Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Mr. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale, picks through an impressive tool kit of the latest findings in climate study and economic theory. DICE informs him that with a possible increase in temperature of 2.5 degrees Celsius, global warming in 2070 can be expected to inflict economic losses and damage amounting to 1.5 percent of global output. That would not be trivial, but it wouldn’t be devastating, either. He estimates that 90 percent of the United States economy would be negligibly or only lightly harmed by greater warming. Only 1.2 percent, mainly farming, now a mere sliver, would be hit hard.

That dollar damage would include items like lower crop yields and flooded waterfront properties. But the estimate does not cover the possible destruction of natural wonders like the Upper Amazon or thousands of species. Their loss cannot be captured in dollars, yet we must insist on protecting them when figuring costs and benefits, he says.

He expects that economic damage from climate change will probably be quite small compared with economic growth over the next half-century to century. But he warns that Mother Nature may play her hand in a way that upends logical forecasts and leads to global disaster.

In particular, he frets about four tipping points: the collapse of the large ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; large-scale changes in ocean circulation (possibly reversing the Gulf Stream); situations when warmth prompts more warmth (say, by the thawing of frozen methane); and the possibility of a warming trigger that may double the Earth’s temperature increase, to six degrees Celsius. (Even three degrees is now considered an unthinkable extreme.)

His views put him to the right of center on the ideological spectrum, but he has no patience with the few “contrarian” scientists and numerous political figures who contest the established science that global warming is real and ominous. Though he includes a hopeful chapter meant to appeal to thinking conservatives, not even DICE is smart enough to devise a solution to the intractable politics of climate change, which are stubbornly deadlocked.

Like many other experts, he sees a drastic reduction in the burning of coal as the obvious step in reducing greenhouse gases. He urges that we accomplish that by enacting a tax on carbon dioxide emissions of, say, $25 a ton for openers — or the equivalent in exchangeable pollution credits in the system known as cap and trade. And, he says, we need to do it right now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/b...n-overview-of-global-warming.html?ref=science

 

Still inveighing for your religion of AGW I see.

 

Nordhaus is making assumptions based on an a model of failed models.

His assumption about agriculture is particularly suspect.

1. CO2 should be good for yields in countries like the U.S. and Europe.

studies have shown that throughout history periods of warming has been the highpoint of economic history.

To predict othewise is just agw nutter propaganda.
The correct answer is we do not know if there is warming outside natural variability but if there is... on balance it may help the economy because co2 is good for vegetation.

We also know there is no real science predicting 2.5 degrees C. When you see that you see a agw nutter.

 

Interesting explanation of something I had wondered about... how the hell could inland cities like ephesus be former ports if sea levels are rising.

This is a further indication which shows these agw nutters are just pushing propaganda.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/...climate-alarmist-sea-level-claims/#more-98420

...

During the deepest part of the last ice age, known as the Wisconsin, sea levels were about 400 feet lower than at present. As Earth emerged from the Wisconsin some 18,000 years ago and the massive ice sheets started to melt, sea levels began rising. Rapid sea level rise during the “meltwater pulse phase,” about 15,000 years ago, was roughly five meters (16 feet) per century – but then slowed significantly since the Holocene Climate Optimum, about 8,000 years ago.

Fileost-Glacial Sea Level.png

Those rising oceans created new ports for Greek and Roman naval and trade vessels. But today many of those structures and ruins are inland, out in the open, making them popular tourist destinations. How did that happen? The Little Ice Age once again turned substantial ocean water into ice, lowering sea levels, and leaving former ports stranded. Not enough ice has melted since 1850 to make them harbors again.

The ancient city of Ephesus was an important port city and commercial hub from the Bronze Age to the Minoan Warm period, and continuing through the Roman Empire. An historic map shows its location right on the sea. But today, in modern-day Turkey, Ephesus is 5 km from the Mediterranean. Some historians erroneously claim “river silting” caused the change, but the real “culprit” was sea level change.

Ruins of the old Roman port Ostia Antica, are extremely well preserved – with intact frescoes, maps and plans. Maps from the time show the port located at the mouth of the Tiber River, where it emptied into the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Battle of Ostia in 849, depicted in a painting attributed to Raphael, shows sea level high enough for warships to assemble at the mouth of the Tiber. However, today this modern-day tourist destination is two miles up-river from the mouth of the Tiber. Sea level was significantly higher in the Roman Warm Period than today.

An important turning point in British history occurred in 1066, when William the Conqueror defeated King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. Less well-known is that, when William landed, he occupied an old Roman fort now known as Pevensey Castle, which at the time was located on a small island in a harbor on England’s south coast. A draw bridge connected it to the mainland. Pevensey is infamous because unfortunate prisoners were thrown into this “Sea Gate,” so that their bodies would be washed away by the tide. Pevensey Castle is now a mile from the coast – further proof of a much higher sea level fewer than 1000 years ago.

...

 

Before Man, fires were started by lightning. Therefore Man-started fires are nothing to be concerned about.

 

You are so deluded.

The models have not failed and the temp rise is certainly not natural. And what the hell does warming outside natural variability even mean? Sounds like typical lawyer double talk and obfuscation. In other words....bullshit.

Warm periods are fine. The unprecedented rapid rise in temps is not. It is this rapid change that will make it difficult for agriculture and natural systems.

Here's what the American Geophysical Union says about your stupid deluded thoughts regarding "natural variability" ....I think I'll take their words over some crazed right wing asshole like you......backed up by a TV meteorologist's website paid for by the Koch bros.

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns

that are not natural

and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

jerm, get a clue.

 

Ricter... you can do better.


Before man there were cooling periods with sea level declines and then warming periods and sea level rises.

During man there were little ice ages where sea levels declined signficantly... as much as 400 feet... and now the sea levels are rising again.

therefore man may not be impacting sea levels in a significant manner after all. This sea level is rising deal is likely just part of natural variability.

 

You are so deluded.

The models have not failed and the temp rise is certainly not natural. And what the hell does warming outside natural variability even mean? Sounds like typical lawyer double talk and obfuscation. In other words....bullshit.

Warm periods are fine. The unprecedented rapid rise in temps is not. It is this rapid change that will make it difficult for agriculture and natural systems.

Here's what the American Geophysical Union says about your deluded thoughts regarding "natural variability" ....I think I'll take their words over some crazed right wing asshole like you, only backed up by a TV meteorologist's website paid for by the Koch bros.

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns

that are not natural

and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

jerm, you delusional ideologically-crazed asshole...... get a clue.

 

I can do better? You've used four times as many words to say the same thing.

 

the truth... in a short sentence... "there is no science showing man is having a measurable impact outside natural variability on temperatures" .... does not seem to work on agw nutters.

So I spelled it out for you.

Notice... even now... we have the idiot fc... makes claims without any support or science.

so I will supply real NASA science compared to NASA quoting propaganda. see next posts.