Snow because of global warming!

[dcraig]

Quote from Lucrum:

I was watching a documentary on glacial ice the other night.

It was estimated that the world wide cost of rising sea levels would be in the trillions.

Assuming GW is a fact AND that it's man made AND that there is anything that can be done about it the first place.

What is the estimated cost of slowing or stopping MMGW and the subsequent sea level rise?

IOW is it even cost affective?
Are we going to spend as much or more trying to change the climate as we would anyway due to the changing climate?

Somewhere I've seen figures of 2-3% of GDP per year as the direct cost of reducing CO2 emissions for a country like the US. Can't remember the source of that. Wouldn't surprise me if that was too low.

It is certain that it is extremely difficult to come up with the cost of business as usual as there are so many possible scenarios and uncertainty about the rate of change of climate. Best case and worst case are likely to be very different.

There are a bunch of papers on http://realclimateeconomics.org/

 

[dcraig]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

no, that logic has zero to do with mine...

it's VERY VERY VERY rare to have snow in florida, as far south in florida as it did snow this year... it's very rare...

in feb in georgia it's snowing?! it's very rare that it snows at all, but half of feb is usually spent in t-shirts in atlanta... the fact is that it is SO MUCH snowier and colder than average years that it implies that there is not a global warming problem, at least if there is, it is curiously not affecting the united states...

i'm sorry that your logic is so impaired that you are unable to understand mine...

It might be unusual, but it is localized as shown by the NASA GISS temperature anomaly map for January 2010:

Notice how warm northern Canada is. And notice how cool western Europe and northern Asia is.

You can make a map for any period you like here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

 

[Tresor]

Quote from dcraig:

The national science academies

* of Cameroon,
* of the Caribbean,
* of Ghana,
* of Kenya,
* of Madagascar,
* of Mexico,
* of Nigeria,
* of Senegal,
* of Tanzania,
* of Uganda,
* of Zambia,
* of Zimbabwe.

I am missing a few other outstanding science academies: of Papua New Guinea, of Bangladesh, of Afghanistan and of Chad

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Tresor:

I am missing a few other outstanding science academies: of Papua New Guinea, of Bangladesh, of Afghanistan and of Chad

By all means post all of the National Science Academies which have taken positions against AGW. We'll wait.

 

[fhl]

If there was real science proving agw, why would the scientists in charge of the ipcc report make up a pack of lies to showcase the theory? Could it be that they didn't think the real science was all that convincing?

Now we're being asked to believe that the gov't panel had access to more science than was ever necessary to prove the concept, and we should just ignore the fact that they, themselves, ignored it all in favor of just making stuff up.

It's usually the very same people that want Bush and Cheney prosecuted for "lying us into war".

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from fhl:

If there was real science proving agw, why would the scientists in charge of the ipcc report make up a pack of lies to showcase the theory? Could it be that they didn't think the real science was all that convincing?

Now we're being asked to believe that the gov't panel had access to more science than was ever necessary to prove the concept, and we should just ignore the fact that they, themselves, ignored it all in favor of just making stuff up.

Nothing you wrote here is true.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from dcraig:

Somewhere I've seen figures of 2-3% of GDP per year as the direct cost of reducing CO2 emissions for a country like the US. Can't remember the source of that. Wouldn't surprise me if that was too low.

It is certain that it is extremely difficult to come up with the cost of business as usual as there are so many possible scenarios and uncertainty about the rate of change of climate. Best case and worst case are likely to be very different.

There are a bunch of papers on http://realclimateeconomics.org/

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. It looks like worldwide annual GDP is $70 trillion? Overly simplistic I'm sure, but assuming a cost of 3% of GDP world wide that would be a cost of over $2 trillion per year fighting climate change?

From where I sit I could see where the cost of the cure could end up being much more expensive than the symptoms of the disease.

But then in the interest of disclosure, I'm a skeptic anyway.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Lucrum:

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. It looks like worldwide annual GDP is $70 trillion? Overly simplistic I'm sure, but assuming a cost of 3% of GDP world wide that would be a cost of over $2 trillion per year fighting climate change?

From where I sit I could see where the cost of the cure could end up being much more expensive than the symptoms of the disease.

Australia, as one example, has already met its Kyoto goals (actually it has exceeded them) and it's economy has continued to grow.

There simply isn't a simple correlation between less pollution and a worse economy -- in fact, it could be said that the pollution controls generate economic activity.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Australia, as one example...

You're sounding like the "deniers," pointing out 130 year record low temps in Key West "as one example."

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Lucrum:

You're sounding like the "deniers," pointing out 130 year record low temps in Key West "as one example."

Okay, then take all the countries that have exceeded their Kyoto targets:

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/climate/cop/Meeting_Kyoto_Targets.pdf

Then follow whether their GDP declined immediately after Kyoto in comparison to the US or Eurozone GDP decline.

Greece exceeded Kyoto expectations by 25%. It's GDP significantly outperformed the Eurozone: http://www.hellascapital.com/GREECE, MACRO CHART BOOK PPP2.pdf.

Iceland exceeded expectations by 10%. It was hard hit by the banking crisis recently, however since Kyoto its GDP growth has been consistent and good:

http://www.euroekonom.com/graphs-data.php?type=gdp-growth-iceland

Ireland exceeded its Kyoto target by 13%, and here's it's GDP growth by year:

http://www.euroekonom.com/graphs-data.php?type=gdp-growth-ireland

Norway exceeded its Kyoto goals by 1% and it's gdp growth is excellent.

I can go on if you like, but I'm just taking these countries in order. Economies do not appear to be overwhelmingly negatively affected by these measures.