Scientists predict US$2trn cost to ocean economies
By OveHG On March 22, 2012 · Leave a Comment

Carmel Doyle, Siliconrepublic.com, March 22, 2012. Scientists at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) have released a new study that has placed the effects of climate change on the world’s ocean ecosystems under the spotlight. They predict climate change alone could reduce the economic value of key ocean services by up to US$2trn a year by 2100.

The scientists are now calling for a global, integrated approach to protect oceans from converging threats.
An executive summary of the report,Valuing the Ocean, has been released today, as the scientists behind the study are hoping to urge world leaders to make the oceans a priority in global sustainability goals, especially before the Rio+20 Earth Summit in June.

Scientists predict US$2trn cost to ocean economies
By OveHG On March 22, 2012 · Leave a Comment

Carmel Doyle, Siliconrepublic.com, March 22, 2012. Scientists at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) have released a new study that has placed the effects of climate change on the world’s ocean ecosystems under the spotlight. They predict climate change alone could reduce the economic value of key ocean services by up to US$2trn a year by 2100.

The scientists are now calling for a global, integrated approach to protect oceans from converging threats.
An executive summary of the report,Valuing the Ocean, has been released today, as the scientists behind the study are hoping to urge world leaders to make the oceans a priority in global sustainability goals, especially before the Rio+20 Earth Summit in June.

Scientists predict US$2trn cost to ocean economies | Climate Shifts

And, is there a way to stop this site from asking me whether I want to leave the page. It is a nuisance to put it mildly to have to post something and edit it to provide more information or a link

Originally Posted by andrejsv

Even if this particular one is not true, is things like this the reason independent review is needed (that does not mean peer review byt the same clique of people), transparency and accessibility of the codes and data are needed. Sceptics are needed. What an embarrassment, if true. Well, if its a bug, good thing they caught it. say No! to orthodoxy no! to complacency, follow the scientific method and the royal society's motto "take nobody's word for it".

Does anyone know the specific models or codes affected?

Who should do the peer review if not other scientists on the field? Politicians? Economists? Weathermen? That would be the end of science.

=> Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by andrejsv

Do you want to decrease the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? then plant some trees, beautify urban areas with parks, put little hanging gardens and flower beds in buildings, support the modern logging industry where forests are regrown, and most important, stop the deforestation of the amazon. Now those are 'green' efforts I could get fully behind, because.. yes, CO2 is plant food.

First part of your post is a good approach for the problem of too much CO2 in our atmospkere. But it still wouldn't combat the rise of other greenhouse gases, such as the many (20-80) times more potent methane (CH4) which is due to rising gas exploration.

Concerning "plant food", watch this:

Originally Posted by Agnotologist

Scientists predict US$2trn cost to ocean economies

Next

Originally Posted by Agnotologist

I managed insurance companies, tommy. So don't try your silliness with me. I know how to assess risk and I know when risk passes the capacity of the insurance market to cope with it.

That level is not far off with climate matters.

Makes sense

Increased Profit is Not a Solution For Climate Change

Insurance company involvement in climate research is not new. Swiss Re one of the largest insurance companies in the world has long sponsored climate research as their web page proclaims, “As a leading global reinsurer we actively research, model and reinsure natural catastrophe risks from floods through winter-storms to hurricanes. We have therefore followed the development of climate change for over 20 years and participated in, or sponsored, 100’s (sic) of events and projects ranging from research and awareness building to product development and managing our own carbon footprint.”

They were a founding sponsor of Climate Week NYC this year attended by those great climate experts former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

Their presence and the error-filled address by President Obama reflect the concern that the public is not buying their climate story and Copenhagen will fail. Swiss Re’s comment that “Climate Week NY°C is an important step for us on the “Road to Copenhagen” where policy makers will make important decisions on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation funding including the use of risk- transfer mechanisms” takes lobbying to a new level.

Swiss Re increased activity in climate research after hurricane Andrew.

A major misdirection was created when increased cost for hurricane insurance claims was incorrectly used to say hurricane frequency had increased. Zurich and Swiss Re both promote the false science of the IPCC without questioning its validity because it benefits them. Is it good business? Yes. Is it moral, scientifically accurate and good for society? No. It is pure, unadulterated, hypocritical, exploitation. Would they sponsor research that showed climate variations were quite normal and risk levels were not elevated? Of course not, any more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change entertains climate skeptics.

Most IPCC members are bureaucrats chosen by their governments and whose jobs depend on adhering to the political line. The others are researchers also funded by governments.

Climate Science: Funding Hypocrisy: FCPP - Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome

Makes sense



Climate Science: Funding Hypocrisy: FCPP - Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Tim Ball who believes that climate change and global warming would be good for us. This neoliberal is complaining about the funding of the IPCC. Meanwhile his own "think tank", the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, is funded by big oil and other corporations...

An opinion piece without real research. Not worth reading that rubbish.

Back to real science. The Potsdam Institute for Climatic Impact Research:

Weather records due to climate change: a game with loaded dice

03/25/2012 - The past decade has been one of unprecedented weather extremes. Scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany argue that the high incidence of extremes is not merely accidental. From the many single events a pattern emerges. At least for extreme rainfall and heat waves the link with human-caused global warming is clear, the scientists show in a new analysis of scientific evidence in the journal Nature Climate Change. Less clear is the link between warming and storms, despite the observed increase in the intensity of hurricanes.

...

Originally Posted by andrejsv

Even if this particular one is not true, is things like this the reason independent review is needed (that does not mean peer review byt the same clique of people), transparency and accessibility of the codes and data are needed. Sceptics are needed. What an embarrassment, if true. Well, if its a bug, good thing they caught it. say No! to orthodoxy no! to complacency, follow the scientific method and the royal society's motto "take nobody's word for it".

Does anyone know the specific models or codes affected?

April Fool!

Jeez, andrejsv, I thought it was so obvious, no one would fall for it.

Anyone know how bad things could get? What's the worst case scenario in say the next 50-100 years?

Originally Posted by Volatire

Anyone know how bad things could get? What's the worst case scenario in say the next 50-100 years?

The current predictions for cycle 24 smoothed maximum number of sunspots is 59 in 2013 makig it the smallest in 100 years:
NASA/Marshall Solar Physics
And for the next cycle, clycle 25 is even worse, a maximum of 7 to 20 around 2030 depending who makes the prediction
Sun to skip solar cycle 25?
Forecasting Cycle 25–Livingston and Penn Method | Climate Change Sanity

For reasons currently unknown there is a correlation between low temperatures and low sunspot numbers, so we are headed for a period of declining temperatures reminiscent of the little ice age. Based on a crude correlation between the time interval between solar maximums (the smaller the sunspot number the longer the period, the longer the period the colder it gets) it could be as bad as a drop of 2 degrees C. (the Thames freezing again regularly)

Now the global warming crowd is confident that the effect will be minimized, perhaps there will be no cooling at all due to the effects of increased CO2, who knows? Lets hope so. Perhaps warming will recommence after 2030, again who knows.