I think people get cars with high fuel efficiency to make it affordable in Europe, so it has an effect on emissions.
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by blueice2hotsea
Your saying too much. Remember, my (most likely wrong) assumption is that 100% of the warming is due to CO2.
BTW, the equation I used for secular T(y) is a quadratic:
Secular T(y) = 0.0000643707 * y^2 + -0.1193867 * y + 110.6938
WHT and Pratt used cubic and exponential equations as I recall. The devil is in the details.
Note: the secular T(y) eq. is intended for years 1878.25 – 2006.25. Just for fun, the projected temp increase from 2015 to 2100 is only 1.2C. (Less than 1.5C woo! woo!)
↧
Comment on Week in review by blueice2hotsea
Opps. I mean Jim, your not saying too much with suggesting a relationship.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Jim D
If majorities thought differently there would have been an outcry. There isn’t because the statements are reasonable representations of their view.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Jim D
It seems like one person (Koonin) at APS has some questions. The rest don’t.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by phatboy
We always have used fuel sparingly, because we can’t afford to do otherwise. But that’s apparently not good enough for our political masters.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
Reading the transcript of the APS statement presentation, I’d beg to differ. It was a great interaction of 6 presenters, Koonin, and scientists in the audience. There were a number of “questions”. Not that it’s warming, and not that CO2 isn’t involved. But that nature is also, models are ineffective tools as utilized, aerosols are in question, that “pause” thingy, et al.
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, Northern Atlantic greenland and westward.
Northern Atlantic Greenland eastward.
I believe there are some Labrador current reconstructions that are interesting to some.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Like I said, few serious skeptics have made any of those arguments because they are so easily refuted. Where does he get 350% and 30% from? These are plainly wrong. The saturation argument is also denied by even Lindzen, Spencer and Monckton. They all consider the forcing change to be the major factor in warming.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
More spam from little jimmy dee. The World Bank apparatchiks’ brilliant schemes just about had solved the poverty problem and along came climate change. We are all shamed and we are going to stop being obstructionist deniers. Your work is done, jimmy. Are you going to drag the family to see Merchants of Doom again tonight, yimmy?
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Willard
> There were a number of “questions”. Not that it’s warming, and not that CO2 isn’t involved. But that nature is also, models are ineffective tools as utilized, aerosols are in question, that “pause” thingy, et al.
No memes that appear in this list:
It’s not warming.
Ice is not melting.
Nuclear is the only answer (security issues).
Alternative energy sources are a waste of time.
CO2 is soley good.(You see, I’m skeptical…….of both sides).
Both sides alright.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Pratt’s one was physically based on a log CO2 to temperature relation with an exponential in time CO2 increase approximating the nearly exponential 20th century emission rate. It fit surprisingly well as I recall.
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by Stephen Segrest
Dr. Curry — I’d like for you to “TEACH us about clouds in layman terms. Gosh, this should only take you a couple of minutes to develop a monthly post on clouds (in layman speak).
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Emissions per year (solid), CO2 rise rate in atmosphere (dashed)
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by David Wojick
The GHCN are a poor representation but that is just the beginning of the problems with the surface statistical models. Statistics are not measurements, they are estimates, in this case crude estimates.
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by John
to JCH:
the “relevant” link doesn’t work.
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JCH, “However, if the results of the climate model are transferable to the real world, the drawback of a possible seasonal bias or of the influence of other disturbing factors such as snow cover, seems to be of minor importance at decadal and centennial time scales.”
That transferablity is a bit of an issue, but subsurface temperatures whether boreholes, caves or SST which is actually a subsurface, tend to smooth out much of the seasonal “distortion”.. Surface air temperatures, especially summer are tightly linked to precipitation which is one of those confounding factors for tree rings doncha know.
↧
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by Mike M.
climatereason wrote: “The two professors of Econmics might have found it iusefyol to have read Fagans The Little Ice Age that they cited.”
I don’t know why you say they did not read that. They seem fully aware of that, but are challenging the conclusions based on the data they analyze.
I took a quick look at the Netherlands data and see a possible reason for their result. The data are very noisy, so perhaps there is indeed too much random noise to allow one to find the underlying signal. Ane they say nothing about their detection limit.
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by beththeserf
Getting on top of clouds. :-)
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by JCH
John – seemed to work for Capt and Jim D. Here is the full address. Sorry:
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
