Climate Change Is Harming U.S. Economy report says

[shira]

“Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of ‘Global Warming,’ ‘Climate Change,’ ‘Climate Disruption,’ or whatever their marketing specialists call it today,” they continued.

“This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes,” the skeptics wrote. “As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/skeptical-scientists-debunk-white-house-global-warming-report/

Why would anyone who approaches this topic with a degree of rigor take seriously the assertions in a non-peer-reviewed statement by a group of non-climate scientists? Would you take seriously what an economist had to say about cosmology or what a climate scientist had to say about Evolution?

Laughable.

 

[fskimospy]

“Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of ‘Global Warming,’ ‘Climate Change,’ ‘Climate Disruption,’ or whatever their marketing specialists call it today,” they continued.

“This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes,” the skeptics wrote. “As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/skeptical-scientists-debunk-white-house-global-warming-report/

You're right. I don't know why people don't take a non-peer reviewed publication that carries the esteemed signature of a TV weatherman/community college professor more seriously.

You've been duped again.

 

[Paratus]

How much is the energy imbalance and how is it being measured?
How much does the temperature increase per CO2 increase?
The temperature has increased?

Why the talk of heat hiding in the oceans if the temperatures have actually increased in the recent years with accelerating CO2 emissions?

.8W/m^2 according to NASA. (~100,000GW of Power)

http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php

The absorption of outgoing thermal infrared by carbon dioxide means that Earth still absorbs about 70 percent of the incoming solar energy, but an equivalent amount of heat is no longer leaving. The exact amount of the energy imbalance is very hard to measure, but it appears to be a little over 0.8 watts per square meter. The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming.
When a forcing like increasing greenhouse gas concentrations bumps the energy budget out of balance, it doesn’t change the global average surface temperature instantaneously. It may take years or even decades for the full impact of a forcing to be felt. This lag between when an imbalance occurs and when the impact on surface temperature becomes fully apparent is mostly because of the immense heat capacity of the global ocean. The heat capacity of the oceans gives the climate a thermal inertia that can make surface warming or cooling more gradual, but it can’t stop a change from occurring.
The changes we have seen in the climate so far are only part of the full response we can expect from the current energy imbalance, caused only by the greenhouse gases we have released so far. Global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 and 0.9 degrees Celsius in the past century, and it will likely rise at least 0.6 degrees in response to the existing energy imbalance.

 

[fskimospy]

I saw this in reddit and it seemed appropriate for this thread:

 

[Thebobo]

Rush says 5 and owls do not exist.

 

[Paratus]

I saw this in reddit and it seemed appropriate for this thread:

Oh sure 15 is greater than 5 for small values of 5 but you really expect me to believe some liberal Harry Potter devotee that these "owl birds" really exist?

I mean really, the lame street media has obviously created this myth by poorly
CGI'ing these "birds" for the faithful. :jonstewart:

 

[michal1980]

Why would anyone who approaches this topic with a degree of rigor take seriously the assertions in a non-peer-reviewed statement by a group of non-climate scientists? Would you take seriously what an economist had to say about cosmology or what a climate scientist had to say about Evolution?

Laughable.

so we should stop listening to politicians aka Al gore on the subject.

 

[brycejones]

so we should stop listening to politicians aka Al gore on the subject.

Depends are they basing their statements on peer reviewed research aka science or just made up shit?

 

[GaiaHunter]

.8W/m^2 according to NASA. (~100,000GW of Power)

http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php

And it is being measured by CERES.

CERES is precise to 4W/m^2.
The measure is in 0.8W/m^2 or an order of magnitude lower.

Not only that, the raw data from CERES doesn't show any imbalance of power. Only the "corrected data" based on ARGO data shows that.

And ARGO is a little more than a joke.

"The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming."

See, inferred.

And of course the sea level rise itself is based on the correction for the elevation of the continents due to the loss of snow/ice that existed during the Ice Age, which leads to tidal gauges reading no change or even a lowering of the sea level but then after "corrected" our coasts are being submerged by "the corrected sea rise".

Which is very cool how we know what the mass of ice/snow that melted away from the continents to the oceans during the end of the last ice age but we can't actually measure the ice that exists today.

 

[Paratus]

And it is being measured by CERES.

CERES is precise to 4W/m^2.
The measure is in 0.8W/m^2 or an order of magnitude lower.

Not only that, the raw data from CERES doesn't show any imbalance of power. Only the "corrected data" based on ARGO data shows that.

And ARGO is a little more than a joke.

"The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming."

See, inferred.

And of course the sea level rise itself is based on the correction for the elevation of the continents due to the loss of snow/ice that existed during the Ice Age, which leads to tidal gauges reading no change or even a lowering of the sea level but then after "corrected" our coasts are being submerged by "the corrected sea rise".

Which is very cool how we know what the mass of ice/snow that melted away from the continents to the oceans during the end of the last ice age but we can't actually measure the ice that exists today.

Sea, land, and air temperatures are rising. Or are you straight up denying that the climate is changing, at all?

If you deny that you are a global conspiracy theorist and basically I can ignore you like Stewox.

If you don't deny the temperature change, but deny the energy imbalance you have no clue about basic thermodynamics or heat-mass transfer and believe in perpetual motion and can be ignored.

So you want to clarify your position or should I put you on ignore. Doesn't bother me either way.

 

[Paratus]

..

 

[GaiaHunter]

Sea, land, and air temperatures are rising. Or are you straight up denying that the climate is changing, at all?

If you deny that you are a global conspiracy theorist and basically I can ignore you like Stewox.

If you don't deny the temperature change, but deny the energy imbalance you have no clue about basic thermodynamics or heat-mass transfer and believe in perpetual motion and can be ignored.

So you want to clarify your position or should I put you on ignore. Doesn't bother me either way.

Climate has been changing all the time.

Is this showing increasing temperature?

Temperatures have increased in the last 150 years (and in the first 100 years of that temperature increase man made CO2 COULD NOT have been the responsible), but that isn't the debate.
The debate is that temperatures increased because of CO2 released by human emissions.

That is why those graphs up there, showing no temperature increase, fit fine with natural variability, including several mechanisms like cloud cover and ocean cycles but not CAGW.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I saw this in reddit and it seemed appropriate for this thread:

In the 1800s the consensus used the following.

 

[fskimospy]

I do enjoy it when climate change deniers seamlessly shift between saying 'science doesn't say that!' to 'well you can't trust what scientists say anyway'. The arguments may shift, but their conclusion is always the same.

Can a scientific consensus be wrong? Sure. Putting aside the fact that science then and science now are very different things (in part thanks to Mr. Darwin!) the scientific consensus is right much more often than it is wrong, especially for things such as AGW that are backed by such overwhelming evidence.

 

[Paratus]

Climate has been changing all the time.

Is this showing increasing temperature?

Temperatures have increased in the last 150 years (and in the first 100 years of that temperature increase man made CO2 COULD NOT have been the responsible), but that isn't the debate.
The debate is that temperatures increased because of CO2 released by human emissions.

That is why those graphs up there, showing no temperature increase, fit fine with natural variability, including several mechanisms like cloud cover and ocean cycles but not CAGW.

Why are you only showing 10 years of data?

You do realize solar output was down during that time right and ocean temperatures were still warming and by your own graphs air temperature did not fall?

Oh and please provide proof that CO2 could not cause an increase in temperature in the first 100 years. I am unaware of any chemical changes that have occurred in CO2 in the last 50 years other than concentration.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Can a scientific consensus be wrong? Sure. Putting aside the fact that science then and science now are very different things (in part thanks to Mr. Darwin!) the scientific consensus is right much more often than it is wrong, especially for things such as AGW that are backed by such overwhelming evidence.

Then no reason for all the hostility, the name calling, trying to avoid an opposite view to access the media and have a debate.

If there is such overwhelming evidence, it is clear than in a debate people opposing it will be uncovered as fools.

Except, when I listen to the rare occasions, when indisputably accomplished scientists that have a view opposite to CAGW (or at least don't see it as a cause to such alarmism) debate or present their views, their views and their arguments aren't those from fools.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Why are you only showing 10 years of data?

You do realize solar output was down during that time right and ocean temperatures were still warming and by your own graphs air temperature did not fall?

Oh and please provide proof that CO2 could not cause an increase in temperature in the first 100 years. I am unaware of any chemical changes that have occurred in CO2 in the last 50 years other than concentration.

Ocean temperatures data sets are far from from being reliable or to extend to the past. The best we have is Argo, that started in 2005. The coverage is quite small, there is load of variability of the buoys position and the papers I've seen talking about ocean temperature increase are talking about temperature rise of 0.01ºC.

It is obvious why man made CO2 could have not be the responsible for the temperature rise for the first 100 years of the 150 years of temperature rise.

Because the human emissions were insignificant and the CO2 concentration was the so called natural level.

By the way I'm showing 14 years.

How about 17 years?

Full data set.

At worst, at this rate, in 100 years the temperature will have increased by 1ºC.

Of course if the sun is actually dimming, and the CO2 is so potent at increasing the temperature, we might wish to increase its emissions further, because one thing is for sure, cold is quite bad.

 

[Jaskalas]

Climate has been changing all the time.

Is this showing increasing temperature?

You need to explain why the pause is significant. They'll attempt to deny it even exists by using longer trends and/or Ocean Heat Content (OHC), which itself is a joke. ARGO has only been collecting data for ~11 years. Our oceans have proven cycles of 50-60 years.

Temperatures have increased in the last 150 years (and in the first 100 years of that temperature increase man made CO2 COULD NOT have been the responsible), but that isn't the debate.
The debate is that temperatures increased because of CO2 released by human emissions.

The long term temperature record should be the debate, as it demonstrates and lines up with the PDO and AMO. It proves natural variability through 1900-1940s which then repeats itself 1950-1990s.

The only difference at all, for the two cycles we have recorded, is there's no apparent cooling in the record. So logically each successive cycle is warmer than the previous. There's no telling when that will change.

Somewhere in that mess you're supposed to disern a CO2 signal. A warming trend beyond the natural cycles. If take the natural warming of the 30s-40s and remove it from the record, then remove that same natural value from the 80s-90s, you end up with a very minor increase. Which leads me to believe the paper with 0.3C per doubling.

 

[Paratus]

Ocean temperatures data sets are far from from being reliable or to extend to the past. The best we have is Argo, that started in 2005. The coverage is quite small, there is load of variability of the buoys position and the papers I've seen talking about ocean temperature increase are talking about temperature rise of 0.01ºC.

It is obvious why man made CO2 could have not be the responsible for the temperature rise for the first 100 years of the 150 years of temperature rise.

Because the human emissions were insignificant and the CO2 concentration was the so called natural level.

Yup natural level. Huh uh!

I think I'm done here.

 

[fskimospy]

Then no reason for all the hostility, the name calling, trying to avoid an opposite view to access the media and have a debate.

If there is such overwhelming evidence, it is clear than in a debate people opposing it will be uncovered as fools.

What's odd is that I also have a complaint about how climate change deniers are treated in the media. In fact, it was a big part of John Oliver's piece. Far from being denied access to the media, because many media outlets like a debate and/or a fight, they frequently present the issue as a 'he said, she said', one on one debate format. While this might make for good TV, it obscures the fact that one side is arguing the overwhelming scientific consensus backed by thousands of works and millions of man hours, and the other represents a small minority. To your Darwin example, it actually reminds me of how TV also treats creationists, frequently giving them equal time to scientists who accept evolution.

Except, when I listen to the rare occasions, when indisputably accomplished scientists that have a view opposite to CAGW (or at least don't see it as a cause to such alarmism) debate or present their views, their views and their arguments aren't those from fools.

I'm guessing that you frequently hear their views in formats where they are insulated from scientific critique by professionals.

 

[shira]

Except, when I listen to the rare occasions, when indisputably accomplished scientists that have a view opposite to CAGW (or at least don't see it as a cause to such alarmism) debate or present their views, their views and their arguments aren't those from fools.

I'm guessing that you frequently hear their views in formats where they are insulated from scientific critique by professionals.

And I'm guessing that the "indisputably accomplished scientists" are usually not actively-researching climatologists. It always looks impressive when a PhD in some physical science makes dissenting comments. But unless that person is a practicing climatologist whose formal statements are subject to or are a part of the peer review process, their "opinions" are essentially worthless.

 

[piasabird]

The falling value of the Dollar is impacting the Economy the most. Nobody can even define global warming.

 

[GaiaHunter]

And I'm guessing that the "indisputably accomplished scientists" are usually not actively-researching climatologists. It always looks impressive when a PhD in some physical science makes dissenting comments. But unless that person is a practicing climatologist whose formal statements are subject to or are a part of the peer review process, their "opinions" are essentially worthless.

I've heard atmospheric physicists, geophysical scientists, meteorologists and climatologists.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I'm guessing that you frequently hear their views in formats where they are insulated from scientific critique by professionals.

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

 

[fskimospy]

The falling value of the Dollar is impacting the Economy the most. Nobody can even define global warming.

Can you explain this? You realize a weaker dollar would probably help our economy at the moment, right? It would improve our exports.