Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Posted on 01/29/2019 4:00:05 PM PST by DeweyCA
(Skip)
Far from the “end of the world,” the impact of warming is what we’d expect from roughly a single economic recession taking place over the next half century.
(Skip)
If the world isn’t ending, and the impact of global warming by 2030 is much less than 0.2 percent to 2 percent of GDP, then we need to start comparing costs with benefits.
This is the bread and butter of William Nordhaus, the only climate economist to win the Nobel Prize. His careful work over many decades shows that a globally coordinated, moderate and rising carbon tax could reduce temperatures modestly. This would cost about $20 trillion and avoid some climate-related harms, ensuring a net benefit of $30 trillion over coming centuries.
But aiming to reduce temperatures more escalates the costs and eventually leaves the planet $50 trillion worse off. Limiting temperature increases to 2°C or less, as many leaders promise, would prove even more costly.
Green fretting about Armageddon is nothing new, of course. In the 1960s, mainstream environmentalists worried that the world was running out of food. In the 1980s, acid rain was going to destroy the planet’s forests. There were good reasons for concern, but a panicked response led to a poor, overly expensive response.
We need to get smarter. Climate change is a problem but not the end of the world.
(Skip)
If Ocasio-Cortez had...said: “The world is going to see costs worth about 1 percent of GDP in 50 years if we don’t address climate change — and your biggest issue is how to pay for it?” Well, yes: We need to make sure our solution doesn’t cost more than the problem. If we look at science and stop believing the end of the world is nigh, our decisions will be much smarter.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
She had four years of “college”....why do we think science could teach her anything when college didn’t?
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
... Nothing... beat me to it. First thought I had was that her trademark militant ignorance can’t be educated away.
There is no Science of the Climate.
Science needs to get to better than 1% of point in prediction to become a “Science”.
Socialist CO2 worry beaders are no way close to predictions of 1% of point.
Piece Prizes come from Norwegian leftists.
Actual Nobel Prizes come from Sweden.
Don't forget Paul Krugman. He got his Nobel from big government types for promoting big government.
Saw that Rodney Dangerfield movie the other night, "Back to School" or whatever, pointing out to the business prof how the real business world of unions, government permits, etc., works...
You can’t teach a rock anything.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Lomborg is a socialist. He wants a moderate carbon tax enforced globally. Imagine who will administer it, and how the funds will be distributed. The UN bureaucrats and European socialists and third world despots are all drooling over the possibilities.
I remember that scene...it was priceless and spot-on.
I know lots of people in her age cohort who suffer that problem.
Assuming she got her BS at age 21, how could she not rise above bartender in eight years of working?
Well, obviously the man was holding her down.
“Truth is the first casualty of WAR”
???....why it was only two years ago she found out if you wrap aspirines in a piece of cheese it’ll go right down.
“It takes two people to lie.
One to lie and the other to believe it.”
-—————Homer Simpson
My problem with Global Warming(TM) or whatever they want to call it is that the data is inherently flawed and it sorta bugs me that it never seems to be questioned.
The fundamental question is where does the underlying data come from and how accurate are the numbers?
Near as I can figure, we have some pretty accurate global data since the advent of satellite measurements. Probably good data there. Going back 30 years, 50 at the most.
Then we have “weather stations” going back maybe 100. Some of this is probably good data, but as you go further and further back it has real problems. Problems with siting (urbanization), problems with calibration, then there’s the lack of data outside of populated areas and Western countries. We probably have no data for much of the world in this period.
Further back, you have individuals - sometimes professional, sometimes not, doing their own sampling/reporting. Temperatures vary sometimes by 50 degrees in a single day. What time where the temperatures measured? Did they sample consistently and throughout the day, every day? Were their instruments calibrated? Is siting data even known?
Go back 150 or 200 years and the data is most likely from people who may have manufactured their own thermometers without any reference to a standard or ongoing calibration and primarily were in Europe and the East Coast of the U.S.
100 or so years prior to that, there weren’t any thermometers so there is no real data.
By my estimation, you go back 50 years and the data has to be +/- at least a degree or two. Go back 150 years and it’s probably +/- 5 degrees. Beyond 250, you’re estimating based on annual observations (tree rings, ice cores) and extrapolating the temperatures based on the recent data, which is anywhere from +/- 1 degree to +/- 5 degrees uncertainty. Being generous, that estimated data starts off at +/- 5 degrees and that uncertainty only increases the further you go back.
You can’t “fix” these uncertainties in the data with mathematical manipulation. It is part of the data. If I recall my high school science correctly, most manipulation actually magnifies the resulting uncertainty.
I would view any historical temperature data plotted on a graph, not as a line going back in time, but as a cone of uncertainty that gets larger and larger as you go backward in time.
So, similarly, any future predictions have the same cone of uncertainty projecting forward since the future prediction is based on the past data.
I don’t know the exact dimensions for this uncertainty, but I’d wager I’m pretty close above, if not erring on the conservative side.
So when someone tells me they predict a single digit temperature increase x years in the future, without disclosing their uncertainty (which I darn well know isn’t zero), I’m immediately skeptical of either their honesty or their competency or both.
I strongly suspect that the smarter people in the climate scam know that their predictions are well within the margin of error/uncertainty, probably embarrassingly so, possibly by an order of magnitude.
You mean that doesn't really work?
I tried explaining that work is needed to run the fridge and heat is not work. That the heat from global warming is 1% of the heat from the sun, makes no difference never mind creates no cold air through a process of conversion of heat into work that they could not explain.
Global warming is undeniably good. Anyone looking at the weather this week with a bit of common sense (like Trump) can figure it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.