That's a mighty big ASSumption you have...
The location has not changed, or the surroundings by any significance.
If the instrumentation has changes, then errors between the two cannot be known with certainty, and a 2.3 degree F change is absolutely not warranted.
Why do you repeatedly show yourself to be so ing stupid?
If global warming is pausing, why is the ground ice in Iceland and Antarctica continuing to melt, why nearly all the world's glaciers melting, receding?
you AGW deniers, your BigCarbon shilling and right-wing ideology pegs as stupid s.
The Social Cost of Carbon Is Six Times Higher Than Estimated
What if the social cost of carbon – a calculation of economic damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions used as the foundation of American climate policy assessments – was wrong? And not just “oops-I-forgot-a-decimal-point” wrong, but “ruin-your-national-economy” wrong?Unfortunately, according to a new study from Stanford University scientists, the price tag for the ever-growing amount of CO2 humanity is spewing into the air is six times higher than previously estimated by the U.S. government.
If true, this higher social cost of carbon has major implications for emissions policy. Not only do the grim economic projections of climate change impacts become much worse in developed nations, they may leave some developing countries unable to sustain economic growth.
A Trillion-Dollar Economic Threat to America?
Economic evaluation of U.S. federal climate policies has hinged on a social cost of carbon estimate since it was first defined in 2010 and subsequently updated to $37 per metric ton of CO2 in 2013. The social cost of carbon estimates monetized damages from climate-related impacts like decreased agricultural production, human health, and flood damages, among others.Unfortunately, $37 seems like a dangerously low estimate.
Each metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere causes $220 in economic damages, say the Stanford researchers. If that seems like a manageable cost, add in context from overall U.S. emissions and a staggering economic threat takes shape.In 2013, American energy sector CO2 emissions rose 2.5%, totaling 5,396 million metric tons.
If the Stanford research is applied, America may face a price tag of well over $1 trillion dollars annually just from generating power, not to mention transportation or manufacturing-related emissions. Considering America’s gross domestic product (GDP) was $16.7 trillion in 2013, our carbon costs are significant, to say the least.
Higher Costs Over Time, Higher Social Cost of Carbon
So how have we gotten the social cost of carbon so wrong? Inaccurate economic modeling, in essence, say the Stanford researchers. America’s social cost of carbon (as well as those in Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, and others) is based on an integrated assessment model (IAM). IAMs combine myriad inputs to assign costs and benefits to certain actions (in this case cutting emissions), but IAMs assume climate change costs are felt immediately without permanent damage to GDP, and fail to add up how climate change and associated economic impacts add up over time.
Emissions, temperatures, per-capita GDP charts via Nature Climate Change
The Stanford study arrived at a $220 social cost of carbon by allowing climate change to impact an economy’s development as a certain amount of money is spent adapting to rising seas, hotter temperatures, and stronger storms. “For 20 years now, the models have assumed climate change can’t affect the basic growth rate of the economy,” said Stanford’s Frances Moore, a study co-author.
“If climate change affects not only a country’s economic output but also its growth, than that has a permanent effect that ac ulates over time, leading to a much higher social cost of carbon.”Put another way, with every extreme weather event caused by climate change, more money must go toward rebuilding or recovering, limiting money available for investment and gradually eroding capital infrastructure like roads and buildings.
Sure, New York and New Jersey recovered from Hurricane Sandy, but every dollar funding climate resiliency and repair is one less spent on existing needs, and every day a worker couldn’t work because their business was closed or home destroyed was one less day to generate income.
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/16/the-social-cost-of-carbon-is-six-times-higher-than-estimated/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29
Melting glaciers have big carbon impact
studied measurements from ice sheets in mountain glaciers globally, the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet to measure the total amount of organic carbon stored in the global ice reservoir.
It's a lot.
Specifically, as glaciers melt, the amount of organic carbon exported in glacier outflow will increase 50 percent over the next 35 years. To put that in context, that's about the amount of organic carbon in half of the Mississippi River being added each year to the ocean from melting glaciers.
"This research makes it clear that glaciers represent a substantial reservoir of organic carbon," said Eran Hood, the lead author on the paper and a scientist with the University of Alaska Southeast. "As a result, the loss of glacier mass worldwide, along with the corresponding release of carbon, will affect high-la ude marine ecosystems, particularly those surrounding the major ice sheets that now receive fairly limited land-to-ocean fluxes of organic carbon."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...cienceDaily%29
state by state tally of AGW-deniers/anti-science/BigCarbon shills
The Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus: 114th Congress Edition
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...14th-congress/
It's not that that the instruments change over time so much although they do. It is that they are different devices measuring different things in different places. An IR thermometer does not behave like a standard mercury for a myriad of reasons. Measuring the temperature of a liquid like water has different responses as opposed to the gas of the atmosphere. They are integrating the data points of thousands of different locations and devices into a single value representing the whole.
None of this is assumption. It's all fact.
It's obvious the entire process is well beyond your scope. You keep handwaving at the raw numbers and acting like you personally could discern some hidden truth if you had them. It's typical stupidity from you. You don't even understand why or what they are doing though.
Sop in the end, you cannot say 2014 is the hottest.
NASA has stated that 2014 was officially the warmest on record. Given the degree error it could be in reality lower but by that same token it could be greater as well.
Officially it is what it is.
In the end, you completely abandoned your argument about the normalization of data. Again.
You can stay with that statistical, political, dogmatic pseudoscience. I'll stick with reality.
Normalization to permute the readings from various devices is well established science and engineering. If that were not the case then things such as supersonic flight and ABS would not work.
What you are doing here is not even pseudoscience. It's just willful stupidity.
And it often doesn't work until they test and test and test, under controllable simulated condition. All along, they make variations. It seldom works the first time, and climate cannot be simulated like test lights can.
ffs, we are talking about the temperature record and normalizing temperature measurements. While it may be fun to compare turbulence responses at 700 mph to the capillary behavior of mercury over the course of years, it's just more stupidity.
This is besides the point anyway. You have consistently claimed that scientists are lying to the public with your climastrologist nonsense. What you are describing here is simple trial and error and since when was that a flawed approach?
You are the one that made the comparison, you imbecile.
The comparison was in that they both used normalization with their I/O. That does not mean that everything about them is the same ffs. If anything the point should be that the technique is used to solve much harder problems than merging the temperature record. It's standard practice and you are ignorant to it frankly.
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder
The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations,
It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.
In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...denial-effort/
I'm not the one making a claim sport-o.
Your claim, your burden.
(winces)
Global average is global.
It doesn't work both ways.
yay! in the absence of intelligent discussion we're going to play google tennis with dubious sources. This is emblematic of what the climate debate has become: google-fu wars of crackpots
ROTFL! Of course we all know NASA are just a puppet on a string for ... !
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/cong...t-hoax-n290831The Senate on Wednesday passed a measure stating that "climate change is real and is not a hoax" by a margin of 98-1.
get back to us when the Senate votes 98-1 that global warming is anthropogenic, AND votes to reduce GHG emissions.
Why would they ever do such a stupid thing?
BP Shareholders Urge Oil Giant to Face Up to Climate Risks
A coalition of more than 150 BP shareholders, including Church of England and the UK’s Environment Agency, filed a resolution today requiring the company to assess and manage its climate risk.
“BP and S hold our financial and environmental future in their hands. They must do more to face the risks of climate change. Investors can help them by voting for these shareholder resolutions.”In the resolution, shareholders are asking the oil giant to no longer reward climate-harming activities, stress-test its business model against the requirement to limit greenhouse gas emissions in accordance to the UN Climate Change Conference in 2010, and commit to reducing its carbon emissions and investing in renewable energy. The resolution will be voted on at BP’s 2015 annual general meeting in April.
The same group filed an identical resolution with S last month putting increased pressure on Big Oil to act now to mitigate climate risks.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/21/bp-fa...1c598-85879165
as if BigCorp GAF about shareholders
Votes matter when you get enough of them. I hope when I get as old as you I don't act so defeated.BP Shareholders Urge Oil Giant to Face Up to Climate Risks
A coalition of more than 150 BP shareholders, including Church of England and the UK’s Environment Agency, filed a resolution today requiring the company to assess and manage its climate risk.
“BP and S hold our financial and environmental future in their hands. They must do more to face the risks of climate change. Investors can help them by voting for these shareholder resolutions.”In the resolution, shareholders are asking the oil giant to no longer reward climate-harming activities, stress-test its business model against the requirement to limit greenhouse gas emissions in accordance to the UN Climate Change Conference in 2010, and commit to reducing its carbon emissions and investing in renewable energy. The resolution will be voted on at BP’s 2015 annual general meeting in April.
The same group filed an identical resolution with S last month putting increased pressure on Big Oil to act now to mitigate climate risks.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/21/bp-fa...1c598-85879165
as if BigCorp GAF about shareholders
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
