Is anybody going to say anyting about the Stern Report's ECONOMIC
conclusions -- good, bad or indifferent?

Since Stern is the former chief economist at the World Bank?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retief wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 06 11:13:12 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.

"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the
sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with
radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the
1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."

Then clearly, by this same argument, CO2 is not the cause of warming,
as: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/db1009/inputs/co2-sens.dat, shows that
the CO2 concentration increased from 278 ppm (~1770), to 298 ppm by
1910, however the temperature did NOTHING during this period...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png

If CO2 was the cause of the warming, it clearly would have warmed by
this time...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-hit-record-h
ighs-over-the-last-few-decades/

Realclimate.org is not a refereed scientific journal, Lloyd... Didn't
you recently demand that people cite scientific journals?

Retief

In article ,
Orator wrote:
john fernbach wrote:
Uh - what about the economic analysis that Stern has offered, folks?
Because so far
it seems that most responses to the original post about the Stern
Report, as per above, have involved either

(A) A mindless exchange of insults resembling "a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" [Shakespeare], OR

(B) Fervent debate over the SCIENCE of global climate, which apparently
is not the main focus of what Stern wrote.

A modest question: Has anybody in here read actually what the Stern
report concludes about the ECONOMICS of climate change and efforts to
slow, stop, or adjust to it?
If so, do you care to share some of that ECONOMIC analysis with us?

I confess I haven't read the report yet, either, so this is not a trick
question.

But if we're arguing over a 700 page report by an economist, it's
probably a good idea to be examining his economic analysis. Just for
starters.

I have made the observation that many economists have raised their
eyebrows at the conclusion by Stern - meaning they too believe Stern to
be hysterical.

And which economists are those? Ones hired by the oil companies?

In article ,
Retief wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 06 11:13:12 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.

"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the
sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with
radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the
1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."


CO2 is the major change since 1950.

Then clearly, by this same argument, CO2 is not the cause of warming,
as: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/db1009/inputs/co2-sens.dat, shows that
the CO2 concentration increased from 278 ppm (~1770), to 298 ppm by
1910, however the temperature did NOTHING during this period...:


So? If X is not increasing now and Y is, and Z goes up, X must not be a cause
of Z.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png

If CO2 was the cause of the warming, it clearly would have warmed by
this time...


Just can't stand it that your "sun is causing it" is totally wrong, can you?
It sticks in your craw.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-hit-record-h
ighs-over-the-last-few-decades/

Realclimate.org is not a refereed scientific journal, Lloyd... Didn't
you recently demand that people cite scientific journals?

Retief

Read the article there I cited. 6 references at the end, from Nature and
Phys. Rev. Lett. "Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?"

The author is at NCAR.

In message , Orator
writes

I have made the observation that many economists have raised their
eyebrows at the conclusion by Stern - meaning they too believe Stern to
be hysterical.

Or that they are short sited and clueless...


J/.
--
John Beardmore

john fernbach wrote:
Orator wrote:

I have made the observation that many economists have raised their

eyebrows at the conclusion by Stern - meaning they too believe Stern to
be hysterical.


Orator - two points, briefly.

1. You're not really answering my question, quite. Have YOU read the
Stern report, and can YOU tell us a little of what's in it, for good or
evil?

None of these groups are "economics" groups and economics are off topic.
Therefore the response on economics is sufficient. As for aspects on
topic for these groups, I have already dealt with specifics derived from
the Stern report in the recent past.

2. You say "many economists" have raised their eyebrows at Stern's
conclusion. Can you cite us some of these "many" economists? Can you
cite their conclusions and/or criticisms?

Hard to do with reports from the radio. Nor does it make the "many
economists" any less relevant if their names are not listed!

Not trying to be picky here, though it looks like we're on different
sides of the AGW issue.

I think your side is in total denial of reality, actually - that you're
crazier than bedbugs But who cares, because most of us knew the two
sides disagreed on the bigger AGW issue before Stern published
anything.

This is a problem with Usenet. Participants tend to label people as
"If'n yer not for me, yer agin' me". That is, everything is labelled
black or white - no shades of grey or any other colours allowed.

Science is not served well, or at all, by such labelling of people!

There ARE far more positions than the AWG religion follower or their
atheist opponents, the GW deniers, you know!

What I'm asking is if anyone knows anything in any detail about Stern's
economic conclusions. Or the report's methodology, for that matter.

That would be better directed to an economics group than here.

In message , Orator
writes
john fernbach wrote:
Orator wrote:

I have made the observation that many economists have raised their

eyebrows at the conclusion by Stern - meaning they too believe Stern to
be hysterical.
Orator - two points, briefly.
1. You're not really answering my question, quite. Have YOU read
the
Stern report, and can YOU tell us a little of what's in it, for good or
evil?

None of these groups are "economics" groups and economics are off
topic. Therefore the response on economics is sufficient. As for
aspects on topic for these groups, I have already dealt with specifics
derived from the Stern report in the recent past.

Quite unconvincingly from my point of view.


2. You say "many economists" have raised their eyebrows at Stern's
conclusion. Can you cite us some of these "many" economists? Can you
cite their conclusions and/or criticisms?

Hard to do with reports from the radio. Nor does it make the "many
economists" any less relevant if their names are not listed!

That depends if you are a credible source.


Not trying to be picky here, though it looks like we're on different
sides of the AGW issue.
I think your side is in total denial of reality, actually - that
you're
crazier than bedbugs But who cares, because most of us knew the two
sides disagreed on the bigger AGW issue before Stern published
anything.

This is a problem with Usenet. Participants tend to label people as
"If'n yer not for me, yer agin' me". That is, everything is labelled
black or white - no shades of grey or any other colours allowed.

Science is not served well, or at all, by such labelling of people!

Agreed.


What I'm asking is if anyone knows anything in any detail about Stern's
economic conclusions. Or the report's methodology, for that matter.

That would be better directed to an economics group than here.

Oh I don't know - there are economic consequences of environmental
protection, and environmental consequences to economic 'progress'.

I don't think they can be separated the way you suggest.

Not that I've got time to read a 700 page report !!


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Retief wrote:

On Mon, 13 Nov 06 11:13:12 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:


1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.

"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the
sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with
radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the
1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."


CO2 is the major change since 1950.


Then clearly, by this same argument, CO2 is not the cause of warming,
as: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/db1009/inputs/co2-sens.dat, shows that
the CO2 concentration increased from 278 ppm (~1770), to 298 ppm by
1910, however the temperature did NOTHING during this period...:



So? If X is not increasing now and Y is, and Z goes up, X must not be a cause
of Z.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png

If CO2 was the cause of the warming, it clearly would have warmed by
this time...



Just can't stand it that your "sun is causing it" is totally wrong, can you?
It sticks in your craw.

So why don't you actually get to it an prove he is wrong? You can't can you!


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-hit-record-h

ighs-over-the-last-few-decades/

Realclimate.org is not a refereed scientific journal, Lloyd... Didn't
you recently demand that people cite scientific journals?

It sure isn't - it is about as reliable as the "Intelligent Design"
mob's "science" is! Who knows, it may even BE their "science" at work!


Read the article there I cited. 6 references at the end, from Nature and
Phys. Rev. Lett. "Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?"

The author is at NCAR.

Not possible! An artificial/abstract body can't write! It is about as
"intelligent" as saying "the Table wrote that" because the paper was on
the table when the author wrote (whatever) on it.

On Tue, 14 Nov 06 09:18:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.

"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the
sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with
radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the
1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."

CO2 is the major change since 1950.

The CO2 was also changing from ~1770 to 1910, but resulted in no
visible warming, according to the IPCC:

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/...arge/05.16.jpg

You have yet to provide an explanation of this phenomena.

If X (CO2) was increasing, and Z (temperature) DID NOT go up, then
X (CO2) is NOT the cause of Z (temperature).

Then clearly, by this same argument, CO2 is not the cause of warming,
as: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/db1009/inputs/co2-sens.dat, shows that
the CO2 concentration increased from 278 ppm (~1770), to 298 ppm by
1910, however the temperature did NOTHING during this period...:

So? If X is not increasing now and Y is, and Z goes up, X must not
be a cause of Z.

Utter nonsense... Again Lloyd Parker insists that the climate system
is both linear, and instantaneous...

http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?sh...&nav=universal
http://www.oco.noaa.gov/docs/arsooosc06/chapter1.pdf

"An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response
caused by the oceans is 10-100 years."

So Lloyd, is 56 years between 10 and 100 years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png

If CO2 was the cause of the warming, it clearly would have warmed by
this time...

Just can't stand it that your "sun is causing it" is totally wrong, can you?
It sticks in your craw.

You are a moron, Lloyd. Tell us Lloyd, how much warming would occur
without the Sun?

But perhaps you believe in Joe Newman's Energy Machine, as well...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-hit-record-h
ighs-over-the-last-few-decades/

Realclimate.org is not a refereed scientific journal, Lloyd... Didn't
you recently demand that people cite scientific journals?

Read the article there I cited. 6 references at the end, from Nature and
Phys. Rev. Lett. "Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?"

The author is at NCAR.

Well Lloyd, it seems that all of these papers refer to Solanki et.
al., and in particular, the claims that the Sun cannot cause the
warming seem to all reference and hinge upon this particular paper:

"Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf

And it seems that it is this paper alone which is used to support the
several claims that "the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30%".

However, examining this paper, we discover that the authors of this
paper apparently limited their analyses to:

"Various processes have been invoked by which the inconstant Sun
can influence the troposphe (1) changes in the energy input
into the Earth's atmosphere through variations in the total solar
irradiance, (2) changes in stratospheric chemistry through
variations of solar UV irradiance, and (3) changes in cloud cover
induced by modulations in the cosmic ray flux produced by
variations in the Sun's open magnetic flux."

That is, they apparently ignored the effects of insolation on the
soil, the hydrosphere and the biosphere.

Further,

The two other simplifying assumptions that enter our analysis are
(1) the connection between the relevant solar and terrestrial
quantities is linear, and (2) this connection remains unchanged
with time (and in particular it is the same prior to and post
1970).

That is, they also reject any possible feedback contributions from
solar interactions with the hydrosphere and biosphere.

They further attribute the lack of warming, which occurred from ~1940
to ~1970, entirely to the incident solar energy (that is, this lack of
warming was "caused" by the increasing solar flux)... We will also
note that during this same period, that the CO2 concentration also
increased substantially, yet the temperature records still show no
warming... Thus one could use their same argument to "prove" that CO2
has little or no effect.

Is it also unclear that these authors took into account the estimated
10-100 year time constant exhibited by the oceans, in their analyses:
(http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?sh...nav=universal).

Thus we conclude that their results are highly questionable...

And then we have this cited article:

Solanki, S.K., Usoskin, I.G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M., Beer, J.,
2004. Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to
the previous 11,000 years. Nature 431, 1084-1087.

"It was shown that even under the extreme assumption that the Sun
was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the
most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar
origin."

So if we accept their estimate cited in this paper (and we note this
estimate results from the questionable analysis above), we STILL find
that these results are contrary to Lloyd Parker's claim that "'[the]
sun is causing it' is totally wrong ...". That is, Lloyd apparently
thinks that a 30% contribution is the same as no contribution (and
thus "totally wrong").

But this sort of nonsense is typical for Parker.

Retief

"Bawana" wrote
I'll get to those tomes of turds after I die and am really looking for
something to fill up eternity.

You seem to have enough dung in your mouth to continue to chew for all
eternity.