No Warming Since 1995 - Jones?

[feargach]

By the way, aren't you aware that the jet stream has moved several hundred km to the south? This has caused Irish summers to get cooler and wetter.

Think it might have a bit of an impact on sea temperatures in the north Atlantic? You know, the part of the sea that freezes?

[SAT]

I think it can be hard to visualize what the future could hold for our grandchildren if what is feared comes to pass. Right now those being effected by climate change are people without a voice and so us westerners don't care all that much. Rather than quote the IPCC and NASA scientific papers etc as has been done to death here, it might be easier to get an idea from some of these links. When you've checked them out ask yourself if it's even a 50/50 chance of it happening should we embrace it or try to remediate the impact in every way possible.

Greg Craven - A different take on Global Warming His videos are worth watching.
Climate change will lead to mass migration in 40 years - Economy and Politics - livemint.com
NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

There was another site I posted a few days ago which showed what areas of the world would remain suitable for food production but I can't find it at the mo. I'll post it later if I do.

NASA are incredibly sloppy these days. In the body of the article they claim a sea level increase of 3 mm per year and yet in the papers they list at the end to support their article they cite E. W. Leuliette & L. Miller, "Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE", Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04608 (2009) whose findings were sea level rise of only 1.5 ± 1.0 mm/year which is the same rate as the previous 100 years Their findings are supported by Woppelmann et al. (2009) who recently obtained a result of 1.58 ± 0.03 mm/year.

It becomes very hard to take anything these people say seriously when one has to trawl through details to find their errors or omissions and it is impossible not to question their scientific dispassion when the errors are always in favour of exaggerating global warming.

[SAT]

Much like the (erroneous) idea that global warming implies a smooth and palpable rise in temperatures, the idea that you can extrapolate from such a GDP decline to "not remotely catastrophic" requires a good deal of not thinking about what is actually being said.

The effects of climate change, as a glance at the 4 degree map shows, will primarily affect the world's poorest countries. That means that it will have little impact on world GDP, while bringing uncosted hardship to hundreds of millions.

You obviously didn't click on the link I provided for National Geographic whose findings are based on 20 years of real OBSERVATIONAL findings rather than the defunct climate models you like to quote from which btw are in total disarray when it comes to predicting rainfall in Africa in a warmer climate with 50% forecasting more rainfall and 50% forecasting less.

[SAT]

By the way, aren't you aware that the jet stream has moved several hundred km to the south? This has caused Irish summers to get cooler and wetter.

Think it might have a bit of an impact on sea temperatures in the north Atlantic? You know, the part of the sea that freezes?

You are confusing cause and effect. The northern jet stream forms where cold air meets warm air. If the jet stream has moved south it is because cold air has moved south.

[Jethro]

Much like the (erroneous) idea that global warming implies a smooth and palpable rise in temperatures, the idea that you can extrapolate from such a GDP decline to "not remotely catastrophic" requires a good deal of not thinking about what is actually being said.

The effects of climate change, as a glance at the 4 degree map shows, will primarily affect the world's poorest countries. That means that it will have little impact on world GDP, while bringing uncosted hardship to hundreds of millions.

What about plugging the numbers into the SRES scenarios, the report that Stern used. These are rough figures in 1990 US$

A1FI - GDP/capita developed countries = 107,000, developing countries = 66,500.
B1 - GDP/capita developed countries = 72,800, developing = 40,200

Median warming for A1FI is 4 degrees. Allowing for 5% damages in 2100 would reduce the welfare here to 100,000 and 63,000 approx. So a warmer but richer world, characterised by modest emissions abatement, is more optimal.

Under A1FI, global inequality is also substantially reduced from today.

You might think that all of this is a bit glib, but these are official figures as used by the IPCC and from the IPCC.

Reference.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-609.pdf

[Jethro]

NASA are incredibly sloppy these days. In the body of the article they claim a sea level increase of 3 mm per year and yet in the papers they list at the end to support their article they cite E. W. Leuliette & L. Miller, "Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE", Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04608 (2009) whose findings were sea level rise of only 1.5 ± 1.0 mm/year which is the same rate as the previous 100 years Their findings are supported by Woppelmann et al. (2009) who recently obtained a result of 1.58 ± 0.03 mm/year.

It becomes very hard to take anything these people say seriously when one has to trawl through details to find their errors or omissions and it is impossible not to question their scientific dispassion when the errors are always in favour of exaggerating global warming.

Right, I'll have a look at these if you have a look at my link to Ibis in previous post. I think a carbon tax is the most precise way of dealing with this complex problem but the paper by Goklany (which avoids more taxes) is a brilliant clarification of 'the bottom line' in this whole debate.

[Jethro]

You obviously didn't click on the link I provided for National Geographic whose findings are based on 20 years of real OBSERVATIONAL findings rather than the defunct climate models you like to quote from which btw are in total disarray when it comes to predicting rainfall in Africa in a warmer climate with 50% forecasting more rainfall and 50% forecasting less.

SAT and Imokyrok, my apologies. I clicked on yours SAT rather than Imokyrok's, set out below.

I think it can be hard to visualize what the future could hold for our grandchildren if what is feared comes to pass. Right now those being effected by climate change are people without a voice and so us westerners don't care all that much. Rather than quote the IPCC and NASA scientific papers etc as has been done to death here, it might be easier to get an idea from some of these links. When you've checked them out ask yourself if it's even a 50/50 chance of it happening should we embrace it or try to remediate the impact in every way possible.

Greg Craven - A different take on Global Warming His videos are worth watching.
Climate change will lead to mass migration in 40 years - Economy and Politics - livemint.com
NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

There was another site I posted a few days ago which showed what areas of the world would remain suitable for food production but I can't find it at the mo. I'll post it later if I do.

[owedtojoy]

Take anything you read from the Cato Institute with more than a grain of salt. They are another right-wing think-tank like the Heritage Institute, the Heartland Institute and the Marshall Institute, funded by wealthy Americans mostly so that teh Free Market (and their own wealth) is not undermined.

"Its not a problem" is one of the oldest denialist scams of them all. Read, enjoy, but watch out for cool-aid.

[owedtojoy]

Cato Unbound Blog Archive Goklany Okay with 250-Foot Sea-Level Rise

Thought I would post this response to the Goklany/ Cato article.

[ibis]

What about plugging the numbers into the SRES scenarios, the report that Stern used. These are rough figures in 1990 US$

A1FI - GDP/capita developed countries = 107,000, developing countries = 66,500.
B1 - GDP/capita developed countries = 72,800, developing = 40,200

Median warming for A1FI is 4 degrees. Allowing for 5% damages in 2100 would reduce the welfare here to 100,000 and 63,000 approx. So a warmer but richer world, characterised by modest emissions abatement, is more optimal.

Under A1FI, global inequality is also substantially reduced from today.

You might think that all of this is a bit glib, but these are official figures as used by the IPCC and from the IPCC.

Reference.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-609.pdf

The IPCC reports are regarded within scientific circles as very very conservative, though - part of the result of the way the review process works. I suspect that a lot of inconvenient details are also being ignored in order to come out with the idea that 4 degrees is "OK".

Frankly, we don't know what a global temperature rise of 4 degrees will do. Now, perhaps I simply lack the bravery necessary to cry "well, let's find out! How bad can it be!", or perhaps the kind of people who claim that things will be OK with such a temperature rise are simply massaging the numbers to give the answer they want - which is, of course, that no action is necessary, everything will be just fine, and we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it.