Guest Post by Steven Goddard
We are all aware that Arctic ice extent has increased over the last two months, and is now about one million km2 larger than it was in 2007. But where has the ice growth occurred? I generated an image which makes this easy to visualize.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
In the composite image I prepared below, green colors represent 2010 ice that was not present in 2007, and red colors show where 2007 ice existed on this date but is not currently present.
A couple of interesting items.
- There is excess ice in the Baltic Sea, due to the cold winter there.
- There has been a lot of cold air over the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk (as seen below) causing excess ice on the Pacific side.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/ANIM/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.25.gif
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
mikael pihlström (05:15:27)
Yeah, don’t worry about a measly hundred BILLION, since we spend lots of money on other things. Meanwhile, bust the skeptics as money-grubbing fools because they got ten million from Exxon ten years ago … I don’t care what is spent elsewhere. Wasting a hundred billion when people are starving is bad enough. Trying to justify it on the basis that other money is wasted is a sad commentary on AGW supporters.
Yeah, it’s not “enormous sums being spent”, it’s only a hundred billion dollars … you really don’t have a clue how big that is, do you? Let me spell it out.
Suppose I gave you a million bucks to spend on the problems that Mike listed above, poverty, hunger, disease, famine, pestilence, floods, and the rest. You could make a dent in that problem for a million dollars. It would take a few years to spend that, but at the end, you could rest on your laurels, you would have made a difference.
Now, suppose I gave you a million dollars a day for a year to spend on the problems. Every day, another million dollars to fight disease and floods and the rest. You could make a real dent for that money. You’d have to gear way, way up, get a bunch of people to help spend money that fast, but think of the difference you could make spending a million dollars each and every day for a whole year. You could make a stupendous difference with a million dollars a day for a year.
You start spending, and you are doing so much good you don’t want to stop. I give you more bucks, you spend a million dollars every day for an entire century … you have done immense good in the world, made a real, lasting difference, you are recognized as one of the leading philanthropist in history. But guess what?
Spending a million bucks a day for an entire century, you still haven’t spent a hundred billion dollars. You’re still a long ways from that.
So you give the job to your kids, and eventually they turn it over to your grandkids, and between them they spend a million dollars each and every day for an another century.
But even after two centuries of spending a million dollars every day fighting disease and poverty, you’re still not there yet, you still haven’t spent the hundred billion. You’d have to spend a million dollars a day for another seventy five years to finally get through the hundred billion.
So don’t be babbling inanities about how a hundred billion dollars is not an enormous sum. That’s nonsense, it is an unimaginably large amount of money, money beyond our dreams.
Don’t know where you live, but I rarely hear that argument. The main arguments I hear are:
1. It will have no effect on the temperature. Even the folks who supported Kyoto admitted that if all of the signatories met their targets, it would change the temperature by less than a tenth of a degree in fifty years. Unlike you, people are unwilling to spend money and time to achieve sweet Fanny Adams …
And in the event, the US (without any Kyoto) reduced carbon emissions about as much as the median of the Kyoto countries. So Kyoto did nothing and cost tens of billions … heck of a plan you’ve got for us there, Mikael.
2. It will be very damaging to the US economy. Energy is on the input side of all economics. Any additional cost for energy is very damaging because it drags everything down. Particularly at this time, we can’t afford that. The issue is not “our taxes”, it is the obvious economic damage to the country as a whole.
3. It will drive business, particularly manufacturing, overseas to countries which do not have energy taxes. Again, we can’t afford it.
4. The science is shoddy, poorly supported, and driven by politics rather than facts.
Finally you say:
Mike said nothing of the sort. He merely pointed out that there were real, pressing, urgent, serious needs today, as opposed to the AGW claims of maybe some increase in storms and droughts and sea level in fifty years. The fact is that money can’t be spent twice, so what we waste chasing the climate chimera can’t be spent on real problems.
Willis Eschenbach (13:18:25) :
mikael pihlström (05:15:27)
Mike D. (17:56:54) :
$100 billion wasted on global warming alarmism, and the alarmists have the temerity to query, “What are the real issues?”.
Please, let’s be honest and also look at the proportions:
– US deficit 12 000 billion, spent on wars, tax cuts for affluent people and rescuing large-scale gamblers – US reseach budget/year, something like 380 billion, with defense and health research dominating, very little on energy research, climate reseach? – i don’t know, but if the gobal total over a longer period is100 billion – it can’t be much per year in USA, in proportion to figures mentioned above.
Yeah, don’t worry about a measly hundred BILLION, since we spend lots of money on other things. Meanwhile, bust the skeptics as money-grubbing fools because they got ten million from Exxon ten years ago … I don’t care what is spent elsewhere. Wasting a hundred billion when people are starving is bad enough. Trying to justify it on the basis that other money is wasted is a sad commentary on AGW supporters.
You misunderstand or misread. Mike D said exactly that: it is a short
message, easy to check. He (and you) think that money spent on climate
research (correct?) is wasted and you are entitled to that opinion.
I point out that it is after all a small component of your research budget
(the 100 billion has to be recalculated per year/ US only, for a correct comparison).
I also ask what is wrong with funding integrative earth system level
science? It is the direction science is taking. Is it just that you don’t like
the results. If the grant award process is corrupt, in your interpretation,
you could concentrate on that issue?
But Mike D says, better spend it one worthy humanitarian causes, and I
point out that this has a flavor of populism. It is human, when I get angry
with something I say it could be better spent on elder care. And I don’t
disgree on the worthy causes mentioned.
I am just saying don’t use it as an argument for cutting down some
funding you don’t like – please find more logical comparisons. For
instance, by stayinf within the frame of research budgets.
“”” mikael pihlström (14:04:13) :
Willis Eschenbach (13:18:25) :
mikael pihlström (05:15:27)
Mike D. (17:56:54) :
$100 billion wasted on global warming alarmism, and the alarmists have the temerity to query, “What are the real issues?”.
Please, let’s be honest and also look at the proportions:
– US deficit 12 000 billion, spent on wars, tax cuts for affluent people and rescuing large-scale gamblers – US reseach budget/year, something like 380 billion, with defense and health research dominating, “””
Can’t really unravel who said what.
But our forebares said this:-
“”” Section 8 – Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; “””
That actually is a verbatim citation of The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (out of 18); the first 17 of which define the powers granted to the Congress of The United States.
Clause 1 you can see tells the Congress that they can collect taxes; BUT if you notice, it also says what they can use that tax money for. Just three things. 1/ Pay the Debts (of The United States)
2/ Provide for the Common Defense of the United States.
3/ Provide for the General Welfare of The United States.
That is all.
For the uninformed; “The United States” was and is one of the three parties to the contract that is “The United States Constitution.” The other two parties to that contract are:- “We The People of The United States.” and “The Several States” which are the Sovereign States (now numbering 50) which agreed to be a part of this contract.
Nowhere does it say the Congress has any power to provide for the welfare of every Tom, Dick, or Harry; only of that Political Entity known as The United States; whose headquarters happens to be in Washington DC.
Nowhere else in the Constitution, does it give the Congress any other things it can collect taxes for.
It certainly doesn’t give it any authority to tax anybody to pay for “climate research” or “energy research” or any other boondoggles that a myriad of special interest groups think it should pay for.
So if you think the USA spends a lot of money on defense (fighting wars) including other people’s wars; well now you know; that is mostly what they are supposed to do. Doesn’t cost a lot to see to the general welfare of that DC operation; just make sure they have a supply of pencils and paper and a good pencil sharpener.
Well of course the Congress sees that big loophole there; to pay the debts of the United States; and they do have the power to pass laws; under the 18th clause of Article ! Section 8; BUT ! ONLY those laws which are NECESSARY and APPROPRIATE.
Well you know what that means. A is necessary for B , if and only if, in the absence of A, B is impossible; no matter what.
So if you can solve a problem with either of two different laws (or approaches), then neither of those is “necessary”, since you have an alternative; in which case it is none of the Congress’ business, and the States or the People can solve the problem the way they see fit.
Well the Congress manages to write all kinds of laws, which aren’t necessary or appropriate; and then they grant funds to “finance”, thiose un-necessary things; which they can do by going into debt; since they can incur debts; and then they use clause 1 as their means to pay those debts.
So deficit spending is an absolutley essential part of the scheme of Congress to get around the fact that they aren’t allowed to tax anybody to pay for Climate or Energy research; so they borrow to do that; and then make the taxpayers make good on their IOUs.
So if the rest of the world would take care of their own defense, and quit depending on us for that; maybe we would be a better shape to handle charity cases like grants to climate scientists.
And as to those “affluent people” Well they are the only ones who are paying any taxes anyway; so how do you give a tax cut to somebody who doesn’t even pay taxes; like people with their hand in the public till. Taxpayers willingly pay for those people who actually do the providing for the common defense of The United States; we have no gripe about them getting anything they need for that. I don’t even mind paying for the intern that sharpens the pencils for those people in the Congress; we have to provide for the general welfare of the Congress, since it is part of that United States; that we set up; well to be pedantic our forefathers set it up; but we are generally all obligated to follow their tradition.
Others have tried different schemes; the Russians tried the “To each according to his needs; and from each according to his abilities.” approach for almost a century; and all they succeeded in doing was in destroying the culture and the economy of most of Europe.
Yet people still keep trying that insane utopic idea even today; “it just hasn’t been done right yet.” is their mantra. Well they keep trying and they keep failing; that’s a pretty good definition of “insanity.”
George E. Smith (16:07:18) :
Can’t really unravel who said what.
But our forebares said this:-
is a reply to
mikael pihlström (14:04:13) :
Willis Eschenbach (13:18:25) :
mikael pihlström (05:15:27)
Mike D. (17:56:54) who started:
$100 billion wasted on global warming alarmism, and the alarmists have the temerity to query, “What are the real issues?”.
[Added today] “Poverty, hunger, disease, famine, pestilence, floods,
fires, war, ignorance, servitude, immorality, homelessness, drug
addiction, corruption, pollution, brutality, fascism, crime, economic collapse, hardships and suffering, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.”
—-
This is informative and opens paths to several interesting topics,
but I guess the logic is to adher to the initial one.
After completing the quote (Mike D), you will see that it was not me,
a foreigner non-party to the US Constitution, who suggested a list of
issues that could be funded instead of climate change research. The
list kind of implies that funds could also be used outside the US.
Take the reference to the US deficit as a general example putting
into perspective the question of what an ‘enormous sum of money’
means.
Quite rightly, what the US spends on wars is not affecting me
economically, but you would recognize my right to oppose the wars
themselves, since they are international? The taxes and bail-outs
are your internal affair, I just venture the comment, that within the tax-paying population there is a choice how the cuts are distributed between income levels?
Then you have an interesting passage on research funding as unconstitutional? But, there is a federal research budget? Do you
mean that it is dubiously passed by Congress, in your textualist
interpretation of the Constitution, or are you saying that funding
research for defense and general welfare is unproblematic, but
climate research is unconstitutional? How about energy?
But, since part of your citizens and their representatives would say
that both energy and climate research are vital for general welfare,
the situation is not very different compared to Europe.
My point was that if the US research budget per year is ca 380 billion
dollars and the climate research share thereoff is 5? or 10?, you
can not maintain, as is often done on this site, that it is an
unprecedented, enormous sum. W Eschenbach says you should not
compare this way, which I find absurd. We always compare (it is
called budgeting) and for good reasons, using indicators; amount,
share of total, outcomes, efficiency etc.
You can of course state that the research in question is so absurd
that zero dollars should be spent. But, that is a different argument.
On the substance (‘the research is absurd’) I beg to differ completely.
Another point is how these totals are computed. But, I won’t go there
now. And an interesting question nobody wants to answer on this
site is:
(copied) Further, given that science must advance, increasing shares
of the research budget should go to integrative research at system
level – how can we bypass the earth and climate system in that setting?
Note that the category in statistics is ‘climate reseach’ not ‘AGW
theory supporting research’.
Finally, I started of with a mild critic of the argument: ‘could be spent
on food for the starving’. Will not repeat, just an example, in case it was
misunderstood:
If my boy (long ago) asks for a hamburger and I say ‘No, for that money
a boy like you in Africa can be vaccinated and not fall ill’, it is arguably
valid only if I earlier had indeed reserved the sum with an intention
to send it. If I actually wanted to save the money for general purposes,
for my evening beer, or because I don’t think a hamburger is good for
him. I should say so.