The world has never seen such freezing heat

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I'm not misrepresenting them. You claimed that evidence of a shortish timescale result which is contrary to the predicted longish timescale trend implies that predicting longish timescale trends is difficult. That is retarded.

I also work in the statistical field, as you should know

I actually have no idea what you do. You haven't made that much of an impression. Sorry.

, so I'm not entirely talking out of my ass here. But frankly, what I'm suggesting (which is clearly not what you're suggesting I'm suggesting, of course) is not something it should take a Ph.D. to understand...

What you appear to be suggesting is that global climate on the timescale of decades is a chaotic system. I'd like to know how an observation on the timescale of a month allows you to claim that.

I am not suggesting that evidence of a shortish timescale predicts a long one. It's entirely possible that you made that assumption based on others' arguments, but that's incorrect. I suggested that predictive ability in the near future is greater than that in the far future, with no mention of how long of a time span we were discussing in either case. If you weren't interested in assuming I'm an idiot, you might have realized that upon reading my post

I think we're learning simply that weather is a chaotic mess and trying to predict anything substantial over a long period of time is ... difficult.

I admit I did not make clear that "over a long period of time" meant "a long time into the future" not "across a long timespan", as I admitted earlier. I would love for you to explain to me how predicting the weather in 2400, even over a decade's span, is easier than predicting the weather in 2010, though, over a similar timespan... and honestly, even over a much shorter timespan in the near term, though I did not explicitly suggest that initially.

I believe that there are enough chaotic elements in weather, as well as elements we simply do not understand well, that it is irrational to suggest that we can accurately predict weather out 400 years from now based on our current understanding. I certainly have never defended that a short observation allows prediction of a long span - that's entirely the opposite of what I'm saying.

[Theben]

The best part about predicting out 100 years is you won't be around if your predictions prove false.

Anyway, IMO combating GW/Cl change is win-win. Plenty of innovation sparked and lessening of pollutants can only be a good thing, and that's at a minimum.

[Naked Gents Rut]

You act as though there's no economic costs involved.

[Theben]

Economic costs that are evened out by new technologies & jobs, and reduced impact of pollution on the economy.

[Naked Gents Rut]

If that were easily achieved, there wouldn't be any debate about whether or not to respond to climate change in the first place.

[Theben]

Who said it was easily achieved?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I am not suggesting that evidence of a shortish timescale predicts a long one. It's entirely possible that you made that assumption based on others' arguments, but that's incorrect. I suggested that predictive ability in the near future is greater than that in the far future, with no mention of how long of a time span we were discussing in either case. If you weren't interested in assuming I'm an idiot, you might have realized that upon reading my post

I think we're learning simply that weather is a chaotic mess and trying to predict anything substantial over a long period of time is ... difficult.

I admit I did not make clear that "over a long period of time" meant "a long time into the future" not "across a long timespan", as I admitted earlier.

snoopy, honey, you're making less than no sense. In the context of this thread WHAT IS IT that suggests to you that we're learning that trying to predict blah blah blah is difficult?

I would love for you to explain to me how predicting the weather in 2400, even over a decade's span, is easier than predicting the weather in 2010, though, over a similar timespan...

Good thing I never said that. I was making fun of your drawing conclusions of decades-scale climate based on a single month-scale observation.

and honestly, even over a much shorter timespan in the near term

I believe that there are enough chaotic elements in weather, as well as elements we simply do not understand well, that it is irrational to suggest that we can accurately predict weather out 400 years from now based on our current understanding

a) Who said anything about weather?
b) Who said anything about 400 years?
c) Who gives a flying **** what you believe?

I certainly have never defended that a short observation allows prediction of a long span - that's entirely the opposite of what I'm saying.

Again:

we're learning simply that weather is a chaotic mess and trying to predict anything substantial over a long period of time is ... difficult.

WHAT IMPLIES THAT WE ARE LEARNING THIS, IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD?

[KrazyHorse]

In case you forgot, the post you made that statement in was a response to an Oerdin response to a post about sea ice observations, in one case over a few months, in the other over a few years.

[KrazyHorse]

And you still haven't explained what it is you do "in the statistical field", by the way.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Theben
Economic costs that are evened out by new technologies & jobs, and reduced impact of pollution on the economy.

It only works out to a net gain if we assume that we're right about the scale and cost of climate change. If we assume that climate change would be minimal without any changes then instituting changes leads to a net loss.

Any time you distort behaviour you incur a loss. The question is whether the offsetting gain from reducing climate change outweighs it. If, say, we estimate the marginal environmental cost of emitting a ton of carbon at 40$ then we should tax carbon emissions at 40$ a ton. If the actual marginal environmental cost of a ton of carbon emission is 10$ then the behavioural changes caused by the distortionary effect of the tax may well outweigh the benefits of the reduced carbon emissions.

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by Lancer
Will the new ice age reach the tropics?

Yes, that beach front property would become an inland cliff a few miles from the coast and about 300-400 ft above sea level

[Berzerker]

anyway, I've been here in Kansas for ~20 years and this was among the 3 coolest summers and August was AMAZINGLY mild. Mild aint even a word I could use for past years...

Now here's the irony about the warm period in the 30s, and it ties in with all these reports of snowfall. From 1900-40 the world warmed with the 1930s seeing the peak of the warmth. Then from 1940-70 we saw a cooling trend and we've been in a warming trend since. Sea levels, and someone should check me on this because I heard it in a docu and dont know if its true, lowered during the warm period from 1900-40 and then rose (and I'm sure these are small amounts) during the 30 year cool period. Thats counter-intuitive, warmth melts ice = rising sea levels. Well, that meltwater has other effects - increased surface area with lower albedo means more heat absorption but it also means more surface area (and heat) for water to evaporate. "Global warming" should increase precipitation and that means more rain and more snow.

Is it really that stunning China got below 32 degrees long enough for a major rainstorm to become a snowstorm? Etc, etc, etc... We should see more snow...and rain...if the world is warming. But that doesn't necessarily translate into rising seas. It would over time, like 1-2 ky as sea levels peaked early on in the holocene as ice melted much much faster. While global warming melts more ice, it also pumps more ocean water into the hydro cycle on land. Thats how all that ice in Antarctica got there over the eons, global warming should increase snowfall there too.

[Theben]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

It only works out to a net gain if we assume that we're right about the scale and cost of climate change. If we assume that climate change would be minimal without any changes then instituting changes leads to a net loss.

Any time you distort behaviour you incur a loss. The question is whether the offsetting gain from reducing climate change outweighs it. If, say, we estimate the marginal environmental cost of emitting a ton of carbon at 40$ then we should tax carbon emissions at 40$ a ton. If the actual marginal environmental cost of a ton of carbon emission is 10$ then the behavioural changes caused by the distortionary effect of the tax may well outweigh the benefits of the reduced carbon emissions.

True, but in theory this is a one-time penalty incurred on the economy, while savings from reduced pollution can be increasingly factored in over time. And it also depends on the subject: America (as opposed to viewing this issue from a worldwide pov) stands to incur greater costs if we allow the european and asian economies reap the initial benefits of modernizing while we hold off 'distorting behavior'.

[KrazyHorse]

True, but in theory this is a one-time penalty incurred on the economy

No. Why?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It only works out to a net gain if we assume that we're right about the scale and cost of climate change. If we assume that climate change would be minimal without any changes then instituting changes leads to a net loss.

Any time you distort behaviour you incur a loss. The question is whether the offsetting gain from reducing climate change outweighs it. If, say, we estimate the marginal environmental cost of emitting a ton of carbon at 40$ then we should tax carbon emissions at 40$ a ton. If the actual marginal environmental cost of a ton of carbon emission is 10$ then the behavioural changes caused by the distortionary effect of the tax may well outweigh the benefits of the reduced carbon emissions.

How do you arrive at the value of a ton of carbon?