Arctic Ice Melt = Accelerating GW

[a_unique_person]

And there's never any politics in science

There is one heck of a lot more evidence that the Kyoto protocol damages the world economy than there is that global warming is a man-made condition, let alone that the Kyoto treaty actually does anything to reduce the problem.

One thing the Kyoto treaty does is facilitate the transfer of funds from "developed nations" to "undeveloped nations" for technology that reduces C0₂ emissions. Any bets that this technology includes nuclear power? Any bets that the "undeveloped nations" will use the technology strictly for power generation?

I have to wonder how much of the money that this scam is robbing the world of will end up in a nuke factory in Iran. Who is in charge of the money collected for this farce? How is it distributed? The UN? The same corrupt turds who were making backroom deals with Saddam?

You have been told this a hundred times, but I will say it again in the hope it will get through your thick head. Kyoto is not meant be the solution to GW in itself, it is supposed to set up a protocol to start that process. If you want, I can repeat it again, in the hope you may eventually understand.

What is the evidence that implementing Kyoto will harm the world ecomony?

 

[a_unique_person]

You are indeed a wise man. I never extended my reasoning to the nuclear conclusion that you did. Very astute and advanced reasoning.

My elementary reasoning, not in order of importance...

1.Russia accepted Kyoto so they can sell emission credits for cold, hard cash.

2. Universities have been infiltrated by leftist professors (much like the Catholic church with pedophiles) who influence the scientists of said university. But, as an aside, we in the U.S. have the leftist professor problem too! As the saying goes..."If you can, do it. If you can't, teach!"

3. Kyoto is just a back-door way to undermine the competitive advantage of the United States.

4. The sunspot correlation is much more defined than the man-made correlation, IMHO.

Plenty of conspiracy theorist waffle, not one shred of evidence of anything.

 

[Drooper]

On what basis can you predict that Kyoto will be damaging to the world's economy?

The short answer is on the basis that I am economist, with nearly 10 years academic training and a couple of deacades of experience in practical application.

The next shortest answer has to do with marginal cost, marginal product and production possibility curves. It is too long to expound here without lots of ommissions and over-simplification. Sufice to say that if producing income as envisaged under Kyoto (i.e. where there are prescribed levels of CO2 emmissions and hence levels and types of energy usage) would be more efficient (meaoning more income from the resources we use, including labour, raw materials, capital etc.) firms would be doing it already unless there were MASSIVE market failure across markets.

It is simply a question of how much income (in layman's terms standard of living, including health education welfare etc. as well as new cars and the like) we are willing to give up now and in the future to pay for the expected benefits of Kyoto policy. Not only do I still have doubts about AGW theory as presently marketed, I also have reservations about the likely cost of AGW IF it really is going to occcur as claimed. That is I think we might be better of just paying the costs of AGW as they occur rather than pay massive sums to avoid them.

 

[Drooper]

What is the evidence that implementing Kyoto will harm the world ecomony?

Why do you insist that other people go and do your research for you. This is a sceptics forum right?

Our found this one from an old colleague of mine and a well respected Aussie economist, Warwick McKibbin:

Climate Change Policy after Kyoto
Blueprint for a Realistic Approach
Warwick J. McKibbin and Peter Wilcoxen
Brookings Institution Press 2002

The book summarizes the current state of knowledge about climate change and discusses the history of negotiations since 1992—in the process identifying the Kyoto Protocol as the wrong approach to the problem. It outlines important insights that economic theory offers for the design of climate policy, and uses those insights to develop a simple framework that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions while guaranteeing that short-run costs of compliance will not be excessive. The authors conclude by outlining a process by which international negotiations on climate control can proceed to an agreement that is both durable and feasible for all nations.

Now go and learn some more for yourself.

 

[a_unique_person]

The short answer is on the basis that I am economist, with nearly 10 years academic training and a couple of deacades of experience in practical application.

The next shortest answer has to do with marginal cost, marginal product and production possibility curves. It is too long to expound here without lots of ommissions and over-simplification. Sufice to say that if producing income as envisaged under Kyoto (i.e. where there are prescribed levels of CO2 emmissions and hence levels and types of energy usage) would be more efficient (meaoning more income from the resources we use, including labour, raw materials, capital etc.) firms would be doing it already unless there were MASSIVE market failure across markets.

It is simply a question of how much income (in layman's terms standard of living, including health education welfare etc. as well as new cars and the like) we are willing to give up now and in the future to pay for the expected benefits of Kyoto policy. Not only do I still have doubts about AGW theory as presently marketed, I also have reservations about the likely cost of AGW IF it really is going to occcur as claimed. That is I think we might be better of just paying the costs of AGW as they occur rather than pay massive sums to avoid them.

All of a sudden, you want me to trust the experts?

 

[a_unique_person]

Why do you insist that other people go and do your research for you. This is a sceptics forum right?

Our found this one from an old colleague of mine and a well respected Aussie economist, Warwick McKibbin:

Climate Change Policy after Kyoto
Blueprint for a Realistic Approach
Warwick J. McKibbin and Peter Wilcoxen
Brookings Institution Press 2002




Now go and learn some more for yourself.

I have no problem with a better Kyoto, if that is what this is. The scientists can only say what they think should be happening, not how it can happen, that is not their field of expertise. If the economic experts can't come up with a good model for Kyoto, it is not the fault of them telling us there is GW.

 

[Drooper]

What is the evidence that implementing Kyoto will harm the world ecomony?

Here is a other one, from MIT that attempts to put numbers on things. These numbers should be taken with a grain of salt, but the analysis is sound.

MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

In short it estimated that a 25% reduction in CO2 emmissions would cost, say the EU, USD 160 billion per annum in lost welfare (measured as total annual consumption).

If I put that into todays terms (it was valued at 1997 dollars), it is around USD 190 billion per annum. This is the amount by which welfare would be reduced every year to eternity, so we can find the present value of this stream of costs. I'll be generous and discount this at 4% real discount rate and we get USD 4.8 trillion. That's right 4.8 thousand billion dollars is the estimated total cost in present value terms - for the EU alone. That is a massive cost to bear. You better be damn sure you are doing the right thing before you sign a cheque of that magnitude.

 

[Drooper]

All of a sudden, you want me to trust the experts?

I just want you to go and find out a bit more using a critical eye.

 

[a_unique_person]

Here is a other one, from MIT that attempts to put numbers on things. These numbers should be taken with a grain of salt, but the analysis is sound.

MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

In short it estimated that a 25% reduction in CO2 emmissions would cost, say the EU, USD 160 billion per annum in lost welfare (measured as total annual consumption).

If I put that into todays terms (it was valued at 1997 dollars), it is around USD 190 billion per annum. This is the amount by which welfare would be reduced every year to eternity, so we can find the present value of this stream of costs. I'll be generous and discount this at 4% real discount rate and we get USD 4.8 trillion. That's right 4.8 thousand billion dollars is the estimated total cost in present value terms - for the EU alone. That is a massive cost to bear. You better be damn sure you are doing the right thing before you sign a cheque of that magnitude.

Yet you ignore the cost of GW. It's as if you are saying GW cannot happen, the economic cost will be too high. Hardly a rational argument. You better be damn sure it's not going to happen if it's going to cost anything like what it would if the effects predicted, (and happening right now), occur.

As to the figures, since you are predicting the future, I take it we can trust the models you are using. I mean, the economy is not simple system, but a chaotic one. Can we put any faith in your models and predictions at all?

 

[a_unique_person]

I just want you to go and find out a bit more using a critical eye.

I do, and I have. However, the economic cost must come second the the reality. As the link I posted earlier demonstrated, a prediction on the Australian climate 20 years ago has been shown to be remarkably accurate, with models that were much more primitive.

 

[a_unique_person]

I just want you to go and find out a bit more using a critical eye.

I do, and I have. However, the economic cost must come second the the reality. As the link I posted earlier demonstrated, a prediction on the Australian climate 20 years ago has been shown to be remarkably accurate, with models that were much more primitive.

Your idea of a critical eye is to overlook the scientific outlook of the worlds scientists, and cherry pick a few outlier pockets that fit in with your view.

 

[Drooper]

I do, and I have. However, the economic cost must come second the the reality.

A statement like that reveals your attitude as dogmatic. Are you really saying that we have to combat perceived global warming at any cost?

The reality is that there will be costs and benefits regardless oif the route you take. We should be evaluating each and choosing the best response.

As the link I posted earlier demonstrated, a prediction on the Australian climate 20 years ago has been shown to be remarkably accurate, with models that were much more primitive.

Earlier you provided a press report of an ex post claim of forecast accuracy for one particular facet of climatic variation across Australia. This ranks right up there with "Ladybrook".

If you can provide a full original forecast (date of publication must be verifiable) that we can evaluate in entirety you might be on strong ground.

However, then we need to look at ALL the other climate forecasts made contemporaneously with this one, because as your information states:

Back then, some climate scientists predicted that global warming would bring less rainfall to the southern areas of Australia

We need to investigate this "some" issue a bit more before you make your claims, don't you think?

What is more, the article clearly quotes Dr Smith (we're all doomed, doomed I tell you) as stating:

"That's why we need to look at how consistent the climate trends are and then how much we can blame the greenhouse effect."

Your idea of a critical eye is to overlook the scientific outlook of the worlds scientists, and cherry pick a few outlier pockets that fit in with your view.

Prove it

You don't even read the material you are posting. The original claim in this thread was that you had "new evidence" for AGW. You had nothing of the sort, as I discovered after reading it.

 

[Drooper]

I feel I need to debunk some of your material a little more fully. For example, this "remarkable" forecast accuracy from 20 years ago (let's say 1980) that rainfall would increase in northern Australia and fall in southern Australia.


You see, I like to see the original data on these sorts of things and so I went to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology - an excellent site by the way. From there I obtain time series for rainfall in Southwestern Australia and one for rainfall in Northern Australia (the closest I could get to north and south of WA). I than compared the results with the claims made in the newspaper article you quoted.

These statemenets concern me:

some climate scientists predicted that global warming would bring less rainfall to the southern areas of Australia - which has happened - and more rainfall to the north.

Again it was only some, right?

But let's look at some evidence. Let's start with the claim "less rainfall in the south:

The 11 year running average for rainfall in southwestern Aus CLEARLY fell up to 1980 and has been comparatively stable since.

So let's call that myth busted

Now let's turn to this claim: "more rainfall in the north".

Now try to make an argument that raindfall has increased in northern Australia in the last 20 years. Actually it increased in the 1970s (when there was global cooling. Since then it went on a cycle, down and then up again.

Let's call that myth busted also.


Do you wish to discuss cherry-picking evidence again? This lot was YOUR evidence and it fell over at the very first hurdle.

 

[a_unique_person]

I feel I need to debunk some of your material a little more fully. For example, this "remarkable" forecast accuracy from 20 years ago (let's say 1980) that rainfall would increase in northern Australia and fall in southern Australia.


You see, I like to see the original data on these sorts of things and so I went to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology - an excellent site by the way. From there I obtain time series for rainfall in Southwestern Australia and one for rainfall in Northern Australia (the closest I could get to north and south of WA). I than compared the results with the claims made in the newspaper article you quoted.

These statemenets concern me:



Again it was only some, right?

But let's look at some evidence. Let's start with the claim "less rainfall in the south:

The 11 year running average for rainfall in southwestern Aus CLEARLY fell up to 1980 and has been comparatively stable since.

So let's call that myth busted

Now let's turn to this claim: "more rainfall in the north".

Now try to make an argument that raindfall has increased in northern Australia in the last 20 years. Actually it increased in the 1970s (when there was global cooling. Since then it went on a cycle, down and then up again.

Let's call that myth busted also.

Maybe you should look at the diagram that came with the article.

myth busted. You really do think that all the economists are geniuses at everything, including climate, and that if only those idiot scientists would listen to you, everything would be made clear. Maybe you should give them a call, and offer your services. You remind me of Jerry Pournelle writing his science fiction stories in which the science fiction writers save the world.

Do you wish to discuss cherry-picking evidence again? This lot was YOUR evidence and it fell over at the very first hurdle.

 

[jj]

Funny nobody mentions the 50 year temperature surveys of the high arctic.

 

[CapelDodger]

Funny nobody mentions the 50 year temperature surveys of the high arctic.

Denialists do tend to steer clear of the melting permafrost. Sadly there's no disappearance of John Daley crap (the mendacious wee twat is dead, but he won't lie down) : "The Hockey Stick is broken" comes right out of his cliche-chest. The efforts to break it involve a Medieval Warm Period which would have melted permafrost that's been frozen for 11,000 years. And is melting now.

There's been an acceleration in CO2 accumulation recently, which is a little disconcerting. It might indicate that a carbon sink is filling up. Or it might indicate that a source - like melting permafrost - is increasing. Or it might just be a blip.

 

[a_unique_person]

Denialists do tend to steer clear of the melting permafrost. Sadly there's no disappearance of John Daley crap (the mendacious wee twat is dead, but he won't lie down) : "The Hockey Stick is broken" comes right out of his cliche-chest. The efforts to break it involve a Medieval Warm Period which would have melted permafrost that's been frozen for 11,000 years. And is melting now.

There's been an acceleration in CO2 accumulation recently, which is a little disconcerting. It might indicate that a carbon sink is filling up. Or it might indicate that a source - like melting permafrost - is increasing. Or it might just be a blip.

It has become a political issue. The only thing many fail to realise is that the economic system depends on the planet, it doesn't dictate how the planet works. For many, there is some 'cargo cult' mentality that will dream up a magical hi tech answer to any problems that may arise. The example of the big American dreams of the 60's provides a good counterpoint. JFK said the US would fly sa man to the moon, and it did. Nixon said the US would cure cancer, and it didn't. You can't bet on a hi tech fix magically appearing that will fix any problems.

 

[Drooper]

Maybe you should look at the diagram that came with the article.

myth busted. You really do think that all the economists are geniuses at everything, including climate, and that if only those idiot scientists would listen to you, everything would be made clear. Maybe you should give them a call, and offer your services. You remind me of Jerry Pournelle writing his science fiction stories in which the science fiction writers save the world.

The chart with the article shows how misleading statistics can be.

Look at the time series The data is in direct contradiction of the claims. Do you everyone is as simple as you?

 

[CapelDodger]

It has become a political issue. The only thing many fail to realise is that the economic system depends on the planet, it doesn't dictate how the planet works. For many, there is some 'cargo cult' mentality that will dream up a magical hi tech answer to any problems that may arise. The example of the big American dreams of the 60's provides a good counterpoint. JFK said the US would fly sa man to the moon, and it did. Nixon said the US would cure cancer, and it didn't. You can't bet on a hi tech fix magically appearing that will fix any problems.

And Bush says we're going to Mars (God of War, if memory serves). All sound and fury, signifying nothing ...

It's a very traditional political issue. Those that have influence under the status quo, allied with the natural conservatism of the species, try to maintain said status quo. Despite changing circumstances. It's known as the San Andreas effect, because, in the end, there's uproar as reality bites.

 

[a_unique_person]

The chart with the article shows how misleading statistics can be.

Look at the time series The data is in direct contradiction of the claims. Do you everyone is as simple as you?

This map backs up the actual predictions that were made. Your maps cover areas that are not defined at all.