Warmer is almost by definition better than colder as warmer sustains more total life and more diversity of life. Obviously, enough species survive D-O events that rapidity of change, though potentially devastating, isn’t holocaustically destructive. We really can’t guess the direction of temperature change, while accepting that climate change is constant and effect local, but it is difficult to conceive that the small aliquot of fossil carbon that Man will release as CO2 can be anything but net beneficial for the human race and the earth’s whole biome.
====================
Comment on Open thread weekend by kim
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by willard (@nevaudit)
Not the gavel, Beth, which I leave to our ominous one,
Whose odious contraptions were led to a contraction not long ago
And who replies here as if nobody would know.
A good old hockey stick.
Here would be another hero of mine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Gainey
↧
Comment on Predictions of climate change impacts on fisheries can be a mirage by Wagathon
Here’s what we know…
Our grandfathers who grew up on the West coast of California knew of sardines in the oceans and didn’t question it. Most of them fought in WWII. And, there sons and daughters grew up on the West coast of California they know only anchovies. None of probably would argue it had something to do with WWII. Years later, the children of the sons and daughters knew nothing about anchovies–sardines had returned.
Why did this happen? Many of us would argue the cause is human CO2. And, that is the real question: why not WWII before buy maybe human CO2 now?
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by willard (@nevaudit)
Exxon Documents: Oil Spilled in Mayflower ‘May Cause Cancer’
MAYFLOWER, AR — Exxon Mobil documents released by the federal agency investigating the spill of an estimated 5,000 barrels of oil into a residential neighborhood spell out a litany of dangerous compounds associated that particular type of crude.
Under a section titled “Potential Health Affects” Exxon Mobil says its so-called Wabasca heavy crude “may cause cancer.”
“If anything happens in the next 10, 20, 50 years of my children’s lives, you think, ‘I wonder if that was caused by any kind of long-term affects from the spill,’” said Chris Harrell, a resident of the Northwoods subdivision where the spill happened.
Another section of the documents warns that the crude is “toxic to aquatic life” and “may cause long term adverse affects in the aquatic environment.”
“That’s a big deal economically for the area, because sport fishing is major here,” said Harrell.
Exxon Mobil declined our request for an on-camera interview Friday. Over the phone spokesman Alan Jeffers pointed to air and sampling being conducted by the Exxon Mobil and government agencies.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by pokerguy
“…Doesnt change the fact that dumping C02 in the atmosphere is a potentially dangerous geo engineering experiment.”
I don’t disagree, although many are much less worried about it than you are. The law of unintended consequences when governments decide to declare metaphorical war on things, is always to be kept in mind. In this regard I can’t help thinking especially about the “war on drugs.” What damage could drug use cause that could possibly compete with the blood bath going on in mexico currently?
In any case, I appreciate your candid, measured words. Yes, it puts into question the consensus view of things.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Bart R
manacker | April 14, 2013 at 7:27 pm |
Priority of importance of forcings, not a hill I’m interested in taking a stand on. First. Second. Third. Whatever. Unlike Lomborg, I don’t believe in rating the water leaking into the boat by what hole it poured through, while there’s bailing to be done. You fix the holes in the order that doesn’t sink you, not by the popularity contests they win.
All that needs be shown is that it’s a man-made forcing. There’s a signal of it in climate. It’s man made. Ergo it’s a large enough man made forcing to increase Risk. That’s all that we need know. At that point, we can know that the cost of this Risk is borne by all, and the profit goes to few Free Riders.
That’s a wasteful state for an economy, and an unfair one — which is one of those things that can shake the goodwill of all players in an economic system.
We don’t need to know how much harm CO2E does. We know how much harm loss of goodwill in an economy does. So the Free Riders whinge about having to finally pay their share? That’s good. Let them bleat. They may be squeaky wheels, but they’re few and nobody loves them but their mothers. The louder they scream, the more confidence everyone in the economy will have that the misery is shared equally, as is the utility.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by willard (@nevaudit)
Guantanamo pretrial hearing delayed as legal files vanish
(Reuters) – Pretrial hearings in the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals have been delayed to address the mysterious disappearance of defense legal documents from Pentagon computers, military officials said on Thursday.
The defense lawyers said their confidential work documents began vanishing from Pentagon computers in February and that there was evidence their internal emails and internet searches had been monitored by third parties.
They want all the hearings in both death penalty cases halted until the issues have been satisfactorily addressed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/11/us-usa-guantanamo-computers-idUSBRE93A0MW20130411
Some auditors may wonder if they could take a peek.
↧
Comment on Predictions of climate change impacts on fisheries can be a mirage by Stephen Rasey
@JCurry:
Why has the AFS, and other renascent subfields related to climate change impacts, so wholeheartedly and unquestioningly adopted the assumption that anthropogenic climate change is having, or will have, adverse impacts, often showing more confidence than the IPCC in terms of attribution of the adverse impacts? ….. The combination of flawed causal reasoning (mirages), combined with the very substantial uncertainties in climate change and climate impact attribution, makes this a very risky management strategy.
Define “Risk” in this sense, Judith.
Do the decision tree from the point of view of an objective AFS.
As I see it, the Upside (that the correlation is viewed as causation) then AFS paints themselves as victim, potentially benifiting from government largess and comparitive advantage.
The downside (that correlation is viewed as mirage) is “never-mind… someoneelse’s mistake.” But no gain or loss.
The only branch with a loss is if there are real AGW effect and you don’t say anything!
Now do the decision tree from the point of view of politically active AFS. Same tree with a potentially higher probability and payoff on the “viewed as causation) branch.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Wayne2
lolwot: “Ah interesting. So you didn’t feel the need to jump in to correct the skeptic.”
I am looking at statistics, not appeals to authority. You were pretending to add support to an argument with a pseudo-statistical graph. So you caught my attention. (Plus you were over-the-top in your posting as well.)
I’m flittering to another topic for now. Trying to learn something about co-clustering and if it will help a friend with analysis of a survey. I gave you plenty of graphs and statistics and you insist on ignoring it and instead repeat your unicorns-and-rainbows mantra that CI’s make your case stronger rather than weaker, and this is getting old.
Look at the GISTEMP graph I posted. Temps since 1995 are much flatter than you want to believe. Certainly not in keeping with The Consensus from that bygone era. You can argue all you want that it has warmed, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s warmed far too little.
↧
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by Sunday Evening Jog Through The Park | The Lukewarmer's Way
[...] Curry, Lioness of Georgia, has 4 posts up this week, but two are guest posts by Tony Brown and Nic Lewis and one is an open thread. Misters Brown and Lewis are interesting reads and the open [...]
↧
Comment on The Forest 2006 climate sensitivity study and misprocessing of data – an update by Sunday Evening Jog Through The Park | The Lukewarmer's Way
[...] Curry, Lioness of Georgia, has 4 posts up this week, but two are guest posts by Tony Brown and Nic Lewis and one is an open thread. Misters Brown and Lewis are interesting reads and the open thread is [...]
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Wayne2
Steven, I downloaded a couple of versions of ERSST V3, which is what it appears that GISS uses for LOTI. I don’t see anything strange in the first differences of the monthly data.
When you get your queue of upgrades for R 3.0 cleared, I’d appreciate you taking a quick look at the GISS SH to see if I’m crazy or not. I feel like I must be missing something that the pattern is so weird in GISS SH, but nothing remotely similar appears in ERSST. (Nor in GISS SH Land-only, nor GISS NH.) It’s like I downloaded the wrong dataset or something.
Thanks again!
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Wayne2
Judith, I’ve saved the article, as it summarizes things nicely… Except it does leave an uneasy feeling of another shoe waiting to drop. If the missing heat is currently going into the oceans, I see some “missing heat” in the 1900-1920 era that might’ve gone into the oceans as well. And perhaps came out in the 1985-1995 era.
(I gather that “going into the oceans” is something of a misnomer, isn’t it? Isn’t it more like “heat is not transiting from the oceans to space as rapidly”?)
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by mosomoso
Unadjusted, the most expensive weather disaster would be Katrina in 2005. The cost has been estimated at 108 billion dollars or 81 billion, depending on the experts consulted. (You can tell they’re scientific experts because they don’t round up to to the nearest ten.)
However, for those interested in adjusted numbers – climate “advocates” are usually interested in adjustment – the most expensive disaster by far was the Miami hurricane of 1926 according to Pielke jr et al. (They put a figure of 157 billion on it, and the lack of rounding shows they must be experts.) Second place goes to Galveston (the 1900 mess, not the 1915 mess), which is not hard to swallow. Galveston 1900 was almost a match for my country’s Mahina in 1899. If Mahina were to hit a modern city it would do worse things than leaving porpoises up on cliffs.
Okay, I don’t take anyone’s numbers seriously, including those issued by skeptics to make a point about something a hundred or a million times too complex for close estimation. What I’m saying is: please don’t adjust the climate back to around 1900, all you adjusters of climate out there. And we totally don’t want the 1930s back – not in China, not in Oz, not in N. America.
All flippancy aside, earthquakes and tsunamis are going to cost, hurricanes will be big ticket also. There’s also the better than fair chance of a dirty, slow Laki-style eruption, which would cost more than anything, I guess, since it would shut down much agriculture and most aviation, just for starters.
Maybe one could spend “climate” billions on responsible development, or undoing irresponsible development? Nuclear reactors are great, but not at Fukushima. Leafy riverside real estate is pleasant…but not if you narrow the Hudson by 700 feet at its mouth. In 1938 New York had a hurricane far more intense than Sandy. Wasn’t somebody supposed to know all that? Too much to ask, considering the rest of the world is assured daily of the cleverness of New Yorkers?
Cleverness and mechanistic aspie-think are everywhere these days. But are we facing Peak Commonsense?
↧
Comment on The Forest 2006 climate sensitivity study and misprocessing of data – an update by michael hart
I’m waiting…
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Wayne2
Bart R: 1980-2005 is not a “long-term” trend. It’s not long-term and it requires some assumptions to make it a trend.
I also notice that of the 12 short lines you graphed, the five that end in 2005 have all deflected downwards by that point — 8 years ago.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Bart R
Myrrh | April 14, 2013 at 7:24 pm |
manacker | April 14, 2013 at 7:22 pm |
Gentlemen, take up the topic of how unsubstantiated the claims I’ve made with the publisher, authors, reviewers and over 100 scientists who have cited this source, and from there with the sources used in it’s bibliographic section:
Non-Lte Radiative Transfer in the Atmosphere, Manuel López-Puertas, Fredric William Taylor (World Scientific Series on Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Vol. 3, 2001)
You’re simply denying common knowledge.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Max_OK
OK, just those majoring in a physical science.
↧
Comment on Predictions of climate change impacts on fisheries can be a mirage by AK
@kim...
See LaRiviere <i>et al.</i> (2012), figure <b>1</b>, item <b>f</b>. This is one of many estimates, most of them significantly different, but mostly showing CO2 concentrations roughly like ours going back at least 10 MYA.
I'm not saying that they won't survive, but that their behavior will change in random ways. There's more to adaptation than simple survival.
LaRiviere <i>et al.</i> (2012) <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11200.html" rel="nofollow">Late Miocene decoupling of oceanic warmth and atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing</a> by Jonathan P. LaRiviere, A. Christina Ravelo, Allison Crimmins, Petra S. Dekens, Heather L. Ford, Mitch Lyle & Michael W. Wara <i>Nature</i> 486, 97–100 (07 June 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11200 <a href="http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~polissar/teaching/F2012_G9600_Climate_Puzzles_of_the_Neogene/LaRiviere_etal_2012.pdf" rel="nofollow">(here)</a>
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Max_OK
hadcrut3 also shows warming over the 15-year period April 1999 – March 2013, but not as much as UAH. If you tilt your head, the hadcrut OLS line might look kinda flat. Maybe that’s where The Economist got their data.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
