one review something if the data and the algorithms aren't present?

And if the ocean heat content was increasing and the ice that exists on land was melting due to increased temperatures, the sea level should be increasing at an accelerated level in the recent decades.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002750

"Abstract
We use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyse the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration. In particular we use new data from the polar regions and remote islands to improve data coverage and extend the reconstruction to 2009. There is a good agreement between the rate of sea level rise (3.2 ± 0.4 mm·yr− 1) calculated from satellite altimetry and the rate of 3.1 ± 0.6 mm·yr− 1 from tide gauge based reconstruction for the overlapping time period (1993–2009). The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm·yr− 1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 ± 0.5 mm·yr− 1 since 1970. Regional linear trends for 14 ocean basins since 1970 show the fastest sea level rise for the Antarctica (4.1 ± 0.8 mm·yr− 1) and Arctic (3.6 ± 0.3 mm·yr− 1). Choice of GIA correction is critical in the trends for the local and regional sea levels, introducing up to 8 mm·yr− 1 uncertainties for individual tide gauge records, up to 2 mm·yr− 1 for regional curves and up to 0.3–0.6 mm·yr− 1 in global sea level reconstruction. We calculate an acceleration of 0.02 ± 0.01 mm·yr− 2 in global sea level (1807–2009). In comparison the steric component of sea level shows an acceleration of 0.006 mm·yr− 2 and mass loss of glaciers accelerates at 0.003 mm·yr− 2 over 200 year long time series."

Bold is mine.

Good points. I'd guess it's very seldom that raw data are furnished with the paper to be reviewed. In the case of Mann et al's infamous study producing the hockey stick, they finally claimed the raw data were lost, so there is literally no way to reproduce or check their work no matter how smart and knowledgeable one might be. Also, part of the hacked email scandal in East Anglia University was the shopping of papers to known friendly peers - a short-circuiting of the peer review process by allowing review only by peers certain to approve the work in question.

 

[fskimospy]

You talk as if a paper being peer reviewed makes what it says truth.

You may believe that peer review means that someone goes trough all the data, calculations and algorithms used, making sure all is correct.

That isn't how it works.

That is why in many cases after a paper being published (which meant it passed peer review) errors are detected and papers have to be changed and sometimes are withdrawn.

Then there are papers that are created, peer reviewed and published, that exist solely to contest another peer reviewed paper.

Additionally many times the data (and more important the raw data) and algorithms/calculations aren't provided with claims that it is IP.

How can one review something if the data and the algorithms aren't present?


And if the ocean heat content was increasing and the ice that exists on land was melting due to increased temperatures, the sea level should be increasing at an accelerated level in the recent decades.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002750

"Abstract
We use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyse the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration. In particular we use new data from the polar regions and remote islands to improve data coverage and extend the reconstruction to 2009. There is a good agreement between the rate of sea level rise (3.2 ± 0.4 mm·yr− 1) calculated from satellite altimetry and the rate of 3.1 ± 0.6 mm·yr− 1 from tide gauge based reconstruction for the overlapping time period (1993–2009). The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm·yr− 1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 ± 0.5 mm·yr− 1 since 1970. Regional linear trends for 14 ocean basins since 1970 show the fastest sea level rise for the Antarctica (4.1 ± 0.8 mm·yr− 1) and Arctic (3.6 ± 0.3 mm·yr− 1). Choice of GIA correction is critical in the trends for the local and regional sea levels, introducing up to 8 mm·yr− 1 uncertainties for individual tide gauge records, up to 2 mm·yr− 1 for regional curves and up to 0.3–0.6 mm·yr− 1 in global sea level reconstruction. We calculate an acceleration of 0.02 ± 0.01 mm·yr− 2 in global sea level (1807–2009). In comparison the steric component of sea level shows an acceleration of 0.006 mm·yr− 2 and mass loss of glaciers accelerates at 0.003 mm·yr− 2 over 200 year long time series."

Bold is mine.

You don't seem to understand what peer review is. It doesn't mean a paper is perfect. It doesn't even mean a paper is mostly right. It means that a paper meets a minimum standard of scientific rigor. Most denialist papers are so poorly written that they cannot meet this standard.

It is very telling that you think one peer reviewed paper disproving another is a problem. It is in fact a strength.

 

[Thebobo]

More good news

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_991_en.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...arbon-dioxide-global-warming-climate-science/

 

[Jaskalas]

Hope you're all still here when we pass 500ppm.

You all know and appreciate that it's going to keep rising for the foreseeable future, right? Human civilization is almost guaranteed to be emitting significant quantities of CO2 throughout our life times.

 

[fskimospy]

Hope you're all still here when we pass 500ppm.

You all know and appreciate that it's going to keep rising for the foreseeable future, right? Human civilization is almost guaranteed to be emitting significant quantities of CO2 throughout our life times.

Interesting news! I just saw a link from Paul Krugman to a report commissioned by the US Chamber of Commerce about how climate change legislation designed to lower US emissions by 40% would cost us about $50 billion a year. That turns out to be about 0.2% of GDP. Talk about a bargain, huh?!

 

[Jaskalas]

Interesting news! I just saw a link from Paul Krugman to a report commissioned by the US Chamber of Commerce about how climate change legislation designed to lower US emissions by 40% would cost us about $50 billion a year. That turns out to be about 0.2% of GDP. Talk about a bargain, huh?!

40% US reduction, that really doesn't change the outcome.

 

[Paul98]

40% US reduction, that really doesn't change the outcome.

It does not, it only slows it down slightly.

I have a feeling it will take some sort of radical change, it could be something that we haven't even thought of yet.

 

[Paul98]

I am currently interested to see what will happen when this cycle changes and global atmosphere temperatures start rising again.

 

[fskimospy]

40% US reduction, that really doesn't change the outcome.

Of course it does. climate change is a continuous variable, not a dichotomous one.

Aren't you happy that we can achieve such significant reductions at such a modest cost?

 

[fskimospy]

I am currently interested to see what will happen when this cycle changes and global atmosphere temperatures start rising again.

Like if the El Nino that is widely expected happens? In the end those who vehemently denied climate change will make some mealy mouthed statement about how nobody could know.

 

[xgsound]

I STRONGLY recommend everyone looks at the credentials of the scientists issuing that rebuttal. Among the 14 we have:

A mechanical engineer, a geologist, 2 economists, some meteorologists (including a community college meteorology professor and TV personality), some physicists, and a 'retired scientist'. Only about half of the people listed in the 'rebuttal' appear to have any credentials that could even remotely be applied to climatology, and not a single solitary one is a straight out climatologist. (the closest they get is 'environmental science')

Additionally, this 'rebuttal' relies on deceptive arguments that have been repeatedly rebutted. Simply put, this is not only nonsense, but it's such transparent nonsense that anyone should be able to pick up on it. When a group of people feels the need to cite a community college professor and TV meteorologist to lend heft to its argument you should realize it's because they are so full of shit they can't find anyone else.

You're being lied to. Wake up.

O.K. You don't like them. That is not an argument at all and does not make their statements any less true. Here are 31,000 more scientists that haven't cared for Global warming since it was Global cooling, or Zero population growth, or Oil will be gone by 1985. http://www.petitionproject.org/ These guys aren't Climate scientists either. There is no reason to be one. We can't control the climate anyway so these fellows work for a living instead of reeking havoc on the economic system.

Jim

 

[werepossum]

Interesting news! I just saw a link from Paul Krugman to a report commissioned by the US Chamber of Commerce about how climate change legislation designed to lower US emissions by 40% would cost us about $50 billion a year. That turns out to be about 0.2% of GDP. Talk about a bargain, huh?!

I'm somewhat skeptical on CAGM and very skeptical of studies in general, but if we can truly cut our emissions by 40% for about $50 billion a year, I'd agree that is a bargain. Unless it's just outsourcing our dirtiest (CO2-wise) operations to even dirtier nations.

 

[Thebobo]

O.K. You don't like them. That is not an argument at all and does not make their statements any less true. Here are 31,000 more scientists that haven't cared for Global warming since it was Global cooling, or Zero population growth, or Oil will be gone by 1985. http://www.petitionproject.org/ These guys aren't Climate scientists either. There is no reason to be one. We can't control the climate anyway so these fellows work for a living instead of reeking havoc on the economic system.

Jim

You petition project is part of a bigger group of people whose goal it is to promote intelligent design. And I want to get my science from these folk why??

http://www.discovery.org/

Program:

Discovery Institute is an inter-disciplinary community of scholars and policy advocates dedicated to the reinvigoration of traditional Western principles and institutions and the worldview from which they issued. Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West.

Philosophy:

Mind, not matter, is the source and crown of creation, the wellspring of human achievement. Conceived by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks and Christians, and elaborated in the American Founding, Western culture has encouraged creativity, enabled discovery and upheld the uniqueness and dignity of human beings.

Study and Activity Areas:

Science and Culture. Scientific research and experimentation have produced staggering advances in our knowledge about the natural world, but they have also led to increasing abuse of science as the so-called “new atheists” have enlisted science to promote a materialistic worldview, to deny human freedom and dignity and to smother free inquiry. Our Center for Science and Culture works to defend free inquiry. It also seeks to counter the materialistic interpretation of science by demonstrating that life and the universe are the products of intelligent design and by challenging the materialistic conception of a self-existent, self-organizing universe and the Darwinian view that life developed through a blind and purposeless process.

.

 

[Jaskalas]

I am currently interested to see what will happen when this cycle changes and global atmosphere temperatures start rising again.

If that happens before the 2030s, and the increase signifies a Climate Sensitivity greater than 0.5C per doubling, then I will surrender my opposition. IMO, a small increase of 0.1C should be expected in the next 15 years.

Meanwhile, efforts to combat CO2 are conflicting with efforts to fight REAL pollution.

 

[xgsound]

You petition project is part of a bigger group of people whose goal it is to promote intelligent design. And I want to get my science from these folk why??

http://www.discovery.org/

Program:

Discovery Institute is an inter-disciplinary community of scholars and policy advocates dedicated to the reinvigoration of traditional Western principles and <snip long quote> [/B]

.

In answer to your first sentence, O.K. you don't like them. That doesn't make all 31,000 opinions any less valid because you say they belong to some other organization. The point is they think the Global warming, cooling, starving, and over population is a complete scam with no corrective answer to the exaggerated/ manufactured crisis.

Jim

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

In answer to your first sentence, O.K. you don't like them. That doesn't make all 31,000 opinions any less valid because you say they belong to some other organization. The point is they think the Global warming, cooling, starving, and over population is a complete scam with no corrective answer to the exaggerated/ manufactured crisis.

Jim

Actually, their advocacy of intelligent design has poisoned the well, so to speak (not the logical fallacy) - their support of a discredited pseudoscientific hypothesis against the consensus of scientific opinion actually does make their opinion on global warming less valid.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Why are you continuing to lie? Please, show me where they predicted more would make landfall. Hurricane season is like playing Russian roulette - sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't. Regardless, ever hear of Sandy? That was a much larger storm than Katrina. Ever hear of Ike? That was the 4th costliest storm ever (and even if you adjust for inflation, it's still in the top 10). How about Irene? 8th most expensive.

To be fair, at least for Irene, affected areas were much higher rent districts than your average hurricane. NYC metropolitan area, Long Island, the Hamptons and Connecticut and the rest of the seaboard are going to have higher property damage values than places like MS, AL and FL.

 

[davmat787]

:biggrin:

It's hard to wrap my head around how someone can be so stupid to believe that global warming or climate change is made up bs. It really reinforces my idea that the world we live in is made up of mostly dumb people.

It's hard to wrap my head around how someone can be so transparent to post self aggrandizing forum comments just to make themselves look smart because they think so many others are stupid. It really reinforces my idea that most of the internet is full of self aggrandizing assholes. :biggrin:

 

[michal1980]

Interesting news! I just saw a link from Paul Krugman to a report commissioned by the US Chamber of Commerce about how climate change legislation designed to lower US emissions by 40% would cost us about $50 billion a year. That turns out to be about 0.2% of GDP. Talk about a bargain, huh?!

40% US reduction, that really doesn't change the outcome.

Of course it does. climate change is a continuous variable, not a dichotomous one.

Aren't you happy that we can achieve such significant reductions at such a modest cost?

It doesn't change anything. So we reduce our gpd but at best .2%. What about India? China? and every other large 2nd and 3rd world country that is trying to grow? Are they going to hold their emissions static?

US reducing emissions while the reset of the world increases them just punishes us.

Anyone pushing for the USA to reduce emissions while acknowledge there are billions of people in the world currently using little to no power, but would like thinks that either the rest of the 2nd and 3rd world must stay in that state, or America must become 3rd world.

 

[Jaskalas]

Aren't you happy that we can achieve such significant reductions at such a modest cost?

A cost, for what purpose?

I'm envisioning this transition to natural gas occurring over many decades, while the United States population increases. The net change won't look anything like a 40% reduction from where we stand today. CO2 would still rise, all the worst impacts of Climate Change would still occur.

Now I'll concede I don't object to utilizing natural gas. But these measures are often combined with unnatural forcing and deadlines that, if pushed, could seriously harm the US electrical grid among other things. We must tread carefully.

Yet, as much as I'll support a transition from coal I still don't see it being any sort of logical conclusion to CO2. Natural gas still has CO2 emissions, half that of coal. These half measures just are not going to cut it if the IPCC is entirely correct.

 

[Thebobo]

Greenland Glacier Sheds Another Big Chunk

http[QUOTE][/QUOTE]://news.discover...nd-glacier-sheds-another-big-chunk-140611.htm

Those of us who aren’t in the Arctic often think of ice as rigid, but glaciers actually move and break off pieces of themselves — now, even more so, thanks to climate change. One of the world’s most dynamic glaciers is Greenland’s Jakobshavn Isbrae, which in recent years has been speeding up to a record pace and adding more and more ice to the ocean, contributing about a millimeter to global sea-level rise by itself from 2000 to 2011.

These images taken in May (above) and June by NASA’s Landsat 8 satellite show Jakobshavn in the process of cracking and “calving” a huge piece of ice, somewhere between 3.1 and 6.2 square miles in size, according to the Arctic Sea Ice Blog.

In the June image, below, a big area of the glacier’s southern branch and a smaller section of its northern branch have been altered, and ice has crumbled from the glacier’s front into the mélange, an accumulation of pieces that are floating downstream from it.

Jakobshavn has moved 25 miles since 1850. The glacier’s tongue-shaped edge sits in a deep valley about 4,260 feet above sea level, which doesn’t provide much resistance to slow the glacier’s slide into the ocean.

Since 2000, Greenland has lost some 739 gigatons of ice, and approximately 30 percent of that loss came from Jakobshavn and four other glaciers, according to NASA.

The glacier has another disturbing historical distinction. According to Richard Brown’s book Voyage of the Iceberg, an iceberg calved by Jakobsavn in 1910 — one of 10,000 that broke away from the glacier that summer — eventually drifted into the path of the Titanic on April 14, 1912. That iceberg may be depicted in this photo taken by the captain of another ship, the Etonian, two days earlier.

Photo: Credit: NASA

 

[chucky2]

I'll be honest...I don't see much there...