Emissions may have been flat. Levels weren’t. There is a difference.
Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by GaryM
↧
Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by Jim D
What is your preferred sea level? It is a related question.
↧
Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by matthewrmarler
Jim D: These have nothing to gain and everything to lose in going against the scientific evidence, and they are immune to the “pressures” or “incentives” of the climate scientists.
If you think that “money talks”, you should examine the money that flows their way, and consider the consequences of that flow if global warming is not a problem, or is unrelated to CO2 increases.
↧
Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Jim D
The trend since 1950 translates to 2.2 C per doubling. Skeptics don’t like to just project this forwards to see what happens at 700 ppm for example.
↧
↧
Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Jim D
Where do NAS, RS and APS get money to support climate change views in one direction or the other? I don’t understand your point.
↧
Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by matthewrmarler
Steven Mosher: Note how you tried to answer my question about the basis of your belief by asking me unrelated questions. Finally you really should read more , perhaps on Hansen and his support for a revenue neutral carbon tax.
It isn’t an unrelated question. There are zillions of abstract ideas, as with unicorns, but without an actual law proposed law to debate, there is an emptiness in the discussion. I might support a carbon neutral tax, but I would have to read the bill, and the CBO report on it; you wouldn’t want another law that had to pass first before anyone knew what was in it, would you?
If you asked me a question about the “basis” of my “belief”, I missed it.
↧
Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by Turbulent Eddie
I went back to the beaches I went to 35 years ago recently.
Looked pretty much the same.
Not sure anyone a century from now will no or care that sea level is 8 inches higher.
↧
Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by matthewrmarler
Joseph: Matthew but we have thousands and thousands of papers on climate change.
Few of those address evidence of attribution and causation: the evidence supporting CO2 as a major cause is spotty and weak, and heavily dependent on the denial that the ~1000 period in the temperature data can represent an important causal agent. There were indeed thousands of papers on the biological and geological evidence addressing Wegener’s hypothesis.
↧
↧
Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by matthewrmarler
Steven Mosher: <i>Simple question: what’s the esitimated damage for instituting a revenue neutral carbon tax for the US? </i>
The answer to that question depends on the details of the tax law.
↧
Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by Jim D
Antarctica has a lot more than that in store.
↧
Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by matthewrmarler
Jim D: <i> I don’t understand your point. </i>
ok
↧
Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Ron Graf
Joseph: “I trust that science will discard bad ideas and is not blind to contradictory evidence/conclusions.”
Joseph, I was only mildly skeptical until I started down a trail that led here, fed along the way by a bunch of OMGs, I can’t believe this is not getting reported.
Evidence in point: One of the strongest points in “The Inconvenient Truth” is showing the correlation of CO2 in sync with ice core temperature proxy charts going back through the last four ice ages. Arrhenius would have been jumping for joy; his theory was proven correct after a 100-years of doubt. The only problem is that was 1987 ice cores. In the late 1990s (well before Gore’s 2006 movie) it was shown through higher resolution studies that temperature swings led CO2 by 300-800 years. That makes a difference. It is understood that the ocean is a vast reservoir of dissolved CO2 have will slowly emit it when temperature increases. Right now it is rapidly absorbing, equilibrium being forced by the higher concentration.
You can search ice age right now on Wikipedia and find pages about the state of our knowledge. There is a section on CO2 correlation, but the most important piece of information, which I just gave you is missing. Oversight?
Go to climateaudit.org that see what Scientific American just did to the truth.
I am here because science is getting its butt whipped by ideology.
Read the last comment at climateaudit.org.
↧
↧
Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by bernie1815
Peter:
I understand why wind power is not 100% effective in reducing CO2 emissions. I have read your submission. I think you are making an important point and one I had not thought about previously. However, I think your way of making the point is overly complex and unnecessarily convoluted. As a result, you create confusion and dramatically weaken the potency of your argument.
Finally, I would not under-estimate the ability of Climate, etc., denizens to master this type of information and argument.
↧
Comment on Pondering Nepal’s hazards by Pooh, Dixie
Wattle and daub. Cheap. Quick. Flexible.
↧
Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Jim D
Richard Alley of Penn State started an AGU lecture a few years ago with a letter from a skeptic that said he should be fired because in the ice ages temperature led CO2. It got a laugh from that audience, and at the expense of the skeptic. The rest of his talk was about how it works both ways in paleoclimate. It is worth watching.
↧
Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by sciguy54
The first step from cooking with dung is not filling the tank of an SUV.
With one KWH of electrical power and a 75% efficient lift, one man can lift 2,000 one hundred pound sacks of cement three meters, or lift nearly 10,000 gallons of water a meter from a ditch onto a field of crops.
Or that KWH could light 25 huts with 10 watt cfl bulbs for 4 hours each, so that an entire classroom of women can return home and study after dark.
Or that KWH could run a box fan on medium speed for maybe two or three sweltering nights so that a sick child might get some sleep and survive a heat wave.
With just one coal-fired KWH, which cost maybe 10-15 cents US retail.
↧
↧
Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by Jim D
A coal power station, coal fuel and electric grid are not cheap either. They might do better to go with solar and batteries. There are light bulbs you can charge with the sun in the day, and use at night.
↧
Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by bedeverethewise
The Pythons have covered this topic in great detail.
↧
Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
You are dodging the question. However, the Antarctic fossil record, supported by the principle of isostatic rebound in conjunction with an equal and opposite depression of ocean basin (obvious) indicates a probable slight reduction in sea level when Antarctica is once again ice free.
Personally, I have no preferred sea level. The tides here have around twelve meter range. Other places have more. Others less.
Can you please answer my question? I believe I have answered yours.
Thanks.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
