Slashdot Mirror
Forecasting the Economic Impact of a Changing Climate (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Academic research has been busily trying to pin down how a changing climate will affect our planet over the long- and short-term. But a new study in the journal Nature attempts to forecast not the changes in weather, but the changes in our economy as a result of climate change. "The study (abstract) finds that climate change can be expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23 percent by the year 2100. This study is important because it solves a problem that has existed in prior models of climate change effects on economics: discrepancies between macro and micro level observations." Notably, the paper provides evidence that regional economies can be linked to global climate effects. "This modeling allowed them to examine whether country-specific deviations from growth trends were related to country-specific differences in temperature and precipitation trends, while accounting for any global shifts that would be experienced to affect all countries."
Per the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, in war, someone always turns a profit. Also, in peace, someone always turns a profit.
A shifting wind (if you'll pardon the turn of phrase) will always result in profit for someone.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
It's time a climate superPAC be formed to create an NRA-like political entity with teeth. Science, math, and logic just don't work on the dumb and the greedy. You gotta bribe politicians with campaign money (or lack of) to get action in our society. That's just the ugly truth.
The other side will say the existence of a superPAC is evidence of political motivation over science, but they say that anyhow now. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
Table-ized A.I.
>> climate change can be expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23 percent by the year 2100
OK, I can see my taxes easily going up 23% in the next 2100, but how else will my income be reduced?
I can't forecast my next coin toss either, doesn't mean I can't make long term predictions about coin tosses.
ExonMobil believes it. In fact they have believed it since the 1980s. We have proof. Thats why they are now facing criminal charges in California for lying to the public when we have conclusive proof that their internal documents contradicted their public statements. In fact they not only believe it, they are counting on it. When they first started planning arctic drillimg they counted on global warming to reduce the arctic ice and make the arctic oil cheaper to reach first.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Al Gore is not a scientist.
Smart people don't get climate news from non-experts any more than you should get legal advice from a non-lawyer.
A certain media wing cites Mr. Gore often to score political and/or vendetta points, but a decent news organization would ignore him for climate prediction and analysis.
Table-ized A.I.
ExonMobil's internal memos specifically cite global warming caused by burning fossil fuels as the key to making arctic drilling profitable.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Pretty tired of hearing the term 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming'. I am pretty sure the correct term is 'Global Poisoning'. With all the pollutants we have been injecting into the environment for the past 600 years, and all the wars and human induced destruction it seems pretty cowardly to use those terms. It is time to take responsibility for mankind's stupidity and greed and clean this shithole up.
I've always wanted to ask how robust major city seaports are in relation to climate change and sea level rise. If big cargo ships can't effectively dock at ports that are partially underwater, or the city itself is becoming flooded, that will cause commerce to come to a screeching halt. When are the seaports expected to become compromised? Sorry, this is a dupe, I posted anonymously accidentally and I wanted to get my name on this
How can one ignore one the greatest propaganda artists on the side that everyone keeps pointing to, until it becomes an Inconvenient Truth?
Here's the part that gets me. People love to spout off the incredible claims this guy makes, and then like a defunct prophet, discards him until it is convenient to call upon his name again.
This isn't science, it is religion. Pure Religion. They use scientific sounding terms and make bold predictions that have failed repeatedly, only to have the next round of prophets waiting in the wings with a better interpretation of their holy book!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Even if the correlations that the paper identifies are actually meaningful, they in no way support that conclusion. The relationship between temperature and economic productivity the paper finds only exists after normalizing for "cultural difference", "contemporaneous shocks", "country-specific trends in growth rates", and "non-linear effects of temperature and rainfall". That is, the "23 percent estimate" only applies if all these factors remain unchanged for a century and if there is no migration in response to climate change. Those assumptions are, of course, utterly bogus.
Of course, the correlations are likely not even related to causation, but simply reflect historical accidents and the preferences of European settlers and the agricultural technologies they developed. If other cultures had become globally dominant, or if you had done the same analysis at different points in human history, you would have reached different conclusions.
In addition, even if all the assumptions of the paper were satisfied (they are not) and even if the 23 percent estimate was well-justified (it is not), then from a policy point of view, the comparison that you need to make is not climate change vs. no climate change, it is climate change vs climate change mitigation, and climate change mitigation itself has a profound negative effect on these normalizing variables.
I'm sure I saw an article just last week where analysis of published economics papers revealed a prediction hit ratio of barely past 50%.
So it's just pseudo-science rambling.
So we have a very abstracted estimate of future economics that is derived from already abstracted estimated models of temperature. Sounds compelling...
According the IPCC's 5th assessment report in Chapter 9 models have problems with the TOA energy balance. Specifically if you look in Box 9.1 they say:
maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent
the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters
in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system
They follow up with a half dozen citations verifying this.
Read that closely because it is telling. Read the cited articles, and it's even more so. Climate models still can NOT predict TOA energy imbalance. To even get hindcasts correct, requires manual corrections to unknown or poorly understood processes like clouds. Let me observe that long term climate change driven by the greenhouse effect works ENTIRELY through the TOA energy imbalance and trapping more or less energy as gas concentrations change.
Forgive me if I believe we lack sufficient evidence and understanding to justify carbon taxations and other economic controls to try and rectify something we still can't even quantify,
If you want to see how well any given group or individual can predict events or outcomes 100 years into the future, just go 100 years into the past and ask yourself if anyone was predicting a future that looked even remotely like the one that actually happened.
Here is a hint, the answer is always "no".
And even when a lucky prognosticator does get occasionally get something right, it's usually either something pretty obvious or they got its context completely wrong. For example, a lot of idiots cite the Star Trek communicators as a "prediction" of modern cellphones. But this is way off:
1) The communicators used in Star Trek were more akin to military walkie-talkies, which had been in use for some time by the 1960's, than cellphones.
2) They were only used by the military. There is no evidence that civilians carried them.
3) They were short range. You couldn't use a communicator to just "call" someone anywhere.
4) Like walkies-talkie transmissions, communicator transmissions were apparently overheard by everyone (it's why Kirk always had to announce who he was and who he was talking to at the beginning of each communication). There is no evidence of characters making actual private one-to-one "calls" with communicators.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
African Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Physical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Meteorological Society
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
InterAcademy Council as the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
United States National Research Council
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
American Society of Agronomy (ASA),
Crop Science Society of America (CSSA),
Soil Science Society of America (SSSA)
Well, the list goes on and on... It would be much easier to list dissenting organizations: NONE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's an allegory for edge cases.
Very much depends on the individual port. In some cases sea level rises are actually a good thing because they could increase the height of the docks as required in order to handle ships with larger displacements and/or operate with longer sailing times due to a reduced impact from low tides. Others will need major civils work to prevent extensive flooding of adjacent facilities, so depending on the degree of the sea level rise it might not be economical to try and keep the port in operation compared to rerouting goods elsewhere and allowing the lower lying areas to flood with the tides. Historically, ports have moved around all the time; there are plenty of ancient ports that are now either completely submerged or silted up due to changing conditions; new ports are constructed near by, the cargoes get rerouted, and commerce goes on.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
note that's a capital 'G' not a post-Halloween costume idea.
The angry white male vote so hates everything about their lives and the social changes over the last 50 years that destruction of civil society is a feature not a bug. Just reference the haughty faux engineer comments that will flood this comment thread about the "actual truth", because we still need to fiddle the numbers for a while or the hippies and chicks who play video games and SJWs will win. DON'T JUST DO SOMETHING, STAND THERE! Along with the pointy haired science types and libtard media. Don't give an inch fat freedom fighters. Get out to the intellectual equivalent of the Bundy ranch and point guns at everyone, secure in the fact that as white males law enforcement will make every effort not to shoot you.
Yeah I'm an old angry white male as well. But I do too much math to let politics cloud my judgement and have changed my opinions rightward? on many topics over the decades.
The link to TAFA to RTFA is http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
Essentially they took the 'productivity' of countries, mapped them against average temperature, and then turned it around making that predictive. Utter nonsense.
According to their method, since the most productive industrial countries are all temperate, then warming will turn Germany economically into Italy and Italy into, I guess, Somalia?
Sure, THAT is likely to happen. How is this substantially different from the "warmer latitudes evolve lazier people" meme from the early 20th century? I thought we'd moved on from deterministic racism like that, or is it ok as long as it's cloaked in Global Warming fear?
Any purported 'economic' analysis of warming that doesn't see ANY mitigatory factors is more religion than science. To wit:
- even warming-convinced climatologists admit that the impact of warming on rainfall patterns is nearly impossible to anticipate. Warming will most certainly increase the evaporate take-up into the atmosphere from the 70%+ surface that's water, and that water has to fall somewhere.
- warming will shift optimal growing belts toward the poles, and vegetation growth has a warmth-bias; that is, there is a temperature floor for farming, but (as long as there's adequate water) not really a ceiling. So contraction of the too-cold biomes around the poles will net-increase the arable productive farmland on earth (not that we're actually short of food today anyway, but that's another point). Plants prefer warmth, and more CO2 is also beneficial for them. Not to mention that optimal-agri-zones will shift poleward, into 'fresh' farmland that wasn't previously as intensively farmed.
- on a more human scale, melting will open the arctic to regular transit, significantly reducing shipping costs from E Asia to Europe and all but obviating the Panama Canal chokepoint, this will likely cut transport costs for a host of goods.
I'm NOT saying that warming won't be a net-bad; inundation will badly affect a humanity that largely sited its preferable living places along coasts. (Of course, given a long enough timeframe they were doomed anyway.) But I see nothing in that study that recognizes or attempts to calculate *any* beneficial countereffects of warming. To deny that there will be *some* is at best histrionics, at worst simple mendacity.
-Styopa
Agreed. It's sciency not science, and could easily be categorized as a religion.
Yes but that's not a climate/energy policy problem.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Thats why they are now facing criminal charges in California for lying to the public when we have conclusive proof that their internal documents contradicted their public statements.
Good Lord!!!!
Where will we end up, if the politicians ever got a hold of Exxon's "lying to the public" technology?!?
Thank you, Jesus, that we are nipping this in the bud by strongly enforcing the "it's illegal to lie to the public" laws already on the books!
CAGW extremists are well known to lie consistently on wikipedia. Just like Cook's 97% consensus, they include anyone and anything that mentions humans and climate.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html
3) They were short range. You couldn't use a communicator to just "call" someone anywhere.
"Beam me up, Scotty" ...it could call a space ship in orbit, wouldn't that be on par with a satellite phone with similar line of sight problems? It's not like there are cell phone towers on an alien planet.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
While you are at it, fix the brush fires from lightning in Africa, which account for about 26.3% of annual CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.
Even if that were true, where do you think the brush came from? Digging carbon out of the ground and burning it is going to have a different net effect than extracting carbon from the atmosphere into a plant and releasing it back into the atmosphere.
You realize the U.S. is ~4.5% of the population... right?
Even if we went completely arboreal, and genetically engineered our children to have green skin and photosynthesize, it really wouldn't change the vector, regardless of which side you are on, and which way you think it points.
Fix the problems in China and India first. While you are at it, fix the brush fires from lightning in Africa, which account for about 26.3% of annual CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.
Bushfires are part of the natural carbon cycle, that carbon was all already in the biosphere, and will become a part of vegetative matter again when the plants regrow. The CO2 the US produces is mostly from fossil fuels, which are not currently part of the active carbon cycle, unless you count time on long geological scales. Furthermore, the US is ~17% of global output. The disparity between population size and current pollution output is worrying, not just because of the magnitude, but moreso because others, like China, will seek to attain the same lifestyle. If China overnight became as large a per capita CO2 emitter as the US, global output would increase by around 30%. (Based on rough figures found by googling, page I saw had 2011 data). Given the standard of living in much of India, them aspiring to a carbon based US-level lifestyle would be even worse.
If it becomes that bad, you can just rebuild the dock. Ocean level rise is so slow that it shouldn't be a big problem.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So how much do people expend on cold weather in temperate regions? I doubt it's 25% but it's not trivial. Think about seasonal clothing, transportation, heating and heating infrastructure, insulation, snow removal etc.....
love is just extroverted narcissism
Argument from authority is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.
In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.
In other words, "The literature is not in error, therefore the literature is not in error."
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
True American exceptionalism at its best! Can't someone else do it? You can tell America is a world leader because the government knows how to back down from a problem when another country might disagree in some way.
The "but China pollutes" argument is about the same as a 3 year-old whining that they have to walk when the 18 month old sibling gets to be carried by mommy. If America thinks its a world leader than perhaps we should fucking lead something other than pet wars where we supply ~95% of the "coalition" soldiers. If we put some effort into reducing emissions, China can just steal it fixing the two biggest CO2 polluters in one shot.
And you realize the US accounts for ~15% of yearly gobal emissions and something like 40% of all CO2 emissions since 1970 right?
French Weatherman Fired After Slamming Climate Conference
http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin...
love is just extroverted narcissism
The GP claimed only idiots believed the science. Pointing out that scientiffic experts in every remotely related field deems tge evidence overwhelming is basically the exact opposite of an appeal to authority, especially in this context.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
If we continue to pursue economic growth as a goal they will all increase. Economic growth is only possible if there is inflation as Adam Smith proved 300 years ago.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
What would you call Al Gore, if not Propagandist? False Prophet?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I know right, its not like 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have come in the past 10 years. Only 7 of 10 have been in the past 10 years, to get the other two you'd have to go back a full 13 years ago! Clearly those predicting warming have failed because they underestimated how much everyone likes to split hairs.
natural warming doesn't happen on such a short time-scale.
It most certainly does.
Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times, and may have created difficulties or opportunities (e.g., the possibility of crossing exposed land bridges, before sea level could rise)
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projec...
it's in my head
It's already too late to do anything. Millions of years ago, the Earth was covered by forests. The trees died, as plants and animals do, and this was before mushrooms. If a tree falls in the forest, do mushrooms eat it? These days, yeah, but back then, no. So millions of years ago a lot of plant material turned into coal. We've dug up almost half of it and burned it. All that CO2, sequestered for hundreds of millions of years, has been released into the atmosphere. It took literally millions of years for all that CO2 to be sequestered, and we've released it in 150 years. No, there's no going back. Get used to it.
is to ask is what is magical about CO2 levels at 350ppm when in Earth's past CO2 has been much higher and life flourished?
You would have to duck to miss that. Even you
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Plants LOVE CO2. If you take any modern plant and put it in a CO2 rich environment, it'll grow faster. Ask any pot grower.
Plants evolved when there was more CO2 in the atmosphere than now. We're going back to that era, because we've burned all the coal and oil that was laid down over millions of years back then. LISTEN: it took millions of years for that CO2 to be removed from the air, and we've put it all back in 100 years. THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES. It's too late to do anything. Politics be damned. Unless we start removing CO2 from the air (which costs money nobody wants to pay) costal cities will be flooded, coral reefs will die, and it'll take MANY THOUSANDS of years for life to recover. This is just fact. You already screwed us, thanks.
Those "contingencies" never stay in the form of contingencies but become regulations regardless of the lack of the predefined happenings.
Wow, impressive. You can really turn a phrase.
Oh wait, something about it looks familiar.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Two wrongs don't make a right. We should do our part even if others flake. Otherwise, nobody does anything because they use the bad apples as an excuse to slack off. That's 2nd-grader logic.
We could use threats of tariffs to encourage other countries to clean up their act, but that's also politically difficult to pull off. Enough of our voters and/or lobbyists/bribers have to be interested before anything like that is done in the USA, which brings us back to the original topic.
Table-ized A.I.
(should be soon)
Well, that's the thing. They're predicting moderate effects by the end of the century. That's plenty of time to relocate any agriculture you need to relocate and upgrade any cities you need to upgrade against sea level rise.
So you think the USA should be a follower and not a leader?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Always? Tripe. Given that they didn't all predict the same thing at least some of them would have been close.
Now it might be down to pure dumb luck, and of course the difficult part would be - without hindsight - to work out which.
Still, your assertion that ALL predictions are wrong is a bag of knackers.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This is chilling http://dailycaller.com/2015/09... These idiots are no better than the 16th century Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith! Heaven forbid anyone question the party doctrine!
There is not significant enough climate change to worry about at this time according to the data. We do have more significant things to worry about that are far more likely to chew us up in this century. And what does this have to do with slashdot anyway?
what number they come up with, it'll still be less than the losses of the 'content industry' will report due to IP theft, just for what has been stolen from them this week.
So far, I think we are up to owing them 3 solar systems, each with a minimum of 3 solid-platinum planets.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Normal seaport docks today adjust using floats for tidal changes with as much as 30-40 foot differences between low and high tide in some places. Any "climate change" adjustments to sea level will be lost in the noise.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
He's become more of a tool for propagandists than a propagandist himself. I agree his documentaries have spin, but if a politician produced something that did NOT have spin, I would be completely shocked. (It would be like a doctor with clear handwriting. I'd become suspicious.)
The bottom line is don't get your news from politicians on either side of any issue. Follow that guideline and Gore would and should be a non-factor in the broader debate.
Table-ized A.I.
At some point, a powerful country will be willing to go to war to halt carbon emissions. If you do the game theory math, if you don't bring down greenhouse emissions, the earth will eventually overheat and mass death will occur. If this is the outcome, there isn't any reason not to start blowing up everyone and everything emitting greenhouse gas. Either everyone dies, or you start dishing out death and destruction, and you might survive the resulting war(s). It's a pretty cold blooded calculus.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Still, your assertion that ALL predictions are wrong is a bag of knackers.
Sure, occasionally people get little things right. But there are VERY few predictions of any real significance, and certainly nothing systematic. Sure, some wanker in 1915 may have made small predictions that were based on things they already knew about ("There will be more automobiles in the future" or "They will still use dollars" or "They will have better aircraft" etc.), or obvious ("They will still elect a President" or "Congress will still bicker"). and occasionally some writer would get lucky and predict one small thing, though he might get a ton of other stuff wrong.
But you aren't going to find any economist in 1915 saying "in 2015, the economy will be based on a growing service sector as manufacturing declines, with a strong focus on the online technology sector." They would have been way more likely to think things like the gold standard vs. free silver issue or railroad robber baron controversy would still be having some huge impact 100 years later. And they would have been completely oblivious to the effects of two world wars on Europe, or the Cold War, or the advent of the internet economy, etc.
Predicting what the economy will look like in 2100 is beyond ridiculous. There are WAY too many unknown factors to even begin to hazard an educated guess at that. One war, or one technological development, or one social movement could change things drastically in ways you could never imagine and completely negate all of your contemporary concerns.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
23% sounds like a lot, but relative to the economic growth that will occur in the same period, it is tiny:
What is needed is to compare the economic impact of climate change to the economic impact of *stopping* climate change (i.e. less energy usage=less GDP). If the latter is bigger, we should just let climate change happen. (Or more precisely, we should look at each climate change intervention and see if its benefits outweigh its costs. This likely means that government-funded renewable energy R&D is justified, while emissions caps are not.)
Leftist Caused Climate Hysteria is a HOAX to Control and Steal from YOU!! Cooked up data, the same models and computers running into the future that can't predict the actual weather more than 3 days out is all these idiots have. And we are supposed to change our lives based on this? Just this week NASA admitted that the south pole ice is fine and has been for at least 10 years. I would hope that the people of Slashdot would be intelligent enough to NOT fall for this garbage that is more akin to a religion than actual science.
The US is the ONLY country which has reduced their Co2 emissions.
Company 2 emissions? Joint 2 (wouldn't that be redundant?) emissions?
So, being the biggest, loudest most outspoken "Global Warming" alarmist means nothing to you? Or you just saying that because he has said provably wrong predictions in the past?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Thank FSM that you're the FP, the comments above you are chock full of stupid.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Just how does one estimate the losses of border wars caused by global warming? And how about the secondary effects when some people suffering economic losses from global warming gravitate to crime, drugs or alcohol. Compound that with damage to fisheries such as death of coral reefs and factors killing off fish. In south Florida we now have a lion fish invasion which will probably impact tourism to some degree which is traced to global warming. Slightly warmer seas caused lion fish to thrive. There are so many variables that i doubt that the real economic losses can be measured even when they actually happen. The cattle industry has been severely afflicted in the western states by warming. Now flooding caused by warming makes the cattle feed expensive so we already know we are five years or more into expensive beef even if warming vanished today. In California there are large areas filled with high end homes that only an idiot would buy as they are so dry that one spark can trigger worse fires than ever before seen in America. Meanwhile our military is already spending money trying to brace for conflicts caused by global warming. We are already in a horrid mess.
He's a geek with political muscle, as was Maggie Thatcher and many of the US "founding fathers".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Definition: Shill Chill
The attempt by paid accomplices of the fossil fuel industry to freeze out discussion and cool concerns about global warming due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Their income is going to go down by 23% ! And that of their robo-industrial-complex-baron owners I suppose.
The actual people, most of them, won't have to worry about this, because their income-earning jobs will long have been replaced by automation.
I wonder what the effect of bands of neo-luddite anarchists, roving across the flooded or parched lands in angry desperation, will be on the global economy.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Whatever spouting of denialist delusions gets you through your massively over-consuming day without crushing guilt and self-loathing...
God forbid we might have to actually lift a finger and adjust something in our lives.
Aye there's the rub. To accept the truth and have to shift one's butt by a few centimetres uncomfortably.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
1. Petroleum based Fertilizer stocks will go through the roof (combating desertification and creating farmland to replace the previously above-ground farmland)
2. No more batshit crazy North Korea issues, now it's 70% underwater.
3. The change in weather patterns will make some places a whole lot more pleasant. Greenland for instance...is actually turning green as we speak.
4. The inevitable Nuclear winter should really take the edge off of this whole 'global warming' thing.
XD One massive conspiracy isn't it.
So, the long term forecast is that it will be worse, the same or better than it is now. Got it.
The fact that you can make a prediction that over the long-term, a coin toss will be a 50/50 proposition means absolutely nothing to predicting a future economic state.
Just the other day, I read an article, saying OPPS....we were wrong! Originally, "scientist" were in a panic. Reflective sunlight was reduced coming off ice shelves in Greenland or somewhere around there. "Scientist" were CONVINCED that burning of "fossil fuels" caused soot & dust, to be deposited on the ice, reducing the amount of light reflected. After finding that there isn't any ice melting, these same "scientist" have found that the error in the readings were due to decaying sensors on the satellite, that had NOT been calibrated/checked in a long time.
Or, you can look at the IPCC's predictions of today from 20 years ago and see just how shaky a foundation these predictions are built on top of.
So you think the USA should be a follower and not a leader?
Environmental policy in the U.S. is generally led by California, and the rest of the nation adopts their standards.
So do I think they should lead the way by not using natural gas to produce almost 50% (49.3%) of their electricity? Yeah, I think it'd be *great* if they'd get off their asses and build more nuclear plants, and use the night reduction on load to desalinate water for the Southern Californians who insist on living in a freaking desert, and growing food there for export to other countries.
And do I think they should use nuclear, rather than burning coal and importing electricity from coal generators in other state for another 28% of their electricity? You betcha.
Source for energy production by resource type: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/el...
But since California is our leader, and they are sitting on their hands instead of leading... meh. Let the other countries who are *vastly* ramping up their use of fossil fuels to achieve a higher standing of living for their people (China, India) take the lead, if they want to.
I'm OK with them leading, as long as *someone* does it. The U.S. certainly isn't doing it.
Life also flourishes in Chernobyl, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'd be nice to live there.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The way you refute a peer-reviewed study is with better peer-reviewed studies. A spam list of unreviewed opinions all written by the same handful of dissenters refutes nothing. Provide better data, or take your unfounded opinions and baseless accusations elsewhere.
The way you confirm a peer-reviewed study is with more peer-reviewed studies, conducted independently and using different lines of evidence, to see if they arrive at similar results. Like this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one, to cite a few.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
So many issues associated with the impact of global climate change, that forecasting the economic impact, sort of makes not sense. The real question will be the socio-political impact based upon the consequences and the impact on the lives of people living in at risk locations either through flooding or adverse changes in localised weather patterns. We are talking something like a billion people being severely affected.
So a billion people going nuts and reacting violently, how will that impact the economy, well pretty much fuck it up into non-existence. Of course there is the idea of richer nations going nuts and seeking to limit population via war, so a sort of crazy war genocide economy exist and flourishes in it's own sick way. So how severe will the socio-political impact be and what steps will be taken out to prepare for the disruptions ahead to limit the negative impact upon humanity as a whole, as it will affect everyone.
Trying to imagine that our current socio-political structure will just keep on stumbling through this crisis with no real change, the rich continuing to live to extreme excess and the shrinking middle class will just have to get used to less a whole lot less or else, is really naive. This being the model they are using to gauge the economic impact, I doubt that model, the current model will survive.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
And yet, if you are worried about lowering co2, the smart money would be to focus on either the largest, which is china with 33-43% , or better yet, ALL nations. In addition, since co2 comes mostly from business and gov choices and uses, and not directly from ppl, it makes far more sense to normalize based on emissions / GDP, not per capita.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And 100% of those inventions relied on inventions from other countries. You are arguing like an 8-year-old.
Citation required. Really. Show that not all predictions are wrong. Unless the prediction is something really stupid. Like we will have more cars/planes/washing machines. Your going to come up empty on anything like economics or politics. And don't' forget the requirement of 100 years.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
That is always a problem when there is a political bias in what predictions to pick out of the sea of possible ones.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
And yet, if you are worried about lowering co2, the smart money would be to focus on either the largest, which is china with 33-43% , or better yet, ALL nations. In addition, since co2 comes mostly from business and gov choices and uses, and not directly from ppl, it makes far more sense to normalize based on emissions / GDP, not per capita.
27% according to what I read, not 43%. I'm sure they are producing more now than 4 years ago, although I also know that China's past emissions have been over-estimated due to the fact that the coal mined there is of a poorer quality than average. On the subject of how to normalize measurement of emissions, doing it by GDP could be useful for some purposes, but most certainly not for any attempt at limiting emissions. When GPD/capita is so closely tied to CO2/capita, attempting to limit emissions based on GDP is essentially limiting people's right to make money based on how much money they make.
Indicating there is no shame whatsoever in the quest for research funding and the quest for political power.
For the demographic that can't be scared by the 'war on terror', or swayed by the 'war on drugs', we brought you the 'war on climate change'.
And for those who aren't scared by any of those, well, scare them where it hurts ... the pocketbook.
YES! Climate change will make you POOR!!! Are you scared now?
Climate change proponents have shown their true colours.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
But since California is our leader, and they are sitting on their hands instead of leading... meh. Let the other countries who are *vastly* ramping up their use of fossil fuels to achieve a higher standing of living for their people (China, India) take the lead, if they want to.
According to Climate Action Tracker, Bhutan is leading the way. Also, China, India, the EU and Mexico are all doing a better job at emission reduction than the United States.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I know right, its not like 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have come in the past 10 years. Only 7 of 10 have been in the past 10 years, to get the other two you'd have to go back a full 13 years ago! Clearly those predicting warming have failed because they underestimated how much everyone likes to split hairs.
Worse still, the 100 warmest years on record ALL occur after the industrial revolution. That's right,100% of the top 100 warm years on record are all due to global wa.....
Oh, just a second, this just in, the 'record' for temperatures only extends back for 100 years. That's not much of a sample set for analyzing processes like climate that operate over millennia is it?
In fact GP is write in the sense that if you make completely random predictions, some of them will necessarily turn out right. Being always wrong is the same as being always right about things that won't happen and it is impossible without some supernatural powers. Big or small things are no different.
And if you didn't find any economist in 1915 predicting 2015 economy, is is because you didn't look hard enough or because all evidence was destroyed. Of course "online technology" wasn't even a word back then so we need to find a 1915 equivalent. But I would be extremely surprised if no one could pull something as simple as "growing service sector, decline in manufacturing, focus on communication and information" out for their ass.
It is when there is such a statistically significant deviation from long term climate trends gathered from dozens of different methods at a rate never seen outside major global catastrophes while humanity happens to be dumping large amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
Think of it this way. The economy tanked a few times in the past things are generally stable and some variation is ok. Your new bank account has had regular deposits of $100/month for the past year. You haven't made any withdraws but last week you started losing $1000/day after you let vagrants mine your garbage. But its not worth worrying about because the sample set is so small and the economy naturally goes up and down right?
I know its not the perfect analogy of why you should care and you CERTAINLY didn't come here to have your mind changed. I'm just spitting this out so I can refine it and eventually it will be succinct enough to help someone who hasn't though much about it sort through denialist bullshit. Thanks for your services.
Go look at oco2 data. China is producing a LOT more co2 than is acknowledged by them. In particular, they are lying about the amount of coal that they burn.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
On a side note, normalizing on emissions / GDP does not limit their making money. What it does is tie the cost of a good to the very real cost of the pollution that is emitted. For those areas that move to solar, wind, geo-thermal, nukes, etc, they would have little to no tax on goods produced there ( assuming none of parts come from high co2 area ). This rewards them relative to those that will pollute. Take the example of Wyoming vs say California. Any goods, or goods with parts , from wyoming should and would have higher tax than CA. Why? Because currently, majority of their power comes from coal ( though wind is on the rise ).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It is when there is such a statistically significant deviation from long term climate trends gathered from dozens of different methods at a rate never seen outside major global catastrophes while humanity happens to be dumping large amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
Think of it this way...
citations needed.
According to the latest proxy reconstructions by Michael Mann, the hockey stick author that alarmists love, the current 'record' warmth of the last couple decades was matched 2-3 times naturally over the last 2 thousand years. The links there are to his supplementary information page for his actual paper, and the last is to the raw data of his reconstruction right up to the year 2007. Check for yourself that his data finds that around 1000AD, 850AD and 550AD temperatures met or exceeded those since the year 2000AD.
If you want to contradict that record, please give me more than the waving of your hands that "dozens of different methods" show. The only different methods that paint a different picture is if you plot instrumental temperature against the reconstructed temperatures of something like Mann and others work. The part you would miss(and Mann has done this routinely) is noticing that not only is the instrumental record from say 1990-2010 higher than anything in the last 200 years. The instrumental temperatures from 1990-2010 are EQUALLY higher than the proxy record temperatures from 1990-2010!
Where do you guys come from? Are you a miner or rig worker? Whats your goal in this? You really think a rigorous CO2 mitigation scheme is going to fuck everyone when in at least 1/3 of the US solar is already cheaper than coal without subsidies?
The graph and the data sets you linked to all have the biggest numbers at the end. To prove your point next time you may want to find a graph with big numbers in the middle as well instead of closing with "the graph I cited to prove you wrong is wrong because it proves you right so just imagine its wrong in a way that proves you wrong".
matched 2-3 times naturally
Well the linked raw data doesn't support your claim. The first big peak is 594 (it goes from 584-604) at 0.09. There's a warm period from 872-881. The next peak is 970 (from 962-991) at 0.16.
Starting at 1981 (by the data set you recommend), the temperature starts going straight up, exceeding the last peak in 1993 and continuing to exceed it every year thereafter.
He effected a bored affect.
matched 2-3 times naturally
Well the linked raw data doesn't support your claim. The first big peak is 594 (it goes from 584-604) at 0.09. There's a warm period from 872-881. The next peak is 970 (from 962-991) at 0.16.
Starting at 1981 (by the data set you recommend), the temperature starts going straight up, exceeding the last peak in 1993 and continuing to exceed it every year thereafter.
You're right, I was reading things wrong and too quickly.
This really threw me because I swear when looking at the same paper awhile ago and at more length my summary was accurate. Mann's follow up a year later explains the data release more clearly:
For each series, the years 1850-2006 are the PC-filtered instrumental data. That is, the instrumental data but retaining the first 7 PCs, the number that were retained in the 1800-1849 reconstruction step.
From my link up thread it is noted in the link to the raw data:
Data series used in the above plot (1st column is Year, 2nd column is Reconstruction
If you look closer at the labelling of the "above plot", you see that instrumental is all that is plotted from around 1850-1900 onward. This was suggestive so I look closer at the to linked datasets for with and without the 'troublesome' datasets. The temperatures listed from 2007 backwards are virtually identical, ?instrumental?.
I'm gonna look closer to try and confirm, but seems I was misleading in representing the linked graph prior as being entirely from reconstruction. In particular, the EIV graphed reconstructions(Fig 2) in Mann's paper don't match the raw data linked prior from the supplements.
Where do you guys come from? Are you a miner or rig worker? Whats your goal in this? You really think a rigorous CO2 mitigation scheme is going to fuck everyone when in at least 1/3 of the US solar is already cheaper than coal without subsidies?
The graph and the data sets you linked to all have the biggest numbers at the end. To prove your point next time you may want to find a graph with big numbers in the middle as well instead of closing with "the graph I cited to prove you wrong is wrong because it proves you right so just imagine its wrong in a way that proves you wrong".
You're right, I was reading things wrong and too quickly.
This really threw me because I swear when looking at the same paper awhile ago and at more length my summary was accurate. Mann's follow up a year later explains the data release more clearly:
For each series, the years 1850-2006 are the PC-filtered instrumental data. That is, the instrumental data but retaining the first 7 PCs, the number that were retained in the 1800-1849 reconstruction step.
From my link up thread it is noted in the link to the raw data:
Data series used in the above plot (1st column is Year, 2nd column is Reconstruction
If you look closer at the labelling of the "above plot", you see that instrumental is all that is plotted from around 1850-1900 onward. This was suggestive so I look closer at the to linked datasets for with and without the 'troublesome' datasets. The temperatures listed from 2007 backwards are virtually identical, ?instrumental?.
I'm gonna look closer to try and confirm, but seems I was misleading in representing the linked graph prior as being entirely from reconstruction. In particular, the EIV graphed reconstructions(Fig 2) in Mann's paper don't match the raw data linked prior from the supplements.
Still looking for the pure reconstructed figures for 1900 onwards...
from an at-source carbon-tax?
A simple at-source carbon tax on fossil fuels, with gradual increases built in is what the most intelligent people who think and talk about the problem propose as the major solution.
It allows the free market to operate to find the most efficient way around high fossil-fuel prices. GHG emissions therefore go down efficiently.
The most elegant and effective version of the carbon tax would put the revenue toward fundamental research on new energy technologies, and possibly toward short-term subsidies for development and adoption of alternatives, such as EV rebates, solar feed-in-tariff programs, etc.
The most politically palatable version just gives the carbon-tax money back to citizens as a dividend, allowing some to still buy gas, and others to make smarter alternative decisions and benefit financially.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
According to Climate Action Tracker, Bhutan is leading the way. Also, China, India, the EU and Mexico are all doing a better job at emission reduction than the United States.
According to NY Times: China Burns Much More Coal Than Reported, Complicating Climate Talks, China is increasing emissions, not reducing them.
Which fails to speak to my original point, which is that as goes California, so the rest of the U.S., and California isn't going anywhere, despite talking a good game. So you are basically agreeing with me (but disagreeing with me and the NY Times on the slope of China's vector relative to the slope of the U.S.'s vector).
While you are at it, fix the brush fires from lightning in Africa, which account for about 26.3% of annual CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.
Even if that were true, where do you think the brush came from? Digging carbon out of the ground and burning it is going to have a different net effect than extracting carbon from the atmosphere into a plant and releasing it back into the atmosphere.
The brush came from the ground. The brush fires came from lightning. The uncontrolled, large area brush fires came from misguided environmental policies, which prevent the clearing of "natural brush" and the creation of fire breaks. The resulting fires are called "fire use" or "let burn" fires. It came out of some misguided philosophies from the 1960's and 1970's. It was first instituted by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) in 1968.
Here's a history, if you care to read it; sadly other countries have adopted the U.S. policy as well:
http://www.nps.gov/fire/wildla...
The brush came from the ground.
Not true, the carbon came from the atmosphere originally.
The uncontrolled, large area brush fires came from misguided environmental policies, which prevent the clearing of "natural brush" and the creation of fire breaks. The resulting fires are called "fire use" or "let burn" fires. It came out of some misguided philosophies from the 1960's and 1970's. It was first instituted by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) in 1968.
The US NPS is not responsible for brush fires in Africa. Further, "fire use" and "let burn" fires have the effect of clearing "natural brush" and creating natural fire breaks. That's the opposite of your claim above.
The problem with out of control fires has never been allowing natural burning of forest, but rather the aggressive stamping out of wildfires common to many parts of the world in the 20th Century, particularly the first half of the century. That's what led to the build up in brush undergrowth and other fuels for wildfires.
But this issues is completely irrelevant to CO2 build up in the atmosphere. When bush burns, it eventually grows back, taking in carbon from the atmosphere and soil (the latter which also ultimately came from the atmosphere).
Did you read them? None of those are actually studies, they're just comments on a real study's methodology. They present no data of their own, contrary or otherwise.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
And how will that do anything other than raise fuel prices even more? Oh right, it fills the states coffers.
Thanks ever so much for the new (2015) carbon tax on fuel governor Brown, I guess 40 cents a gallon (highest in the nation) just wasn't enough for your slush fund this year.
True, but so far everyone who has posted about coin tosses is wrong.
When you toss a coin, it is a three state event and not a two state event. So when someone uses the example of a coin toss they often say it is 50%/50% over enough tosses when in reality it is not!
They forgot the standard deviation. :)
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
>And how will that do anything other than raise fuel prices even more? Oh right, it fills the states coffers.
How does punishing murderers do anything but cost taxpayers money ?
But if this is found to be a crime and they are convicted, they would be forced to stop lying - and lying here would include lobbying politicians to lie for them.
You have an issue with fuel prices ? Time to consider an electric car maybe ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I have an issue with them being close to a buck more than other states for no goddamn reason, sure. Why don't you?
Because it would need to be about 30 dollars more before the cost of gas even begins to approach the externalities you inflict on everybody else when you buy it.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Actually electric cars are cleaner even on a fossil grid because they are so much more energy efficient. So you still produce far less CO2 per mile driven.
But that aside yes we need to go for cleaner grids as well. There I have a bit of an advantage over you though. About 90% of the power in my city is nuclear. Solar is of course ideal and you can do that yourself.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Good for you? The majority of the country runs on coal. I agree Nuclear energy is far cleaner, unfortunately it's also far (as in more than 10 times) more expensive, even assuming you can thread through the mob of nutjob eco-warriors and actually build one.
Solar isn't at all ideal (for this application) since it only works in the daytime and that's when people and their cars are at work.
OK, so which one of the studies on that list has new survey data that attempts to refute the 97% consensus figure? Are you trying to imply that the dissenting authors in that list of papers represent significantly more than 3% of climatologists (though the list makes no claims that all the papers' authors are dissenting)? Or did you just bring them up to change the subject?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I did. I linked to a number of peer-reviewed studies & surveys containing actual data, performed by different people at different times with different approaches - and they all gave similar results. Multiple lines of peer-reviewed evidence is the highest standard of proof we have.
You claim that the consensus on AGW is "nothing more than bullshit cagw extremist nonsense" - but you have no peer-reviewed data to back this accusation. So this is just your personal opinion. Nothing is "proven" just because someone said so on a blog. Any belief that your layman's opinion is somehow more valid than the expert conclusions of practicing climatologists is pure Dunning-Kruger Effect, even more obviously when your opinion is based on no data whatsoever.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
OK, so you're now claiming that the general agreement among climate scientists is purely political, not an expert conclusion based on the science they've been doing, and therefore these thousands of practicing climatologists have been steadfastly ignoring the evidence that their observations of the last 40 years have been showing, and the tens of thousands of published and peer-reviewed studies showing increasing global land and sea temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea levels & acidification etc etc etc are therefore deliberately fabricated, risking their reputations and careers in a massive conspiracy - all in the name of their supposed political beliefs?
Well heck, I'm convinced.
extremist
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You're confusing science with some imagined bizarro political response to the situation science is telling you about. Try and understand the difference before you go off the deep end next time.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?