Economics of Environmental Controls

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

Citing Forbes magazine as a source on global warming is like citing Baptist Press on the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. They are totally unbiased and completely accurate, right?

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

You can count on wattsupwiththat to focus on only one week (they regularly find their chosen needles in the haystack and do not report needles that don’t make their case). And David buys it without question as if it is inerrant truth globally/all past history.

The plot below count record highs and record lows across the 48 contiguous US for entire decades 1950’s through 2010. I have not been able find that ratio (record highs/record lows) globally.





Updated through July 2012.

and through August 2012.

Only Rhode Island did not have more record highs than record lows. Clearly on average there have been more than 10:1 ratio (highs/low) from Jan through August 2012.

Hand picking a week is deliberately deceptive false science.

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

Well David for the umpteenth time, it’s the oceans that have heated most since 2000.



This has caused:

. Photo-plankton is the bottom of the ocean’s food chain.


The surface air temp have not risen appreciably since 2002 a fact that I have acknowledged but do not believe means GW is over or a “hoax”. I say since 2002 because a running mean of at least 5 years should be used to take the noise out of the annual data- look at red line below.


Truth is that we are still stuck on high (up 1.15C since 1880). That 1.15C increased temperature level is causing an increase in extreme weather (droughts, heat waves, high precipitation events {includes large snows},wildfires, loss of biodiversity, agricultural losses, water resource losses, sea ice loss, glacier loss and thereby drinking water). That melting of glaciers and sea ice is the other half of sea level rise.

It is true that at 3.2mm/year, it will take ~ 5000 years to reach the level that the National Geographic picture of 20m rise (so acknowledged by NG). But there are several potential tipping points, that bare watching like reduced earth albedo, tundra permafrost releasing methane, crevice development speeding up glacier breakup into increase surface area which increases melting. Nonetheless I feel safe from sea level rise even for my grandchildren - but there are already increases in extreme weather causing death and much avoidable anguish and that will only continue to increase at this elevated level. It takes time for effects of a temperature rise to take effect.

And most scientists believe the surface air temp will increase again once the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) cycles into negative values - read:
page 8 shows the AMO
and from the former GW minimalist Richard Muller


We need to get that average surface air global temp back down to 1900 levels and the ocean heat content down to the 1960-1980 levels; then I will shut up.

I do not expect that to ever happen and some sort of geo-engineering (i.e. introduce aerosols in a highly controlled fashion into upper atmosphere for ~100 years) will have to be dangerously applied as early as 2050. At the moment ghg emission control will help and it could help our economy with new alternative energy jobs as well (it’s just those fossil fuel industries that refuse to adapt that will be hurting and thus we have the denialist movement - teamed up with anti-government types).

Note to David:
Respond only if you have something new to say after showing due deference to real GW scientists (not just your usual sources like wattsupwiththat or climate depot). David, you are not a scientist to judge the chatter wrt GW/CC especially with the stubborn bias you display.

I will ask the Moderators herein to permit me to delete your posts that continue to post irresponsible, repetitive, highly cherry-picked, sarcastic/disrespectful, anti-scientific, cartoonish misinformation on this subject.

No use me trying to explain the true technical data/reasoning to you David. You have shown that you are beyond learning.

I’ll remind you that I am Stanford educated (optics speciality- Master’s Degree) and have another MS in Environment Management from Samford University. 42 year experience as an infrared phenomenology expert, and called Chief Scientist at the Missile Defense Agency’s Targets Program for 3 1/2 years. Your scientific background is nil.

[David Flick]

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]

David, meaningful discussion with you on this subject is impossible. You regularly ignore the technical matters in my posts such as never acknowledging the ocean’s warming which represents ~ 93% of the warming (surface atmospheric heating, although only 2.3%, is also important for their climate effects).



It is not just that I disagree with you, David, but that your views are so far away from reality and the message you give so detrimental to humanity’s continued habitat, that caused me to suggest such a partial ban. Many other subjects we agree on - Calvinism, inerrancy, SBC takeover; some that I appreciate and have learned from you (Native Americans, your photos, SBC politics); some we have common interest (college football); and some that, while we are on opposite sides, are debatable (economics, roles of government). There has been no thought of deleting them (just the worst of your GW/CC posts).

Simply put, we as God’s crowning creatures, cannot get away with CO2 concentration increases (blue line is now edging over 400 ppm) as we have perpetrated/allowed in the last 100 years:


without irreparable harm to God’s creation. I’m afraid the die may already be cast.

Sure, I hope God will come again to rescue our progeny and/or that geo-engineering will be harnessed to place the earth’s climate/environment under some semblance of control, but both “outs” are being quite presumptuous.

While long ago I recognized that it is no use arguing with you on this subject, I also realize that this forum should not allow such trashy science, on an important matter, without correction. So correction I have done - largely with DATA, my own study, and the conclusions of the 97%. The resulting ongoing battle is the academic equivalent of arguing religion with a Scientologist and the moral equivalent of arguing ethics with a satan worshipper neither of which the Moderators or Owner of Baptist Life would put up with.

But I agree it is being somewhat high-handed on my part to delete even your outlandish posts on GW matters. For that I apologize; misuse of power. BLfers are adults and will make up their own mind on these matters and re-adjust their opinions as new data/information/their experience occurs.

So, I’ll retract any threat of deleting your future or past posts.

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

Here's a 7:13 minute video explaining how .

[Sandy]

[KeithE]