Top Result, Google News, Search Term “Climate Change”

From the website of the AAAS, the column ‘Science Shot’ provides the top search return today for climate change on Google News.

Sometimes Alarmists ask us why we call them Alarmists.

The article is titled “Climate Change Could Cost Trillions More In Damages Because Of Thawing Arctic Permafrost

“As global warming thaws perpetually frozen Arctic land called permafrost (pictured), the greenhouse gases trapped within will escape, ramping up climate change’s economic toll by trillions of dollars, a new study finds. To make the calculations, researchers first determined how much carbon dioxide and methane the permafrost would release as the world warms. They used a model that estimates how climate factors like temperature affect absorption and release of these gases by land, plants, and microbes. They then fed the results from that model into a different model that estimates economic damages based on future greenhouse gas emissions. The model assumed that human activities by themselves would boost carbon dioxide levels 75% from today to 2100. Total damages without the permafrost emissions would be $326 trillion globally, the researchers found. With permafrost-related emissions included, however,additional damages ranged from $3 trillion to $166 trillion, depending on how much human emissions warmed the Arctic, the team reports online today in Nature Climate Change; the average value was $43 trillion. Aggressive cuts in human emissions could reduce that average price tag to around $6 trillion, the researchers suggest. ”

The author of the piece in AAAS is described as a ‘freelance science writer.’ The American Association for the Advancement of Science is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science for the benefit of all people.

The lead article on their website is ‘Irreverence for Evidence.’

“Climate-change denial, the anti-vaccination movement, the omission of evolution from many high-school biology classes, and surveys that reveal a widespread misunderstanding of basic scientific concepts were also cited by Holt as examples of America’s growing irreverence for evidence.”

I would counter that AAAS is evidencing an extreme ‘irreverence for evidence’ in these outlandish claims for permafrost, an extreme irreverence for journalism in pasting up a freelancer’s outlandish exaggeration of and ignorance of what mainstream science says and an extreme irreverence for the reading public.

I swear I could do this every blessed day.



3 responses to “Top Result, Google News, Search Term “Climate Change”

  1. I know I sound like a broken record, but I feel like it’s late 2002 and the neocons and the media are pumping a flood of propaganda about Iraqi WMD.

  2. They used a model that estimates how climate factors like temperature affect absorption and release of these gases by land, plants, and microbes. They then fed the results from that model into a different model…

    Ah, here we go again…”studies”…”experts”…”models…

    Anyone who claims that a computer game simulation of an effectively infinitely large open-ended non-linear feedback-driven (where we don’t know all the feedbacks, and even the ones we do know, we are unsure of the signs of some critical ones) chaotic system – hence subject to inter alia extreme sensitivity to initial conditions – is capable of making meaningful predictions over any significant time period is either a charlatan or a computer salesman.

    Ironically, the first person to point this out was Edward Lorenz – a climate scientist.

    You can add as much computing power as you like, the result is purely to produce the wrong answer faster.

    So the fact that they DO appear to give relatively consistent answers – albeit entirely incorrect ones – is evidence that someone is extracting the urine.

    As for pumping the output of one model into another model…

  3. The model doesn’t ‘assume’ anything. It uses the A1B AR4 scenario. This is at the junction of the ‘Low’ and ‘Medium’ projections. The A1B scenario has zero emissions after 2100. Zero. The damages include zero dollars from damages to buildings. Zero. This is a ‘conservative’ estimate. Even with this rosy scenario the damages are greater in the 22nd century than in the 21st. (BTW, the 700 ppm of CO2 is what you get from a 2nd order polynomial fit to NOAA’s ESRL CO2 data projected out to 2100.)

    That you haven’t read the paper is clear. That you still feel qualified to talk about it is a comment on you – not the paper..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s