Climate change and other predictions of Imminent Doom

[Simple Minded]

I'm starting to sense a pattern here:

Smart people have secret, unprovable knowledge that makes them cognizant of threats that should not only scare the less smart people, but may threaten their existence.
The only reason the less smart people are not aware of the seriousness of the situation is, well, lets face it, they're not that smart.
Smart people make money solving the problem that only they are aware of and could possibly solve.
The smart people get to make their car, boat, and mortgage payments.
The not-so-smart people get ot continue to live in ignorant bliss.

Seems like a fair deal.... right?

[Doc]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/04/ ... h-hot-air/

UN finding on climate change is just a bunch of hot air, new report claims
Published April 08, 2014

A U.N.-commissioned panel says climate change is hurting the growth of crops, affecting the quality of water supplies and forcing wildlife to change the way it lives – but what if it’s all just smoke and mirrors?

A new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), written by an international collection of scientists and published by the conservative Heartland Institute, claims just that, declaring that humanity's impact on climate is not causing substantial harm to the Earth.

“All across the planet, the historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration has stimulated vegetative productivity,” reads a portion of the 1,063-page report, called “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts.” “This observed stimulation, or greening of the Earth, has occurred in spite of many real and imagined assaults on Earth’s vegetation, including fires, disease, pest outbreaks, deforestation and climatic change.”

The Heartland Institute says more than 30 scientists served as authors and reviewers for the new report, which it claims cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed studies supporting the belief that climate change is not detrimental to the biosphere. The Heartland Institute describes itself as a think tank promoting public policy "based on individual liberty, limited government and free markets."

The panel of scientists says human impact on the global climate is small, changing temperatures are within a historic scope of temperature variables and there is no net harm to human health of the production of food.

The findings are a stark contrast to the messages from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which in a report released last week concluded that in many regions of the earth, changing precipitation and melting snow are altering hydrological systems, which negatively impact the quantity of water resources.

The IPCC’s report also states that climate change is forcing terrestrial, freshwater and marine species to shift their geographical ranges and migration patterns.

But the Heartland Institute says the scientific community is under tremendous financial and peer pressure to reach the conclusion that global industry is damaging the environment.

“Ethical standards have been lowered, peer review has been corrupted, and we can’t trust peers in our most prestigious journals anymore,” Joe Bast, President and CEO of Heartland Institute, told Fox News.

However, scientists are questioning the credibility of the NIPCC’s findings.

Donald Wuebbels, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Indiana Champaign Urbana, says the report is not peer-reviewed.

“Mostly it’s a bunch of old, retired guys that got together and wrote a report for the Heartland Institute that is basically full of misinformation,” he told Fox News.

The Heartland Institute, which is going to publicly roll out the report Wednesday in Washington, D.C., insists that it is peer-reviewed.

Meanwhile, government officials and top climate scientists are meeting in Berlin this week to approve a draft U.N. study on fossil fuel emissions.

The study asserts that world powers are running out of time to cut their use of high-polluting fossil fuels and stay below agreed limits on global warming, according to Reuters.

The study says nations will have to make drastic pullbacks of greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to less than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over pre-industrial times.

The draft study outlines ways to cut emissions and boost low-carbon energy, such as nuclear and solar power, Reuters reports

.

[Doc]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... n-science/

Overall, global greenhouse gas emissions—largely caused by burning coal, oil and natural gas—need to be cut 40 to 70 percent by mid-century, the report says, for humanity to face better than 50-50 odds of dodging the worst effects of global warming.

Every year it seem that the amount that "HAS TO BE CUT NOW !@#^!" Grows.

Perhaps "The Anthropogenic Global Warming thread" should be renamed "The Astrological Global Warming Controversy thread"

[Doc]

The NYT discovers that people get turned off by exaggerated BS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opini ... .html?_r=0

Global Warming Scare Tactics

By TED NORDHAUS and MICHAEL SHELLENBERGERAPRIL 8, 2014

This story is included with an NYT Now subscription.
Learn More »
Continue reading the main story

OAKLAND, Calif. — IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime. A trailer for “Years of Living Dangerously” is terrifying, replete with images of melting glaciers, raging wildfires and rampaging floods. “I don’t think scary is the right word,” intones one voice. “Dangerous, definitely.”

Showtime’s producers undoubtedly have the best of intentions. There are serious long-term risks associated with rising greenhouse gas emissions, ranging from ocean acidification to sea-level rise to decreasing agricultural output.

But there is every reason to believe that efforts to raise public concern about climate change by linking it to natural disasters will backfire. More than a decade’s worth of research suggests that fear-based appeals about climate change inspire denial, fatalism and polarization.

For instance, Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” popularized the idea that today’s natural disasters are increasing in severity and frequency because of human-caused global warming. It also contributed to public backlash and division. Since 2006, the number of Americans telling Gallup that the media was exaggerating global warming grew to 42 percent today from about 34 percent. Meanwhile, the gap between Democrats and Republicans on whether global warming is caused by humans rose to 42 percent last year from 26 percent in 2006, according to the Pew Research Center.

Other factors contributed. Some conservatives and fossil-fuel interests questioned the link between carbon emissions and global warming. And beginning in 2007, as the country was falling into recession, public support for environmental protection declined.

Still, environmental groups have known since 2000 that efforts to link climate change to natural disasters could backfire, after researchers at the Frameworks Institute studied public attitudes for its report “How to Talk About Global Warming.” Messages focused on extreme weather events, they found, made many Americans more likely to view climate change as an act of God — something to be weathered, not prevented.

Some people, the report noted, “are likely to buy an SUV to help them through the erratic weather to come” for example, rather than support fuel-efficiency standards.

Since then, evidence that a fear-based approach backfires has grown stronger. A frequently cited 2009 study in the journal Science Communication summed up the scholarly consensus. “Although shocking, catastrophic, and large-scale representations of the impacts of climate change may well act as an initial hook for people’s attention and concern,” the researchers wrote, “they clearly do not motivate a sense of personal engagement with the issue and indeed may act to trigger barriers to engagement such as denial.” In a controlled laboratory experiment published in Psychological Science in 2010, researchers were able to use “dire messages” about global warming to increase skepticism about the problem.

Many climate advocates ignore these findings, arguing that they have an obligation to convey the alarming facts.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

But claims linking the latest blizzard, drought or hurricane to global warming simply can’t be supported by the science. Our warming world is, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, increasing heat waves and intense precipitation in some places, and is likely to bring more extreme weather in the future. But the panel also said there is little evidence that this warming is increasing the loss of life or the economic costs of natural disasters. “Economic growth, including greater concentrations of people and wealth in periled areas and rising insurance penetration,” the climate panel noted, “is the most important driver of increasing losses.”
Continue reading the main story

Claims that current disasters are connected to climate change do seem to motivate many liberals to support action. But they alienate conservatives in roughly equal measure.

What works, say environmental pollsters and researchers, is focusing on popular solutions. Climate advocates often do this, arguing that solar and wind can reduce emissions while strengthening the economy. But when renewable energy technologies are offered as solutions to the exclusion of other low-carbon alternatives, they polarize rather than unite.

One recent study, published by Yale Law School’s Cultural Cognition Project, found that conservatives become less skeptical about global warming if they first read articles suggesting nuclear energy or geoengineering as solutions. Another study, in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2012, concluded that “communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society” rather than “on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.”

Nonetheless, virtually every major national environmental organization continues to reject nuclear energy, even after four leading climate scientists wrote them an open letter last fall, imploring them to embrace the technology as a key climate solution. Together with catastrophic rhetoric, the rejection of technologies like nuclear and natural gas by environmental groups is most likely feeding the perception among many that climate change is being exaggerated. After all, if climate change is a planetary emergency, why take nuclear and natural gas off the table?

While the urgency that motivates exaggerated claims is understandable, turning down the rhetoric and embracing solutions like nuclear energy will better serve efforts to slow global warming.

Ted Nordhaus is the chairman and Michael Shellenberger is the president of the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research organization.

[Typhoon]

Ten climate skeptic arguments that are "not even wrong"

and

Ten good climate skeptic arguments

[Simple Minded]

Ten good climate skeptic arguments

I like Dr. Spencer's sense of humor:
Reply to poster...
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Trust them. They are scientists. They know what they’re doing.

[Apollonius]

This is a thread I've only posted to once. It's not that I'm not interested in the subject. It's just that our esteemed host is interested in debate. Others feel that even if it's something like evolutionary theory, that wants only to have some details filled in, big government has already done enough damage and don't trust it to tackle this problem.

I do tend to agree with those that argue that what with the myriad problems facing humankind, fretting too much about global climate change is akin to worrying about an asteroid strike: not just possible, but inevitable, especially over the longterm. The answer to both problems is to develop sustainable colonies beyond Earth. In the meantime, those who remain on this planet will just have to adjust, or possibly, go extinct. Whatever. I'm one of the people who won't live to see the worst consequences.



What motivates me to post this particular article is the emphasis on possible environmentally induced psycho-social reactions. I've always felt that it was hard to disentangle the nasty religious doctrines and sordid history of the Middle East from the oppressive heat, and have often referred to the so-called Abrahamic religions as the Desert Religions: an environmental and intellectual wasteland with a desiccated theology resulting from over-baked tempers, a natural by-product of too much glaring sun.


I post this mainly for entertainment value, and because it tickles my sense of humour, in particular at the end of the article where it mentions the city I am most familiar with.


The print edition has the title: Hot enough for you?


The reality of a hotter world is already here -- Jerry Adler, Smithsonian Magazine, May 2014
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 180951172/

As global warming makes sizzling temperatures more common, will human beings be able to keep their cool? New research suggests not


Douglas Kenrick, rangy and grizzled, squints through the shimmering heat of a late-summer afternoon in the Sonora desert. “You live here long enough,” he says, crossing to the south side of an empty street for the five-minute walk across the campus of Arizona State University, “and you become like a desert animal, searching out shade.” Having grown up on Long Island, and coming from the frequently snowbound campus of Montana State University, he relished the heat when he moved to Phoenix in 1980, but by the end of his first full summer, it had become oppressive. “I came from New York with the attitude that it can’t ever be too hot for me,” says Kenrick, “but I was wrong.” It seems likely that most people who move to Phoenix, where the temperature reached 118 degrees one day last June, make the same discovery, but as an evolutionary psychologist, Kenrick wanted to do more than complain about the climate. So he did an experiment.

His method had the elegance of all great science: He recruited a volunteer to stop her car at a green light and he counted the seconds until the driver behind honked the horn. He did this once a week from April to August, on days when the high temperature ranged from 84 degrees to 108, and he found that the thermometer accurately predicted how soon, and how many times, thwarted drivers would protest before the light changed. “When the weather was comfortably cool, the typical driver just politely tapped on the horn for a second,” Kenrick wrote. “When it got up near 100, though, they started blaring their horns, yelling out the window, and making hand signals they probably did not learn in driver’s education.”

The link between heat and anger—people are “fired up” or “steamed up,” or they “keep their cool”—is so deeply embedded in folk wisdom that it has gone mostly unquestioned. But it is increasingly a subject for psychologists and other social scientists concerned about the implications of a world in which 108 degrees may no longer be exceptional. Under one scenario studied by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, by the end of the century, today’s North Carolina summers would become the norm for New Hampshire, while Louisiana’s climate would migrate up to Illinois. In Phoenix itself, “temperatures could regularly hit the 130s...by the second half of this century,” University of Arizona climatologist Jonathan Overpeck has predicted.

The various environmental effects of greenhouse gases are potentially devastating, as we have often heard. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, made public in March, underscored the danger of widespread hunger, even starvation, resulting from crop failures. Other health threats have been enumerated by Robert Repetto, a United Nations Foundation economist, who says climate change will intensify smog, leading to “increased outbreaks of asthma and allergies,” and “exacerbate vector-borne diseases such as hantavirus, West Nile virus, Lyme disease and dengue fever.” Repetto also worries about the “extreme weather events” that some researchers say climate change will engender. “Biological systems and engineering systems are all designed for a range of climatic conditions,” he says. “Within those limits, we’re OK, ...but outside those limits, the damage increases rapidly and becomes catastrophic, and we’re going outside those limits.” Heat waves themselves pose a health risk, especially for young children and the elderly—and world-class athletes. Temperatures at the Australian Open in January reached 104 degrees for four consecutive days, a condition that one tennis player called “inhumane” after competitors collapsed on the court. ...

Most of the article describes the situation in Phoenix, Arizona, located in the American Southwest, an area known to have experienced prolonged hot / dry periods in the past.

... Phoenix, like most big cities is what meteorologists call a "heat island," hotter than the surrounding countryside, or than the land would be without the burden of civilization: of asphalt parking lots and tinted-glass skyscrapers, of the air conditioners, automobile engines, appliances and light bulbs of the 1.5 million people. (Or, for that matter t, the people themselves: The population of the Phoenix metropolitan area, over four million, generates as much energy in the form of body heat as a medium-sized power plant.) The heat-island effect creates a phenomenon that meteorologists and ordinary citizens find even more disturbing than the occasional 115-degree afternoon: the trend toward higher nighttime temperatures.

Citing National Weather Service data, Norman, the meteorologist, said the last record low in Phoenix was in December 1990. "Since then we have set 144 record [daytime] highs and 230 record-high [nighttime] lows. Back in the 1980s, even in the hottest part of the year, there were cool mornings, but this year there were nights it never got out of the 90s. I wonder if eventually we will never get below freezing, and that worries me because when it happens, the next summer we get hammered by the bugs-- spiders, roaches, ants -- even mice."

Fifteen to 20 times a year, Ken Waters of the National Weather Service issues a heat warning for the region, based on predicted highs and, equally important, nighttime lows. "No question it has a major impact on people", he says. "When it stays about 90 all night it makes it very difficult to recover from daytime heating." If you don't have a home to go to, you are at the mercy of the elements, Harlan says, no less than someone sleeping on a subway grate in Manhattan to stay warm in December. In a study that looked at heat-related death by occupation, men in the category "unknown"-- which usually means homeless-- had a rate ten times that of men in known occupations.

For the rest of us-- well, we will just have to get used to sweating more, and put up with what Anderson, of Iowa State, describes as the "crankiness" factor. "Being uncomfortable colors the way people see things", he says. "Minor insults may be perceived as major ones, inviting, even demanding retaliation."

That was just what Richard Larrick of Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, along with his co-authors, found when they examined the box scores of some 57,000 Major League Baseball games played since 1952-- about 4.5 million plate appearances in all. They were looking into whether hot weather made pitchers more likely to throw at batters, and based on records of game-time temperatures, they found that it did, but in a specific and telling way. In theory, hot weather might increase the incidence of wild pitches by affecting pitchers' control (distracting them, or making their palms sweaty), but that's not what the study focused on. Instead it found that after one or more batters were hit, intentionally or not, hot weather made it more likely that the opposing pitcher would retaliate later in the game. "What's interesting is that the same act-- your teammate being hit by a pitch--seems to mean something different in a hot temperature than a low one", Larrick says. "An ambiguous act now seems more provocative when your own mind is in turmoil because of the heat."

Of course, very cold weather makes people uncomfortable also, and in laboratory experiments cold has in fact been shown to increase aggression. But that doesn't appear to translate into more crime during cold spells. There is some evidence from brain imaging that the perception and regulation of heat involves some of the same regions that process anger-- the proverbial "hothead"-- although the significance of those finding is unclear. Anderson speculates that in evolutionary history, extreme cold has generally posed a more immediate threat to personal survival than heat, and people are driven to escape it, with clothing, fire and shelter. "If I'm cold, I have to deal with that right away", he muses. "I don't have time to be irritable."

And if you suffer from the heat, like Kenrick, the Arizona researcher, and you work on an academic schedule, you can head north for relief. "I go to Vancouver for a couple of weeks a year", he says, "and I enjoy being able to go out for coffee without having to stop each time and thing, is it worth it". He should enjoy it while he can, because Vancouver recorded its two hottest days ever in 2009, and the city is considered at risk of flooding owing to climate change in the coming decades.

That honking sound you hear? It may be the climate apocalypse right behind you.

[Typhoon]

The Smithsonian article is another excellent example of AGW junk science.

[Ammianus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/scien ... c=rss&_r=2

The collapse of large parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable, with global warming accelerating the pace of the disintegration, two groups of scientists reported Monday.

The finding, which had been feared by some scientists for decades, means that a rise in global sea level of at least 10 feet may now be inevitable. The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so, the scientists said, but sometime after that it will probably speed up so sharply as to become a crisis.

“This is really happening,” said Thomas P. Wagner, who runs NASA’s programs on polar ice and helped oversee some of the research. “There’s nothing to stop it now. But you are still limited by the physics of how fast the ice can flow.”

Two papers scheduled for publication this week, in the journals Science and Geophysical Research Letters, attempt to make sense of an accelerated flow of glaciers seen in parts of West Antarctica in recent decades.

Both papers conclude that warm water upwelling from the ocean depths has most likely triggered an inherent instability that makes the West Antarctic ice sheet vulnerable to a slow-motion collapse. And one paper concludes that factors some scientists had hoped might counteract such a collapse will not do so.

The new finding appears to be the fulfillment of a prediction made in 1978 by an eminent glaciologist, John H. Mercer of the Ohio State University. He outlined the uniquely vulnerable nature of the West Antarctic ice sheet and warned that the rapid human release of greenhouse gases posed “a threat of disaster.” He was assailed at the time, but in recent years scientists have been watching with growing concern as events have unfolded in much the way Dr. Mercer predicted. (He died in 1987.)

Scientists said the ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because of the relatively warm water, which is naturally occurring, from the ocean depths. That water is being pulled upward and toward the ice sheet by intensification of the winds around Antarctica.
Continue reading the main story

The conspiracy continues, Colonel. What shall we ever do?

[Typhoon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/scien ... c=rss&_r=2

The collapse of large parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable, with global warming accelerating the pace of the disintegration, two groups of scientists reported Monday.

The finding, which had been feared by some scientists for decades, means that a rise in global sea level of at least 10 feet may now be inevitable. The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so, the scientists said, but sometime after that it will probably speed up so sharply as to become a crisis.

“This is really happening,” said Thomas P. Wagner, who runs NASA’s programs on polar ice and helped oversee some of the research. “There’s nothing to stop it now. But you are still limited by the physics of how fast the ice can flow.”

Two papers scheduled for publication this week, in the journals Science and Geophysical Research Letters, attempt to make sense of an accelerated flow of glaciers seen in parts of West Antarctica in recent decades.

Both papers conclude that warm water upwelling from the ocean depths has most likely triggered an inherent instability that makes the West Antarctic ice sheet vulnerable to a slow-motion collapse. And one paper concludes that factors some scientists had hoped might counteract such a collapse will not do so.

The new finding appears to be the fulfillment of a prediction made in 1978 by an eminent glaciologist, John H. Mercer of the Ohio State University. He outlined the uniquely vulnerable nature of the West Antarctic ice sheet and warned that the rapid human release of greenhouse gases posed “a threat of disaster.” He was assailed at the time, but in recent years scientists have been watching with growing concern as events have unfolded in much the way Dr. Mercer predicted. (He died in 1987.)

Scientists said the ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because of the relatively warm water, which is naturally occurring, from the ocean depths. That water is being pulled upward and toward the ice sheet by intensification of the winds around Antarctica.
Continue reading the main story

The conspiracy continues, Colonel. What shall we ever do?

Taking a skeptical view what one reads in the NY Times is a good start.

I've lost count of how many imminent global crises I've not only survived, but thrived despite, during my lifetime.

____

So what does the NY TImes own environment - climate writer have to say about all this?

NY Times - Revkin | Study: West Antarctic Melt a Slow Affair

What does the actual author of one of these computer simulation* studies have to say?

Over all, the loss of the West Antarctic ice from warming is appearing “more likely a definite thing to worry about on a thousand-year time scale but not a hundred years,” Dr. Pollard said.

Another crisis of the future,

one that will alway be so.

*to be regarded with great skepticism due to the unknown unknowns

[Simple Minded]

Taking a skeptical view what one reads in the NY Times is a good start.

I've lost count of how many imminent global crises I've not only survived, but thrived despite, during my lifetime.

Well said. Taking a skeptical view of "expert" opinion is another good step. Those who can not predict well, seem to earn a living by predicting often.

Doomer Porn will always sell well. Which says more about human nature than any of the predictions made by humans.

[Doc]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/scien ... c=rss&_r=2

The collapse of large parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable, with global warming accelerating the pace of the disintegration, two groups of scientists reported Monday.

The finding, which had been feared by some scientists for decades, means that a rise in global sea level of at least 10 feet may now be inevitable. The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so, the scientists said, but sometime after that it will probably speed up so sharply as to become a crisis.

“This is really happening,” said Thomas P. Wagner, who runs NASA’s programs on polar ice and helped oversee some of the research. “There’s nothing to stop it now. But you are still limited by the physics of how fast the ice can flow.”

Two papers scheduled for publication this week, in the journals Science and Geophysical Research Letters, attempt to make sense of an accelerated flow of glaciers seen in parts of West Antarctica in recent decades.

Both papers conclude that warm water upwelling from the ocean depths has most likely triggered an inherent instability that makes the West Antarctic ice sheet vulnerable to a slow-motion collapse. And one paper concludes that factors some scientists had hoped might counteract such a collapse will not do so.

The new finding appears to be the fulfillment of a prediction made in 1978 by an eminent glaciologist, John H. Mercer of the Ohio State University. He outlined the uniquely vulnerable nature of the West Antarctic ice sheet and warned that the rapid human release of greenhouse gases posed “a threat of disaster.” He was assailed at the time, but in recent years scientists have been watching with growing concern as events have unfolded in much the way Dr. Mercer predicted. (He died in 1987.)

Scientists said the ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because of the relatively warm water, which is naturally occurring, from the ocean depths. That water is being pulled upward and toward the ice sheet by intensification of the winds around Antarctica.
Continue reading the main story

The conspiracy continues, Colonel. What shall we ever do?

Taking a skeptical view what one reads in the NY Times is a good start.

I've lost count of how many imminent global crises I've not only survived, but thrived despite, during my lifetime.

____

So what does the NY TImes own environment - climate writer have to say about all this?

NY Times - Revkin | Study: West Antarctic Melt a Slow Affair

What does the actual author of one of these computer simulation* studies have to say?

Over all, the loss of the West Antarctic ice from warming is appearing “more likely a definite thing to worry about on a thousand-year time scale but not a hundred years,” Dr. Pollard said.

Another crisis of the future,

one that will alway be so.

*to be regarded with great skepticism due to the unknown unknowns

No to mention the word "Unstoppable":

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... -not-more/

If Antarctic Melting Has Passed The Point Of No Return We Should Do Less About Climate Change, Not More

The economics of what we should do about climate change can be rather interestingly different from what we’re urged to do by the scientists and environmentalists. This is no doubt the effect of some character or moral flaw in economists but it is true that we can come up with some remarkably different policy prescriptions from exactly the same evidence. Take, for example, the reports out today that the glaciers of West Antarctica are melting, have passed the point of no return, and thus that sea levels are going to rise some several feet over the next few centuries (yes, we are talking about centuries here, no one at all outside Greenpeace and the like is trying to say that Manhattan will be underwater by Tuesday noon next).

We can all imagine, heck, wait a few hours and we won’t have to imagine it, the cries from scientists and environmentalists shouting that this really proves that we’ve got to pull our fingers out and really solve this climate change problem. The economists’ answer is that this just proves that we need to do less about trying to avert climate change. As I say, a very different policy answer from the very same (and for our purposes here, entirely undisputed) facts.



Here’s the report:

A rapidly melting glacial region of Antarctica has passed “the point of no return,” threatening to increase sea levels, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

“The collapse of this sector of West Antarctica appears to be unstoppable,” Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine, said yesterday in a statement.

NASA estimates the glaciers in the Amundsen Sea region contain enough water to raise global sea levels by 4 feet (1.2 meters).

Four feet isn’t going to produce those Nevada beachside condos but it’s also probably something that we’d prefer not to happen. So we can understand those calling for a large and immediate reduction in carbon emissions and so on. Can’t we?

Except an economist is going to look at that past “the point of no return”. That is, again without contesting the water level rise resulting, that this is all about sunk costs. Whatever it was that we needed to do to cause this sea level rise (you can even call it a calamity or a disaster if you wish) we have already done. It doesn’t matter what we do in the future because, given that it’s past that point of no return, whatever we do do won’t make it not happen. That’s what that point of no return phrase actually means.

So, given that it’s going to happen whatever we do what effort should we be expending to try and stop it happening, what should we be doing? The answers to those two questions being none and nothing. If it’s going to happen anyway then we shouldn’t waste resources in trying to stop it happening.

Now, if the original claim was that without immediate and stringent action then it might happen then perhaps more action might be logically supportable. But given that the claim is actually that whatever we do it’s going to happen then the correct decision is simply to shrug our shoulders and go invest in some sandbags to keep back the floods. For however much we impoverish ourselves by killing off industrial society, or by razing all the coal fired stations to build more expensive solar installations, that flooding is going to happen anyway. So, why make ourselves poorer in order to change nothing?

As I say, the policy prescriptions you can get from these descriptions of climate change can change quite alarmingly depending upon whether you view them through the lens of economics or not. If it’s inevitable that past emissions will raise sea levels four feet then there’s no point at all in limiting current emissions to prevent that four foot rise. We might as well face the floods being as rich, fat and happy as we can, without wasting resources on trying to prevent something inevitable.

It is only if continuing emissions are going to lead to something more, something else possibly worse, happening that there’s any economic case at all for limiting them. As it happens I think that there are worse things that might happen and that there is a very good case indeed for limiting future emissions. But this finding, that West Antarctica is going to melt no matter what just isn’t a valid reason to limit future emissions. The damage is already done, see?

[Typhoon]

Taking a skeptical view what one reads in the NY Times is a good start.

I've lost count of how many imminent global crises I've not only survived, but thrived despite, during my lifetime.

Well said. Taking a skeptical view of "expert" opinion is another good step. Those who can not predict well, seem to earn a living by predicting often.

Doomer Porn will always sell well. Which says more about human nature than any of the predictions made by humans.

Probably the best example of a doomer porn peddler is Paul Ehrlich who has been consistently dead wrong in his predictions of imminent man-made doom for over four decades.

Yet he continues to be treated as an oracle of insight and wisdom by the press and by academia.

His disciple is John Holdren, currently the "science" advisor to the Obama admin, which explains the nonsense about climate coming out of the White House.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

5c4XPVPJwBY

[Typhoon]

NY Times - Revkin |Consider Clashing Scientific and Societal Meanings of ‘Collapse’ When Reading Antarctic Ice News

[Simple Minded]

Probably the best example of a doomer porn peddler is Paul Ehrlich who has been consistently dead wrong in his predictions of imminent man-made doom for over four decades.

Yet he continues to be treated as an oracle of insight and wisdom by the press and by academia.

His disciple is John Holdren, currently the "science" advisor to the Obama admin, which explains the nonsense about climate coming out of the White House.

Excellent example of Garbage in, Garbage out.

I suspect that there are a few True Believers who buy into the MMGW foolishness, who delude themselves into thinking they are "saviors of the world," but I suspect the larger percentage of advocates see the hysteria merely as a means to gain power and a source of income. The former are more dangerous than the latter.

The best leaders are always looking for pre-existing parades and fads.... much easier that way.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


100% of California now in ‘severe’ drought or worse

100% of California now in ‘severe’ drought or worse.png (210.47 KiB) Viewed 1404 times

[Typhoon]

Well, is not most of California desert by nature?

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

Well, is not most of California desert by nature?

Yes, most is,

the rest which is not, now soon a desert

good news is, more MEDJOOL DATES .. excellent DATES

.

[monster_gardener]

Well, is not most of California desert by nature?

Thank You VERY MUCH for your post and Maintaining the Forum, Typhoon.

Quite correct.

At least for the Southern Part....

Chaparral Desert/Scrub Forest....

Needed water from the Colorado River, which no longer reaches the sea, to support the population it has today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaparral


Though it does grade into Cool Rain Forest in the North....

With the Central Valley being prime agricultural territory...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Plains_Drifter

[Doc]

There's no reason lawns can't be replaced with the California's native flora. The plant communities all over the state are very interesting. I worked with a fella for years that sold native landscaping exclusively and he made some beautiful, orderly yards. You still need to water but at a drastically reduced amount. If and when the water costs too much, the grass will be replaced. California is a desert state.
e5HwRXsw2Q8

Everytime there is a drought in California there is always some durian on the news proclaiming it is his right to water his lawn. I figure that is right as long as he lives someplace that has water to water his lawn with. Otherwise perhaps he figures if he cries about it enough he can water his lawn.

[monster_gardener]

There's no reason lawns can't be replaced with the California's native flora. The plant communities all over the state are very interesting. I worked with a fella for years that sold native landscaping exclusively and he made some beautiful, orderly yards. You still need to water but at a drastically reduced amount. If and when the water costs too much, the grass will be replaced. California is a desert state.
e5HwRXsw2Q8

Everytime there is a drought in California there is always some durian on the news proclaiming it is his right to water his lawn. I figure that is right as long as he lives someplace that has water to water his lawn with. Otherwise perhaps he figures if he cries about it enough he can water his lawn.

Thank You Very Much for your posts, Jerry Berry & Doc,

Actually California Native Flora can be dangerously flammable....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaparall#Introduction

Not a good idea to have it near your house.......

Better to have water loaded ice plant near your house....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpobrotus_edulis

Which can stop the fire..........

Is edible........

And Invasive........

Well 2 out of 3 ain't bad....

See link for other cautions if used on slopes......


Or if water is unavailable......

Perhaps a pebble lawn............

Slightly reminiscent of a Zen garden.........

Though you'll have to weed it......

Plants are tough........

[Nonc Hilaire]

Xeriscaping has come a long way since the 70's. Using native plants is much more than pebbles and agave.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

The interactive map shows that in 2100, the city of Boston, MA will be as hot as the current temperatures of Miami, Florida.
Meanwhile, an already warm city like Las Vegas, NV, could get as hot as the current temperatures of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which is around 111°F.

“Summer temperatures in most American cities are going to feel like summers now in Texas and Florida — very, very hot,” said Alyson Kenward, lead researcher of the analysis.

While the data looks at the impact that global warming will have on temperatures, it does not look at other key statistics. Missing are the expected humidity levels, pollution levels, sea levels, and frequency of storms, for starters. Still, it is interesting (and a bit scary) to see what the temperature of your city will be like in the future.

The MAP


.

[Typhoon]

.

The interactive map shows that in 2100, the city of Boston, MA will be as hot as the current temperatures of Miami, Florida.
Meanwhile, an already warm city like Las Vegas, NV, could get as hot as the current temperatures of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which is around 111°F.

“Summer temperatures in most American cities are going to feel like summers now in Texas and Florida — very, very hot,” said Alyson Kenward, lead researcher of the analysis.

While the data looks at the impact that global warming will have on temperatures, it does not look at other key statistics. Missing are the expected humidity levels, pollution levels, sea levels, and frequency of storms, for starters. Still, it is interesting (and a bit scary) to see what the temperature of your city will be like in the future.

The MAP


.

Based on incomplete and flawed models that cannot reproduce current climate -> GIGO.

The AGW faithful are becoming histrionic as nature continues to ignore their dictates.