Global Warming: Overestimated

[_Res Ipsa]

Quasimodo,

Here's the reason: the entire worldview is based on the belief that an unregulated free market produces the best of all possible worlds. Global warming is caused by a massive failure of the market: the classic tragedy of the commons. Putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere imposes significant costs that are not accounted for in the cost of emitting the gases.

The only practical way to correct this market failure requires some kind of governmental action: something like a carbon tax or a cap and trade system. But that would make government action necessary, and the uber conservatives/libertarians simply cannot bring themselves to admit the need for government action at the scale needed to address a worldwide problem.

So, they just deny the facts. I'd have no problem with that if they had their own planet to screw up, but they're destroying my climate too.

[_Tarski]

No Brad, because there's not a shred of compelling empirical scientific evidence for the hypothesis.

Once again, the truth is exactly the opposite of this. Isn't there a penalty for lying in your religion?

[_Res Ipsa]

On sea level rise, the only article that supports what Dropy claims is the first. Here's a good summary of what's wrong with the author's claims: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Ax ... -rise.html. He cites a couple by authored or co-authored by Church, but omits the article where Church finds an acceleration in sea level rise. http://naturescapebroward.com/NaturalRe ... 024826.pdf Funny how he missed that one given it's title....

The others really address the problems in trying to measure average sea level.

It's not hard to find up to date research: just google "sea level rise acceleration"

[_Res Ipsa]

ETA: while you're at it, source for global warming stopped a couple of decades ago. Or did you run the stats yourself?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/c ... ar-future/

So I should ignore the whole body of peer reviewed articles by climate scientists in favor of an oil company consultant with a geology degree who posts on a blog?

ETA: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

[_Quasimodo]

On sea level rise, the only article that supports what Dropy claims is the first. Here's a good summary of what's wrong with the author's claims: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Ax ... -rise.html. He cites a couple by authored or co-authored by Church, but omits the article where Church finds an acceleration in sea level rise. http://naturescapebroward.com/NaturalRe ... 024826.pdf Funny how he missed that one given it's title....

The others really address the problems in trying to measure average sea level.

It's not hard to find up to date research: just google "sea level rise acceleration"

I just did your Google suggestion. I live about two miles from the beach. From what I'm reading, my house will be a breakwater in about 100 years. My favorite little town for antiquing and fine dining (Seal Beach) will be out at sea.

I guess that's not too high a price for my grandchildren to pay so that the oil and coal companies can make a decent profit.

[_Res Ipsa]

On sea level rise, the only article that supports what Dropy claims is the first. Here's a good summary of what's wrong with the author's claims: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Ax ... -rise.html. He cites a couple by authored or co-authored by Church, but omits the article where Church finds an acceleration in sea level rise. http://naturescapebroward.com/NaturalRe ... 024826.pdf Funny how he missed that one given it's title....

The others really address the problems in trying to measure average sea level.

It's not hard to find up to date research: just google "sea level rise acceleration"

I just did your Google suggestion. I live about two miles from the beach. From what I'm reading, my house will be a breakwater in about 100 years. My favorite little town for antiquing and fine dining (Seal Beach) will be out at sea.

I guess that's not too high a price for my grandchildren to pay so that the oil and coal companies can make a decent profit.

Sea level rise predictions are tricky. The troubling thing to me is that the IPCC generates a range of predictions based on a range of assumptions. Sea level is tracking at the top of the IPCC range of predictions. And those predictions excluded certain contributors to sea level rise because the author's felt they couldn't be adequately quantified (meaning the entire set of predictions is low by some amount). Hopefully they will be able to make a more precise estimate in the upcoming report.

Replacing and/or protecting infrastructure along the coasts will become an increasing big deal.

[_Tarski]

1. CFR. Who, of any stature among the conservative/libertarian movements has made this claim?

Well, it is interesting to note that you do not consider Rush Limbaugh to have any stature among conservatives. There are also numerous highly successful republican politicians, especially on the state level, that have said and are still saying exactly that. I wonder why you would recommend voting for them.

[_Droopy]

On sea level rise, the only article that supports what Dropy claims is the first. Here's a good summary of what's wrong with the author's claims: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Ax ... -rise.html. He cites a couple by authored or co-authored by Church, but omits the article where Church finds an acceleration in sea level rise. http://naturescapebroward.com/NaturalRe ... 024826.pdf Funny how he missed that one given it's title....

The others really address the problems in trying to measure average sea level.

It's not hard to find up to date research: just google "sea level rise acceleration"

1. Now go back and actually read the abstracts again, and Google up the full papers if you can find them. All these peer reviewed papers find no need to invoke AGW to explain sea level rise, and the empirical, observational fact remains that sea level is rising at approximately 7 - 11 inches per decade and at similar rates for several centuries, and at varying rates for the last 14,000 years.

2. You ask for sources. I send you to peer reviewed science papers. You send me back to political propaganda sites (you quite clearly don't know the difference). This is Bambi vs. Godzilla stuff here. The International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) was clear that the IPCC, who would rather play sophisticated computer games that do empirical science, simply ignored the majority of scientists who generate most of the data and and evidence of global sea levels, concentrating instead on their unverified and unvalidated computer models, because it is there they can generate the output they want at will. Keep in mind to that the nonsense spouted by institutional leadership at INQUA, just as with a number of other major science organizations who's institutional leadership has sold out to the $$green$$ government gravy train, does not represent many of its members (such as the AGU).

According to actual scientists expert in sea level changes, we have "10 cm -plus or minus 10cm" to wake up screaming with fear about, destroy the global economy, deindustrialize the West, wreck civilization, trap the Third World in grinding poverty for any foreseeable future, and dismantle constitutional democracy.

Here are the empirical, observational scientific facts: sea level is now rising at 20 to 30 centimeters per hundred years, which means approximately 7 to 11 inches of apocalyptic doom by the beginning of the next century. Skeptical Science is not a science site but a leftist climate cult site that traffics in every single discredited whopper the IPCC and its minions have stuffed into the pop media culture since its inception.

Sea level rise, like global warming itself, is well within natural perimeters and can be wholly explained without invoking human activities:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/13/s ... -recently/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3/abstract

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/i ... elerating/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/01/e ... ojections/

When the next Jim Jones arrives on the scene, it will be interesting to watch all the left-wing drones flock, glassy-eyed, into his charismatic embrace. Or have they already:

[_Droopy]

1. CFR. Who, of any stature among the conservative/libertarian movements has made this claim?

Well, it is interesting to note that you do not consider Rush Limbaugh to have any stature among conservatives. There are also numerous highly successful republican politicians, especially on the state level, that have said and are still saying exactly that. I wonder why you would recommend voting for them.

What is it that Rush Limbaugh has claimed? Has he said that there is no "global warming," that there is no anthropogenic global warming, that there is no dangerous or catastrophic global warming, what?

What makes you think I get most or any of my arguments about AGW from Rush Limbaugh?

[_Tarski]

What is it that Rush Limbaugh has claimed? Has he said that there is no "global warming," that there is no anthropogenic global warming, that there is no dangerous or catastrophic global warming, what?

What makes you think I get most or any of my arguments about AGW from Rush Limbaugh?

Yes he has said it in the past many times and many other scientifically idiotic things as well. So he has no stature among conservatives then? Or were you just wrong again?