Anthropogenic Global Warming

[wufan]

They DO list "actual temperatures." The daily readouts of a single station come from a form like this. Not an extrapolation at all, and your ignorance of that fact is not an argument. The process for collecting that data is free information. There are four main datasets used are: HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, MLOST, and the non-acronymed dataset by the Japan Meteorological Agency. If you want to start disproving the data, you can download it yourself and go to town.

The issue with this data is rather simple: When a ship measures ocean temperature it does so by pumping the water to the engine room. This is known as an Engine Room Intake, and was adopted because it is more uniform than the previous method of simply putting a thermometer in a bucket of fresh sea water. While consistent with other ship measurements of the same type, moving the water to a hotter location like an engine room makes the measurements hotter. As we improved in the past by moving from buckets to ERIs, we've improved by moving away from ERIs to buoy measurements.

Now you can average your global temperatures without accounting for that, but to put it simply you'd be wrong if you thought that was more "true" or accurate. You call also take a bunch of measurements at the equator and then a bunch of measurements at the poles and claim a catastrophic cooling, but that would also be wrong. Or you can take ERI data and compare it to buoy data and claim cooling. Failing to account for changes in distribution and measurement type is FAR worse than the alternative of documenting the artificial affect that those changes cause and correcting for it.

Now it is too bad all that averaging and weighing is hidden behind closed doors so scientists can hide their nefarious tampering. Except, again, it isn't. That information is freely available. If the books are cooked, YOU can find out. So can anyone else. And it turns out, whenever they run the numbers according the best available practices, they turn out more or less the same. Bad results only come up when people use bad science.

I am aware that the data is available, and no I don't have the time to load it into excel. The journal published data is the "corrected" data that remove anomalies. The change in the temperature over time is within the error of the measuring device. Extrapolations of this data is bad science.

[SB Shock]

A little project I have been working on. Data came from www.ncdc.noaa.gov for the Wichita area. I have not had much time to work through it all, but I did do an analysis for July, August and December. You will notice that data is very limited prior to 1948. Prior to 1948 they only seemed to keep partial year (mainly in the spring summer, thus why I chose to look at Juy and August). The december data for 2016 is only a partial set up to December 22.

[wufan]

A little project I have been working on. Data came from www.ncdc.noaa.gov for the Wichita area. I have not had much time to work through it all, but I did do an analysis for July, August and December. You will notice that data is very limited prior to 1948. Prior to 1948 they only seemed to keep partial year (mainly in the spring summer, thus why I chose to look at Juy and August). The december data for 2016 is only a partial set up to December 22.

I think that's awesome! Do you have resolution to 0.1 degrees? Can you show a change in temperature over time based on a 5 year average?

[jdshock]

Ok. So you agree that these crappy, horrible conditions exist independently of climate change. Its just that climate change will make it worse?

Obviously things like malaria currently exist. Climate change makes malaria more common. Any additional deaths would, therefore, be directly caused by climate change.

@CBB_Fan: wrote a good prediction of a more attenuated impact regarding regional instability, but you responded by saying those regions are at risk because of other factors. You're completely ignoring that things will be made significantly worse. If a toddler has gotten his hands on a 9mm, do you say "well, he's probably going to kill and injure several people anyway, I might as well give him something bigger"?

I get that you think anyone who believes global warming could pose even a small threat must be a nut job that is suggesting riding your bike to work solves every kind of problem, but that's just not accurate.

If you can propose a cheaper plan that resolves those deaths, I'd love to hear it. I'd hope that policy would also result in energy independence and resolve air quality concerns, as many of the most desirable environmental policies would.

[ShockerPrez]

I have no problem if people want to take voluntary actions to curb their CO2 emissions. If that's what they believe, great. I may have missed what your solutions are, but I'm guessing it involves government mandates that would make energy production of fossil fuels more difficult and expensive. I am totally against this. If your solutions are different, please let me know.

My main issue with climate change is that 1. I'm not sold that it's man-made. 2. Past predictions are all over the board, and a lot that were predicted never happened. 3. Most of the claimed areas affected are 3rd world countries where they have always struggled to survive against the climate/weather/natural habitat anyway. 4. The narrative is pushed by the left whose ultimate goal is more government control to begin with. 5. The Earth's climate is always changing. Even before man. 6. Anyone who is skeptical is vilified by the left and mocked as a denier. 7. That increased CO2 levels and a warmer climate is a bad thing. I could go on, but I think you get my drift.

I'm just a skeptic, thats all. And maybe I'm not sophisticated enough to grab on to the premise that we are killing the planet with our Western lifestyle, which has happened to buck the trend of the history of human existence, which is one of a battle against nature, poverty, suffering, starvation, thirst and bandage.

My solutions are based on trying to export our values, technology, etc into these areas where life sucks. And that we can do more good by invention and innovation spurned on by cheap energy and the freedom to create, as opposed to less.

I'm not so easily swayed.

[jdshock]

I have no problem if people want to take voluntary actions to curb their CO2 emissions. If that's what they believe, great.

This is the most critical thing that I want you to understand: if climate change is actually a threat, it cannot be resolved at an individual, voluntary level. As I noted earlier, it is the textbook example of an externality that a business isn't going to account for. I'm not speaking with hyperbole; it is actually the example discussed in many economic textbooks.

This is why it is important for liberals to work to convince you and others that climate change is a threat. Because if it is, it has to be dealt with at a government level. This is not something that can just be a coexist, live and let live, type thing.

[SB Shock]

This is the most critical thing that I want you to understand: if climate change is actually a threat

It might be a threat for those living on a coast with the sea level rise. But there is a lot of land mass and natural resources locked up that are unusable due to today cold environment in those places. Past geology shows that the earth was more prosperous when it was warmer.

I would conjecture that as the earth population continues to grow, they will need more livable land and resources - that will only open up if there is continued warming.

[ShockerPrez]

This is the most critical thing that I want you to understand: if climate change is actually a threat, it cannot be resolved at an individual, voluntary level. As I noted earlier, it is the textbook example of an externality that a business isn't going to account for. I'm not speaking with hyperbole; it is actually the example discussed in many economic textbooks.

This is why it is important for liberals to work to convince you and others that climate change is a threat. Because if it is, it has to be dealt with at a government level. This is not something that can just be a coexist, live and let live, type thing.

What are the powers you want to give the government?

And what if climate change is not a threat? (I noticed that there were 2 instances of you using 'if' when referring to such. So I assume you are open to that possability.)

[jdshock]

It might be a threat for those living on a coast with the sea level rise.

You mean the 50% of the global population that lives near a coast?

But there is a lot of land mass and natural resources locked up that are unusable due to today cold environment in those places.

This is not a particularly good argument. The most critical resource, water, would be lost due to warming weather. The vast majority of our fresh water is in ice caps, so warming makes it "usable" but not really, since it would just melt into salt water. There is a LOT of land mass in the world that is currently available. We are nowhere near Earth's capacity in terms of livable space. We may be near it in terms of things like resource consumption, etc., but we are nowhere near it in terms of livable space.

The amount of extra resources available due to warming would be so minimal compared to the amount of resources we just cannot access because of technology concerns. The ability to harvest resources at the bottom of the ocean, desalination of salt water, etc. are the next technological frontiers, and gaining minimal resources from warming would have no effect on their development or necessity.

The idea that global warming is good is the worst of the arguments that a "skeptic" can put forward. For every 10,000 articles about why global warming would have massive economic impacts, there is one guy who writes an article saying "hey, we might have longer growing seasons" without at all recognizing the negative impacts of global warming or taking into consideration things like air and soil quality etc. that might actually hinder even the one positive they try to put forward. If you believe those arguments, it's just because that's what you want to believe. Before you read those articles, you already knew what you wanted to hear and believe.

[jdshock]

What are the powers you want to give the government?

And what if climate change is not a threat? (I noticed that there were 2 instances of you using 'if' when referring to such. So I assume you are open to that possability.)

I said "if" because you're unwilling to engage in that debate. You just keep saying "go ahead and believe in it if you want. I'm not stopping you." I need you to accept the fundamental assumption that if it is a threat, there has to be governmental action. I believe that to be a foundational economic concept, and I want you to accept it before I spend another moment trying to convince you that global warming is a threat.

Re: governmental powers - I don't know. It would likely be a mixture of spending and taxation. Either spending on things like infrastructure or tax credits for individuals to purchase alternative energies (such as those that already exist). Taxation would either be things like a carbon tax or some other mandate like a renewable portfolio standard that requires a transition to clean energy. Just spit balling. Most governmental power is spending or taxation. I don't know anyone that is hoping to make fossil fuel consumption criminal.

[shocka khan]

It might be a threat for those living on a coast with the sea level rise. But there is a lot of land mass and natural resources locked up that are unusable due to today cold environment in those places. Past geology shows that the earth was more prosperous when it was warmer.

I would conjecture that as the earth population continues to grow, they will need more livable land and resources - that will only open up if there is continued warming.

The last I checked (and since there's a lot of politics associated with this issue, I believe both sides are making dubious claims at this point), I noted that Kansas, in about 100 years (assuming this doesn't get reversed) will have a climate much like Dubai in the summer - 120+ degree stretches during the summer.

So are you advocating that people who live in Kansas should consider moving to Alaska, since there will be TONS of room up there?

Also note that a whole lot of coastal real estate (and especially in Florida) will now be underwater. Big oil may have big money, but big developers also have big money.

My point is that there will be considerable disruption of our economy if we as humans do not try to do something (I am also dubious about how much fossil fuels play into this and how much is natural warming). We are, by policy, picking winners and losers.

Since there's about 19 million people in Florida vs. 3 million in Kansas, do you really want to do that? Seems like Kansas would be on the losing end at some point. Perhaps when the sea levels rise - something like the government says 'We'll buy all you folks out in Florida, but Kansas, not so much.'

[shocka khan]

Don't know how Trump didn't get this censored, but this map shows an 8 to 10 degree increase in the next 80 years. That would mean instead of 107, it would be 115-120. In Kansas.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/scenarioustemp-large.jpg

[ShockerPrez]

I said "if" because you're unwilling to engage in that debate. You just keep saying "go ahead and believe in it if you want. I'm not stopping you." I need you to accept the fundamental assumption that if it is a threat, there has to be governmental action. I believe that to be a foundational economic concept, and I want you to accept it before I spend another moment trying to convince you that global warming is a threat.

Re: governmental powers - I don't know. It would likely be a mixture of spending and taxation. Either spending on things like infrastructure or tax credits for individuals to purchase alternative energies (such as those that already exist). Taxation would either be things like a carbon tax or some other mandate like a renewable portfolio standard that requires a transition to clean energy. Just spit balling. Most governmental power is spending or taxation. I don't know anyone that is hoping to make fossil fuel consumption criminal.

I'm perfectly willing to engage in the debate under the premise that climate change is happening. Of course it is happening, as it has been since the beginning of time. So that leads me less likely to believe that climate change is man made.

And the fact climate change is happening, then our best bet is for our country to comtinue to excel at what we always do, invent, adapt and create. And our chances are better if we do as little as we can to hamper that. We need a thriving economy to make our lives and the world's lives better. And making energy more expensive, taxing production and more governmental control is only going to get in the way.

We just have different approaches to the same problem. You want to alter and control Human activity under the assumption that the activity is causing the problem. And but for Humans, climate change would not to happening.

I believe that we live in a ever changing, hostile, violent planet that has more power than we as humans could ever hope to control entirely. But we as Americans and Western society have done the best at maximizing our lives and standard of living that is unparralelled in history through freedom and liberty and if we start screwing with it in our quest to tackle an unpreventable change, we are doomed.

[jdshock]

I'm perfectly willing to engage in the debate under the premise that climate change is happening. Of course it is happening, as it has been since the beginning of time. So that leads me less likely to believe that climate change is man made.

And the fact climate change is happening, then our best bet is for our country to comtinue to excel at what we always do, invent, adapt and create. And our chances are better if we do as little as we can to hamper that. We need a thriving economy to make our lives and the world's lives better. And making energy more expensive, taxing production and more governmental control is only going to get in the way.

We just have different approaches to the same problem. You want to alter and control Human activity under the assumption that the activity is causing the problem. And but for Humans, climate change would not to happening.

I believe that we live in a ever changing, hostile, violent planet that has more power than we as humans could ever hope to control entirely. But we as Americans and Western society have done the best at maximizing our lives and standard of living that is unparralelled in history through freedom and liberty and if we start screwing with it in our quest to tackle an unpreventable change, we are doomed.

This has nothing to do with what I said. You are currently talking about whether or not climate change is real/happening/human-caused/stoppable, etc.

I'm saying, IF liberals are right about it, it needs to be addressed by the government because it is a market externality that cannot be solved by the free market. I'm asking if you agree with that premise. If you do not, I'm unwilling to engage in a climate change debate because this is a fundamental aspect of the debate that I need you to agree on first. To me, it is incredibly clear that this is the case. It is the textbook example of an externality.

[ShockerPrez]

This has nothing to do with what I said. You are currently talking about whether or not climate change is real/happening/human-caused/stoppable, etc.

I'm saying, IF liberals are right about it, it needs to be addressed by the government because it is a market externality that cannot be solved by the free market. I'm asking if you agree with that premise. If you do not, I'm unwilling to engage in a climate change debate because this is a fundamental aspect of the debate that I need you to agree on first. To me, it is incredibly clear that this is the case. It is the textbook example of an externality.

Well, my original question was about the threat, you gave malaria, drinking water, and clean air on the 3rd world.

I said those issues are there independent of climate change.

But if its a market externality, why can the government fix the problem by manipulating the market?