Chief Astrologist said:
“Since the Earth itself is a closed system, “
Not correct. The earth is an open system because it interacts with the sun. Solar radiation comes in and mostly infrared leaves.
The combustion of fossil fuels also opens up the system because all the once buried and now free carbon acts as an external input.
“Handel | November 22, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Reply
Chief : … satellite TOA flux data.
What is it telling us exactly ?”
It is telling us how the Gish Gallup works.
Just spew a bunch of word salad and link to complex-looking but arbitrary graphs, and lots of gullible rubes get taken in.
Why is the oscillation in the GMST before mid-20th century smaller compared to Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4 as shown?
Steven Mosher
@ November 21, 2012 at 1:35 pm
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/20/whither-wither-climate-science/#comment-269893
Replied to someone’s comment up thread:
You still don’t get it.
The discussion is going to shift to impacts.
I responded:
Good!
Where are [they] described/defined and the costs estimated?
Sea level rise is a trivial cost. So what are the others?
Steven Mosher avoided the question. Instead he responded, apparently in a rage, telling me I don’t have the right to ask him questions. What a pompous, arrogant prick.
You still don’t get it. … It doesnt matter whether you get the answers to your questions or not. Nobody owes you an answer.
You dont get to ask questions. If you had the power to decide, then your questions might be important. But you dont, so they are not. You get to play in a sand box. If you want answers about impacts and costs, go read WG2. If you have questions sign up as a reviewer. Ask away. The point remains that the conversation will shift to impacts. Other people will ask the questions. Not you. If you want to influence power, you supply answers. Get it. You have no power. Those in power get to ask the questions. To influence them, you better have answers, not questions.
What a pompous, arrogant prick.
Clearly he’s made a statement in a comment, knows noting about the subject he made a pronouncement on, and went into a rage when asked a question that showed him up as ignorant on this subject.
This suggests a characteristic that probably extends to other subjects he pontificates on.
So, now let’s get to addressing the question I asked on the subject that Steven Mosher made his initial statement about. My question is:
Where are the impacts described/defined and the costs estimated?
Sea level rise is a trivial cost. So what are the others?
Manacker
@November 22, 2012 at 10:47 am
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/20/whither-wither-climate-science/#comment-270131
Let’s take Steven Mosher’s $400 billion impact for a 1m rise in sea level.
At the “accelerated rate” of 3 mm/year, that will take 333 years.
At a discount rate of 5%, we can afford to invest $35 today in order to save $400 billion in 333 years.
Question: what can we get for $35?
Yes. And here is another way of looking at it:
According to Anthoff, Nichols and Tol (2010) ‘The economic impact of substantial sea-level rise‘ the estimated damage cost would be about $1 trillion for 1 m rise and $0.2 trillion for 0.5 m rise, (for the central assumptions).
How significant is a $1 trillion cost over 90 years when compared with global GDP during that period. Answer: the $1 trillion amounts to about 0.03% of global GDP. In other words the damage cost of sea level rise is trivial.
Even if the damage costs were two, three or five times greater, it’s still trivial. It’s far less than the costs of the mitigation policies being advocated by the CAGW alarmist – like carbon pricing and renewable energy.
Furthermore, when we acknowledge that the advocated mitigation policies have very low probability of delivering the hoped for benefits, it shows how badly we’ve been misled by the CAGW alarmist.
BBD
Here is question.
CO2 concentration increased with increase in GMST for the period since 1978 as shown:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/compress:12/from:1900/offset:0.5/detrend:0.7/normalise/plot/jisao-pdo/compress:12/scale:0.1/normalise
Since 1978, the CO2 concentration increased from about 335 ppm to 390 ppm by 55ppm as shown:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978/compress:12
In the period 1910-1940, GMST increased as shown below:
Is it not reasonable to assume CO2 concentration also increased by about 55ppm in the period 1910-1940?
No BBD,
I don’t remember you having ever caught me out on lying. But you are continually caught out lying. You are total trash. Dishonest, and typical of ignorant zealots.
This comment is, no doubt, another example of a misleading statement. Another BBD lie.
Thanks Peter, know the video.
Would still like to see this quote;
“Hansen was telling us that the oceans would evaporate and Earth would get an atmosphere like Venus if we didn’t stop burning coal”.
…..as opposed to the video, where he is asked to explain what the ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ is, which he does with accuracy.
And good to see the usual fools piling onto this particular bandwagon.
The last election should have proven to the minority part of the society that produce all of the value, that it is outnumbered by the majority part of the society–and the global warming alarmists are in this second part–that have targets on the backs of the productive.
For the Nth time of asking : Please just address the simple question put to you :
Do you deny that CO2 absorbs IR ? If so, what support can you provide for this?
Myrrh : [Long pompous ramble, once again completely ignoring the question]
Conclusion : he does indeed deny standard physics regarding absorption spectra. But is loathe to admit it.
—
The Greenhouse Effect is a fictional world, all its fisics basics are gobbledegook … [it claims that] carbon dioxide heats the earth by backradiation
You are completely out of touch with the the subject you criticise.. While some backradition exists at the BOA, the basics of the AGW mechanism is actually that the GHG-laden atmosphere warms, thereby slowing the cooling of the earth into the atmosphere.
Prove [The Greenhouse Effect] and I’ll spell it “physics”
Most revealing. Despite not being a native English speaker, you deny common English usage then. A clear pattern is emerging.
“The Cretaceous was steamy and only smaller mammals could lose heat fast enough in the hot, humid conditions to be viable as a warm-blooded lifeform over large areas of the planet. ”
This is interesting [as in strange/odd] view.
I think that large mammals could have survived perfectly fine in the climate during the Cretaceous period. There would been different animals back then as compared to now, but difference has to with evolution and the dinosaur extinction event [mostly or entirely due to a space rock about 10 km in diameter impacting what current know the Yucatan peninsula].
The extinction event mainly affected land animals. Land plants were less affected in terms going extinct.
So such trees as now exist in Temperate Zones existed prior to age of Dinosaurs
“Plant life of the Permian (248 million years ago) took on an increasingly modern “look” with the rise of a number of gymnosperm (naked seeded) plants during the late Carboniferous and their diversification during the Permian. Indeed, the late Carboniferous “extinction” is almost inapplicable to terrestrial plants.”
http://www.bomengids.nl/uk/tree-evolution.html
And of course the modern technological human can live in colder and warmer temperatures than any particular tree. And human with their need to keep warm in houses, are spending most of lives in environments with CO2 levels above 1000 ppm. And the modern human comes from a tropical region and quite comfortable if the climate always near 30 C.
As far as early large mammals:
“Pakicetids or Pakicetidae (meaning Pakistani whales) is a carnivorous mammalian family of the suborder Archaeoceti that lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya—40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetids
Evolution of elephants:
“The earliest known ancestors to the elephant were herbivores that lived about 40 million years ago, and were roughly the sizes of pigs and cows. The direct ancestor to the modern-day elephant is unknown, but fossils of numerous evolutionary off-shoots, such as the moerithenes (40 million years ago), the barythenes (40 to 35 million years ago), paleomastodons (40 million years ago), gomphotheres such as the mastodon, the stegodon, and the mammoth have all been found and studied. ”
http://www.ecotravel.co.za/Guides/Wildlife/Vertebrates/Mammals/Big_5/Elephant/Elephant_Evolution.htm
“The Eocene (symbol EO) epoch, lasting from about 56 to 34 million years ago (55.8±0.2 to 33.9±0.1 Ma)…
The Eocene Epoch contained a wide variety of different climate conditions that includes the warmest climate in the Cenozoic Era and ends in an icehouse climate. The evolution of the Eocene climate began with warming after the end of the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) at 56 million years ago to a maximum during the Eocene Optimum at around 49 million years ago. During this period of time, little to no ice was present on Earth with a smaller difference in temperature from the equator to the poles. Following the maximum, was a descent into an icehouse climate from the Eocene Optimum to the Eocene-Oligocene transition at 34 million years ago. During this decrease ice began to reappear at the poles, and the Eocene-Oligocene transition is the period of time where the Antarctic ice sheet began to rapidly expand.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
So after the dinosaurs in the Eocene epoch was as warm and there were some fairly big mammals
So Myrrh denies the English language too?!
Wonderful. Perhaps like Descartes he has set out to deny everything. And perhaps like Descartes too, he stays in bed till noon, which explains why he has enough time to produce so many long-winded posts.
