Costs of adapting to climate change significantly underestimated

Aug 27, 2009
The new report claims that the cost of adapting to coastal flooding could be three times greater than predicted

Scientists led by a former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will warn today that the UN negotiations aimed at tackling climate change are based on substantial underestimates of what it will cost to adapt to its impacts.

The real costs of adaptation are likely to be 2-3 times greater than estimates made by the UN Framework Convention on (UNFCCC), say Professor Martin Parry and colleagues in a new reviewed study published by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London.

The study adds that costs will be even more when the full range of climate impacts on human activities is considered.

Professor Parry and colleagues warn that this underestimate of the cost of adaptation threatens to weaken the outcome of UNFCCC negotiations, which are due to culminate in Copenhagen in December with a global deal aimed at tackling climate change.

"The amount of money on the table at Copenhagen is one of the key factors that will determine whether we achieve a climate change agreement," says Professor Parry, visiting research fellow at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London. "But previous estimates of adaptation costs have substantially misjudged the scale of funds needed."

The UNFCCC has estimated annual global costs of adapting to climate change to be US$40-170 billion, or the cost of about three Olympic Games per year.

But the report's authors warn that these estimates were produced too quickly and did not include key sectors such as energy, manufacturing, retailing, mining, tourism and ecosystems. Other sectors that the UNFCCC did include were only partially covered.

"Just looking in depth at the sectors the UNFCCC did study, we estimate adaptation costs to be 2-3 higher, and when you include the sectors the UNFCCC left out the true cost is probably much greater," warns Professor Parry, who co-chaired the IPCC working group on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation between 2002 and 2008.

The new study's key findings include:

• Water: The UNFCCC estimate of US$11 billion excluded costs of adapting to floods and assumes no costs for transferring water within nations from areas of surplus to areas of deficit. The underestimate could be substantial, according to the new study.

• Health: The UNFCCC estimate of US$5 billion excluded developed nations, and assessed only malaria, diarrhoea and malnutrition. This could cover only 30-50 percent of the global total disease burden, according to the new study.

• Infrastructure: The UNFCCC estimate of US$8-130 billion assumed that low levels of investment in infrastructure will continue to characterise development in Africa and other relatively poor parts of the world. But the new study points out that such investment must increase in order to reduce poverty and thus avoid continuing high levels of vulnerability to climate change. It says the costs of adapting this upgraded infrastructure to climate change will be eight times more costly than the higher estimates predicted by the UNFCCC.

• Coastal zones: The UNFCCC estimate of US$11 billion excluded increased storm intensity and used low IPCC predictions of sea level rise. Considering research on sea level rise published since the 2007 IPCC report, and including storms, the new study suggests costs will be about three times greater than predicted.

• Ecosystems: The UNFCCC excluded from its estimates the costs of protecting ecosystems and the services they can provide for human society. The new study concludes that that this is an important source of under -estimation, which will cost over US$350 billion, including both protected and non-protected areas.

The report calls for detailed case studies of what adaptation costs will be, and points out that the few that already exist suggest that costs will be considerable.

The new study adds that the UNFCCC estimates do not include the cost of bearing 'residual damage' that will arise from situations where adaptation is not technically feasible or simply too expensive.

"Finance is the key that will unlock the negotiations in Copenhagen but if governments are working with the wrong numbers, we could end up with a false deal that fails to cover the costs of adaptation to climate change," says Camilla Toulmin, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development, which co-published the study.

Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, which co-published the study, says: "The costs of adapting to live with a changing climate are very uncertain. However, this new study suggests that previous attempts to figure out the costs have drastically under-estimated how expensive this could be. With such large sums potentially involved, the pressure to act now to reduce the extent of climate change is greater than ever."

The new study was reviewed by seven of the world's leading adaptation scientists, including the lead authors of the original UNFCCC study. Following this, close to 100 adaptation policy and research experts were invited to comment on the pre-publication draft.

The report's authors are: Professor Martin Parry (Imperial College London), Professors Nigel Arnell, Richard Tiffin and Tim Wheeler (University of Reading), Dr Pam Berry (University of Oxford), Drs David Dodman and David Satterthwaite (International Institute for Environment and Development), Dr Sam Fankhauser (London School of Economics), Dr Chris Hope (University of Cambridge), Dr Sari Kovats (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine), Professor Robert Nicholls (University of Southampton).

More information: The report is entitled 'Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change: a review of the UNFCCC and other recent estimates'. Copies can be downloaded from the IIED website www.iied.org

Provided by Imperial College London (news : web)

Explore further: Study to inform Maryland decision on "fracking"

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Storm costs to spiral, says report

Jun 29, 2005

The global costs of extreme weather could rise by two-thirds within decades unless governments tackle the causes of climate change, a report warned Wednesday.

A changing climate for protected areas

Apr 02, 2007

On April 6, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will release a report entitled Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability that focuses on how climate change is affecting the planet.

King tides -- a glimpse of future sea level rise

Jan 12, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Tomorrow, beach-goers will get a glimpse of what our coastlines may look like in 50 years, when New South Wales and South East Queensland experience the highest daytime ‘king tides’ forecast ...

Recommended for you

NASA image: Signs of deforestation in Brazil

16 hours ago

Multiple fires are visible in in this image of the Para and Mato Grosso states of Brazil. Many of these were most likely intentionally set in order to deforest the land. Deforestation is the removal of a ...

Sunblock poses potential hazard to sea life

16 hours ago

The sweet and salty aroma of sunscreen and seawater signals a relaxing trip to the shore. But scientists are now reporting that the idyllic beach vacation comes with an environmental hitch. When certain sunblock ...

Is falling recycling rate due to 'green fatigue'?

17 hours ago

It's been suggested that a recent fall in recycling rates is due to green fatigue, caused by the confusing number of recycling bins presented to householders for different materials. Recycling rates woul ...

Study to inform Maryland decision on "fracking"

20 hours ago

The Maryland Department of Environment and Department of Health and Mental Hygiene released on August 18, 2014, a report by the University of Maryland School of Public Health, which assesses the potential ...

User comments : 30

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2009
IT WOULD BE A SCARY WORLD . . .

without the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change!

Some of us think its even more scary to have scientists helping politicians gain new levels of control the lives of over ordinary citizens.

See: "EARTH'S HEAT SOURCE - THE SUN",
Energy and Environment: SPECIAL ISSUE:
Natural drivers of weather and climate,
volume 20, numbers 1 & 2, pp. 131-144 (2009)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (53) Aug 27, 2009
Redistribution of wealth, and a complete scam.
dachpyarvile
4 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2009
1000 years ago, temperatures all over the Arctic were 4°C to 5°C higher than today and there was farming in Greenland, as well as no permafrost as there is now.

Yet, there are no historical accounts from the period that mention any sort of flooding on the scale which the IPCC and clan say will happen if we warm up but 3°C more than today.

What gives?
SteveS
1 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2009
Dachpyarvile

Where did you get the 4 to 5 degree figure from?
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2009
See H. H. Lamb, Climate, History and the Modern World, pp. 157-159, for starters.

There are a couple others I have posted somewhere around here but I do not remember where and do not recall the references since I put them away.
SteveS
1 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2009
1000 years ago, temperatures all over the Arctic were 4C to 5C higher than today and there was farming in Greenland, as well as no permafrost as there is now.

See H. H. Lamb, Climate, History and the Modern World, pp. 157-159, for starters.


Thank you for the reference. I assume you are referring to this passage: -

"Thorkel Farserk, a cousin of Erik the Red who founded the colony, having no serviceable boat at hand, swam out across Hvalseyjarfjord to fetch a full-grown sheep from the island of Hvalsey and carry it home to entertain his cousin. The distance was well over two miles. Dr L.G.C.E.Pugh of the Medical Research Laboratories, Hampstead, has given his opinion, from studies of the endurance of Channel swimmers and others undertaking similar exploit, that 10C would be about the lowest temperature at which a strong person, even if fat, not specially trained for long distance swimming, could swim the distance mentioned. As the average temperatures in the fjords of that coast in August in modern times have seldom exceeded 6C ( 3 to 6C being more typical), it seems that the water must have been at least 4C warmer than this limit in the year in which Thorkel swam it and brought home his sheep.'

There are two issues here, the first being that the sea temperature at a single location outside the Arctic circle cannot be used to prove that "temperatures all over the Arctic were 4C to 5C higher than today". The second is that the story related above is not an accurate description of the feat as originally described in chapter 14 of Landnamabok (The Book of Settlement).

"There was a man named Thorkell Farserk, the sister son of Eirek the Red; he went to Greenland with Eirek, he settled Hvalseyfirth, and most places between Eireksfirth and Einarsfirth, and dwelt at Hvalseyfirth; from him the Hvalseyfirthers are descended. He was of exceeding strength. He swam out to Hvalsey, after an old ox, and brought it from the island on his back, when he wanted to give good cheer to his kinsman, Eirek, and there was not a seaworthy vessel at hand; that was a distance of half a sea knot or mile. Thorkell was interred in the (tun) enclosure at Hvalseyfirth, and his ghost has ever since haunted the place."

The first point to note is that the old (full grown) ox has become a full-grown sheep. It would be hard to imagine anybody, regardless of sea temperature, swimming far carrying an ox, it could be that this account, written a hundred and twenty five years after the event, exaggerates this deed to make it more heroic. However, whilst the beast is larger in the original account, the distance swam is less, half a sea knot or just over half a mile. This would obviously affect Dr L.G.C.E.Pugh's opinion of the minimum survivable temperature, even if other aspects of the story had not cast doubts on its veracity. Also, whilst not relevant to the discussion, Thorkell was Eirek's sister son (nephew) not his cousin.

http://www.northv.../003.php

dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (2) Aug 31, 2009
Ok, so we have translation issues afoot. But, rather than focusing on the issues raised by this, take a look at the remainder of the data.

It is apparent that you did not read all three pages. In addition, you should read other portions of the book as well. After all, I did tell you to read the three pages for starters. When you have read other portions of the book I referenced, you will see that it does discuss the entire area in and around the Arctic circle. Let me know when you have completed reading the other sections of the book dealing with the subject matter.

When you have completed that, take a look at and compare the Baffin Island and the Alaska isotope data for comparison. You will come to see that the higher temperatures applied to the entire Arctic region. For now, you have just seen the beginning.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Aug 31, 2009
By the way, you said to look at chapter 14. I just did. There is nothing about either sheep or ox. There is information about an old cow over which there was a dispute, but not hwat you describe is there. I'll look through the rest of the text to try to find what it is that you are talking about.

What I found interesting about chapter 14 is this quote:

There was a man named Avang, an Irishman by race, he first settled in 'Botn' = Bottom. The wood was at that time so abundant there that he built from it a seagoing ship, and put in her cargo at the place which is now called Hladhama.


Enough and plentiful wood to build a ship at the time. That also confirms the warmer climate of Greenland at the time. Thanks for calling my attention to that. :)
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Aug 31, 2009
Ok, found the source of the discrepancy. You were not specific as to which chapter 14 you were talking about. It would have been nice if you had specified which part of the book you wre speaking of. There are multiple parts, each of which contains a chapter 14. I just found what you were talking about.

Now I need to see the original language text and make some observations. Know where I can find one?
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (2) Aug 31, 2009
In the meantime, consider that a man who is not a trained polar swimmer would be dead in a couple minutes from cold-shock reflex at water temperatures of 3°C.

At as high as 6°C the result is similar but would take a few minutes longer to kill the person.

Also consider that the record for a polar swimmer is 1 mile in 30 minutes or so in 2°C to 3°C water.

This man in the old text went a mile total time and did not die of cold-shock reflex or of hypothermia.

Therefore, the water had to have been warmer at that time than at present or this man, strong or not, would have died of cold-shock reflex within minutes of entering the water.

So, regardless of any discrepancies in details like whether a sheep or an ox (what size of this breed of ox we are not told, assuming that the translation "ox" is correct and not "sheep") we still have a recorded case of a man swimming across in water than did not kill him.

There is no record of which I am aware of people training to swim Arctic or Antarctic waters during that time period so the evidence of this event still points to being on the order of several degrees warmer than at present averages of between 3°C to 6°C in the waters around Greenland.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2009
Found another issue. There are multiple rescensions of this text that differ in some details from one another. So, the issue could be a difference between rescensions rather than translation.

So, now the issue has become more complex and multiple recensions and translations will now need to be checked. The one that you have referenced is from the year 1895.

Well, I guess it is a good thing that the data is enough to confirm that it was warmer in Greenland than at present as this issue will take longer to look into as far as specifics are concerned.

There were trees and woods enough to build a ship or so, meaning that it had to have been warmer, and the fact that this guy made the swim in the first place, and did not die from cold-shock reflex, shows that the water was warmer on the order of several degrees C.
SteveS
not rated yet Aug 31, 2009
Ok, found the source of the discrepancy. You were not specific as to which chapter 14 you were talking about. It would have been nice if you had specified which part of the book you were speaking of


My apologies

Now I need to see the original language text and make some observations. Know where I can find one?


Landnáma + Kristnisaga http://www.am.hi....w/?fl=20

Found another issue. There are multiple rescensions of this text that differ in some details from one another. So, the issue could be a difference between rescensions rather than translation.


Indeed, the numerous authors and translations would make this a less than reliable source.

It is apparent that you did not read all three pages. In addition, you should read other portions of the book as well. After all, I did tell you to read the three pages for starters. When you have read other portions of the book I referenced, you will see that it does discuss the entire area in and around the Arctic circle. Let me know when you have completed reading the other sections of the book dealing with the subject matter.


I read all three pages. The section I quoted was the only part that mentioned actual temperatures. I have also read all other relevant sections and can find nothing to support your statement that MWP Arctic temperatures were 4C to 5C higher than today. If I have missed anything I would be grateful if you could provide a page number.

When you have completed that, take a look at and compare the Baffin Island and the Alaska isotope data for comparison. You will come to see that the higher temperatures applied to the entire Arctic region.


I have found no evidence to support your statement that MWP Arctic temperatures were 4C to 5C higher than today in any available literature. However there are numerous papers that support Arctic temperatures about 1C higher than today.

http://www.co2sci...ctic.php

I deliberately chose this site to avoid arguments regarding the source. I am sure that if they had evidence of higher Arctic temperatures they would have mentioned it.

I would be grateful if you could provide links to any papers that support your statement that MWP Arctic temperatures were 4C to 5C higher than today.

brianweymes
2 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2009
dachpyarvile your scientific reasoning is cutting. Who would have known that an old tale of a man who could swim in polar regions would overturn scores of data related to ice core samples, geology, and glacierology, just to name a few things? But wait, I forgot the wood. More wood equals more warm, right?
Velanarris
3 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2009
The UNFCCC has estimated annual global costs of adapting to climate change to be US$40-170 billion, or the cost of about three Olympic Games per year.

The US spent more money than this on the bailout.
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Aug 31, 2009
dachpyarvile your scientific reasoning is cutting. Who would have known that an old tale of a man who could swim in polar regions would overturn scores of data related to ice core samples, geology, and glacierology, just to name a few things? But wait, I forgot the wood. More wood equals more warm, right?


It is not scores of data being overturned by this. You also need to look over the latest O18/O16 isotope ratio data taken across the Arctic. This new data also shows that temperatures 1000 years ago was at least 4°C higher.

I had links to the abstracts posted on one of the pages here on this site. However, I do not know where these pages went. I cannot see them in the Activity link any more due to responses to other posts making them go away. If you want to search for those pages and then check out the new data at the links, go ahead. The data is mounting and that data definitely shows a warmer Arctic 1000 years ago.

While you are at it, check the pollen data for Greenland. There was farming going on with crops that do not grow in Greenland. But, they did grow and were farmed 1000 years ago in Greenland.

Check archaeological data for the Norse colonies in Greenland, too, while you are at it. Deep graves were dug by hand in places where there is permafrost now. The ground is solid in places where once it was easier to dig graves by hand!

Quit ignoring the mounting data in favor of the pet IPCC.
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Aug 31, 2009
Ok, found the source of the discrepancy. You were not specific as to which chapter 14 you were talking about. It would have been nice if you had specified which part of the book you were speaking of




My apologies



Now I need to see the original language text and make some observations. Know where I can find one?




Landnáma + Kristnisaga http://www.am.hi....w/?fl=20



I deliberately chose this site to avoid arguments regarding the source. I am sure that if they had evidence of higher Arctic temperatures they would have mentioned it.



I would be grateful if you could provide links to any papers that support your statement that MWP Arctic temperatures were 4C to 5C higher than today.


I found the final comments of the same page you cite above interesting.

So what did they find? As the six scientists describe it, the story told by both the varve thickness and sediment accumulation rate histories of Lower Murray Lake is that "the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were relatively warm," and in this regard we note their data indicate that Lower Murray Lake and its environs were often much warmer during this time period (AD 1080-1320) than they were at any point in the 20th century, which has also been shown to be the case for Donard Lake (66.25°N, 62°W) by Moore et al. (2001).


"Much warmer" is not 1°C. A careful reading of the paper you cited above shows that this "more than 1°C" climb occurred at the beginning of the MWP in question. This is to be expected since it was the beginning.

Again, search around for the recent O18/O16 isotope ratio data taken across the Arctic.
GrayMouser
not rated yet Sep 01, 2009
To add fuel to the fire...
How much would the average temperature have to go up to allow crops and livestock to be raised in Greenland?
Or to drive the permafrost layer deep enough to allow people to be buried?
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Sep 01, 2009
Indeed, the numerous authors and translations would make this a less than reliable source.


Actually, not necessarily. All documents, particularly the older ones, go through this sort of process. Scribes sometimes want to make things more heroic, so a later scribe might change the word sheep to ox and make the guy stronger than "exceedingly strong" or might accidentally misspell a word or omit a material fact.

What we need to do is to go back to the earliest source possible using textual criticism. This 1895 source I am not sure that he did that effectively enough. I would need to see the manuscripts in their original language and all of the manuscripts in order to make a decision as to the older text--if such can be determined, that is.

In any case, the reliability and probability of the data is not as compromised as you might think simply due to the fact that other data can be marshaled to bolster the details, such as the Greenland pollen data, archaeological data, and the very most recent O18/O16 isotope ratio data.
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Sep 01, 2009
...

Or to drive the permafrost layer deep enough to allow people to be buried?


At least 2°C to 4°C warmer than present, according to one website.

While the website does not agree in all details with the figures produced from the latest O18/O16 isotope ratio data, it is of interest to see what it does say about how much warmer it had to have been there 1000 years in order to allow roots of plants and deep graves:

Roots of plants and deep Viking graves found in South Greenland in soil that is now tjaele (permafrost or permanently frozen ground) indicate that the annual mean temperature must have been 2-4°C warmer than now.

(http://www.canadi...en.html)


The address of the page is valid but in Opera and a couple other browsers the page does not load properly. I do not know why but the link is valid. Perhaps it is the formatting of the link on Physorg. I cannot post on this page anymore using Internet Explorer 8 so had to switch to another browser even to post this!
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Sep 01, 2009
It is Physorg's formatting of the link. Just click the link in the above post. Then remove the right parenthesis from the end of the URL and hit enter. The page should display after that.

I also noticed that Opera and Safari also do not display the degree symbol properly, at least from where I sit. Sorry about that but I cannot control inept coding for which I am not responsible. :)

Consider also the following information from the above page, derived from Lamb's information:

The summer temperatures (for the air) in the fiords in South Greenland would then have been 13-14°C (as compared with the present 8-10°C), and in Godthaab's fiord about 12°C, with a correspondingly shorter growth season. Further north around Melville Bay the summer temperatures would have been 9-10°C, as compared with the present 3-5°C.


This coincides with my mention of temperatures 4°-5°C higher.
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Sep 01, 2009
There are additional meteorological data in the references on the bottom of the page I just cited above. It would appear that the author of the page did not rely on Lamb, although Lamb also mentioned the other information that is presented on the page.
SteveS
not rated yet Sep 01, 2009
I found the final comments of the same page you cite above interesting.

"the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were relatively warm," and in this regard we note their data indicate that Lower Murray Lake and its environs were often much warmer during this time period (AD 1080-1320) than they were at any point in the 20th century

"Much warmer" is not 1°C. A careful reading of the paper you cited above shows that this "more than 1°C" climb occurred at the beginning of the MWP in question. This is to be expected since it was the beginning.


A careful reading of the paper I cited shows that the data does not cover the beginning of the MWP

"On that basis, the varve record spans the period AD 1013–2004."

…and that no conclusions can be drawn from that data regarding recent warming.

"Comparisons with other proxies support our interpretation that conditions in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were relatively warm, before turning cooler in the late fourteenth century. Coldest conditions of the last millennium prevailed in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Evidence for more recent warming is equivocal, with different interpretations possible depending on the parameter examined."

Besonen, M. R., W. Patridge, R.S. Bradley, P. Francus, J.S. Stoner and M.B. Abbott, 2008. A record of climate over the last millennium based on varved lake sediments from the Canadian High Arctic. The Holocene, 18,1, 169-180

http://www.geo.um...2008.pdf


I had links to the abstracts posted on one of the pages here on this site. However, I do not know where these pages went. I cannot see them in the Activity link any more due to responses to other posts making them go away. If you want to search for those pages and then check out the new data at the links, go ahead.


I found your link here

http://www.physor...050.html

Ok, here is something else from the website you cited from:

("High-resolution record of Northern Hemisphere climate extending into the last interglacial period" URL:http://www.ncdc.n...004.html Accessed: 6-13-2009)


Can you tell me how this paper shows that MWP Arctic temperatures were 4C to 5C higher than today.

The full paper can be found here

http://epic.awi.d...004a.pdf

In any case, the reliability and probability of the data is not as compromised as you might think simply due to the fact that other data can be marshaled to bolster the details, such as the Greenland pollen, archaeological data, and the very most recent O18/O16 isotope ratio data.


http://www.co2sci...4/C2.php]http://www.co2sci...4/C2.php[/url]

http://instaar.co...ct_id=67

https://dspace.st...rrig.pdf

http://www.co2sci...4/C1.php

http://www.co2sci...6/C2.php

http://www.co2sci...2/C1.php

http://www.co2sci...4/C2.php]http://www.co2sci...4/C2.php[/url]

Roots of plants and deep Viking graves found in South Greenland in soil that is now tjaele (permafrost or permanently frozen ground) indicate that the annual mean temperature must have been 2-4°C warmer than now.


Permafrost is not continuous in Southern Greenland, it only exists in isolated patches

http://maps.grida...misphere

And the active layer (the top layer that melts each summer) can be thick enough to dig a six-foot grave as far north as Sisimiut. Sisimiut, unlike the Norse settlements, is within the Arctic Circle.

"The permafrost thickness in Sisimiut (Holsteinborg) is estimated to be 33 ± 9m with TZAA at -0.3 ± 0.1°C. In Sisimiut, the average active layer thickness is 2.3 m."

http://www3.inter...abstract

There are additional meteorological data in the references on the bottom of the page I just cited above. It would appear that the author of the page did not rely on Lamb, although Lamb also mentioned the other information that is presented on the page.


Frydendahl, K.: Global and regional temperature development since 1850. Danish Meteorological Institute. Scientific Reprt, 89-6. Københaven 1989

Scheen, R.: navigation and maneuvering. In From mast to keel, p. 224-225. Gothenburg 1963, københaven 1972

The paleoclimatic evidence is from Lamb.

Can you provide links to any published papers that show MWP Arctic temperatures were 4C to 5C higher than today?

SteveS
not rated yet Sep 01, 2009
Two of the links above don't work. Here they are again

http://www.co2sci...4/C2.php]http://www.co2sci...4/C2.php[/url]

http://www.co2sci...4/C2.php]http://www.co2sci...4/C2.php[/url]
SteveS
not rated yet Sep 01, 2009
Still didn't work

Just remove everything before www.

Third time lucky
Nartoon
1 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2009
The UNFCCC has estimated annual global costs of adapting to climate change to be US$40-170 billion, or the cost of about three Olympic Games per year.
_____________________
The US spent more money than this on the bailout.
_____________________
The bailout is/was a one time cost. However the cost of adapting is the only way for life to continue. After the cost of adapting we'll still have cars, electricity etc. But after fighting AGW we'll have no cars (electricity doesn't grow on trees) and little electricity for home use, let alone cars.
Velanarris
not rated yet Sep 04, 2009
The bailout is/was a one time cost. However the cost of adapting is the only way for life to continue. After the cost of adapting we'll still have cars, electricity etc. But after fighting AGW we'll have no cars (electricity doesn't grow on trees) and little electricity for home use, let alone cars.

The bailout is not a one time cost. The TARP act hasn't been completed. It's a long range 5 year plan of economic correction amounting to approximately 1 trillion dollars (estimated by the CBO).

We handed AIG 134 billion. We handed GM 50 billion. We handed Chrysler 7 billion.

I could go ahead and continue rattling off the banks we loaned money to, and the amount we borrowed from the Federal Reserve, and the amount we spend in Afghanistan (also in the tens of billions), and the money we spend on the military industrial complex, which is over 5% of our total 3 trillion dollar budget.

Truth is, this is nothing more than a drop in the bucket even on a semi-annual basis. Your pontification on electricity and AGW is irrelevant, the US will never go without energy or without cars unless a giant change in our daily reality occurs, either apocalyptic or technological.

dachpyarvile
not rated yet Sep 05, 2009
I tried to access the raw O18/O16 isotope ratio data directly from the NOAA and I get nothing but the following:

ftp> open ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/" title="ftp://[url=ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/]ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ftp://[url=ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/]ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/
Unknown host ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/" title="ftp://[url=ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/]ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ftp://[url=ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/]ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/.
ftp> open ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/
Unknown host ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/.

I am pretty miffed and am expecting the data to be smoothed soon before it is released to the public again. This is not the first time they have done this, by the way!
SteveS
not rated yet Sep 05, 2009
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Sep 05, 2009
Bastards! There are files that were there that now are missing since the last time I checked this data a few months ago! Grrr!
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Sep 05, 2009
I do not want smoothed data. I do not want data that has been 50-year averaged. I want the original files with the original raw data!

Also, the link to a previous post of mine is not the one where I posted the data regarding 1000 years ago. It is the earlier paleodata. Like me, you do not seem to have found the actual page where I posted that data. I do not care to speculate as to why as that will be a fruitless endeavor.

Well, since it is going to be a bit harder to get the raw data from readily accessible sources, I will have to improvise a bit but the end result will be comparable.

Lamb is not the source for the data found on the website I cited earlier this thread. Lamb is dependent for various of his basic data and information from Dr. K. Frydendahl. He so states on page xx of his "Climate, History and the Modern World."

So, I will cite from the webpage I cited, since the source of the information on that page comes from the work of Dr. K[nud]. Frydendahl. Dr. Frydendahl states (after mentioning the swim):

The summer temperatures (for the air) in the fiords in South Greenland would then have been 13-14°C (as compared with the present 8-10°C), and in Godthaab's fiord about 12°C, with a correspondingly shorter growth season. Further north around Melville Bay the summer temperatures would have been 9-10°C, as compared with the present 3-5°C.

(Cited from Knud Frydendahl, "The summer Climate in the North Atlantic about the Year 1000" in Viking Voyages to North America, Birthe L. Clausen (Denmark: Kannike Tryk A/S, 1993), 90-94, as cited at http://www.canadi...7en.html )


The range of temperatures given in this quote is 4-5°C. Therefore, this information from a scientist who deals with meteorology and climate supports what I said earlier regardless of my temporary setback in being able to obtain the data I sought to prove my point.

Additionally, you misread what I cited above. It does not matter that the permafrost is patchy CURRENTLY in southern Greenland. What matters is that where there are deep graves, these are NOW permafrost. Here is that cite again from Dr. Fryendahl on the same page:

Roots of plants and deep Viking graves found in South Greenland in soil that is now tjaele (permafrost or permanently frozen ground) indicate that the annual mean temperature must have been 2-4°C warmer than now.