Don M, Obama is not doing enough for you on climate now? EPA coal regulations? Fuel-efficiency standards? Setting emission targets? What else do you want him to do? Even with the Senate majority in 2009, I think that there were enough coal-state Dems that he wasn’t going to get much done or perhaps you saw an opportunity that he missed.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Don Monfort
The secular student can cook up any number of plausible excuses and justifications for making the adjustment that allegedly erases the pause, but he must avoid the question on why the other SST data product fabricators have not seen the need or the justification to do likewise.
Some interesting points made here:
http://donaitkin.com/oh-for-some-real-climate-science/
“It seems to me that if you are going to tell the world that your work does not support the notion of a global warming hiatus you had better show not just that you have some fancy new reconstructed data, but that your data are just miles better than everyone else’s, if only because nobody else agrees with you, and they’ve been in the business for a long time.Not only that, despite the fact that the datasets are based on different techniques, there is a strong measure of agreement among them.”
And they dropped “cool” satellite data out of their new pause busting product:
“Alas, the Karl paper doesn’t even mention anyone else in the temperature-measuring field. I pressed on into Supplementary Materials attachment and found this gem: Previous versions of our SST analysis included satellite data, but it was dis-included in a later release because the satellite SSTs were not found to add appreciable value to a monthly analysis on a 2° grid, and they actually introduced a small but abrupt cool bias at the global scale starting in 1985 . Other observing systems, including satellites, and model simulations could provide important insights that would enable the quantification of interpolation uncertainties in data-sparse regions, but haven’t been used in this study.”
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by oppti
Well done and happy landing.
The slide on sensitivity is crucial and optimistic.
Solar brightening thanks to less aerosols due to clean air act might also be of importance to mention. 10% more sun hours in the Nordic countries since 1980.
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by craigm350
Reblogged this on <a href="https://craigm350.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/state-of-the-climate-debate-in-the-u-s/" rel="nofollow">CraigM350</a>.
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by AK
That’s the “Summary for Policymakers” from Working Group II.
Nothing to do with research. Cite something from the body of WGI. If you can.
↧
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Philip Lee
JC says: My concern is that we have oversimplified by the climate change problem and its solutions. This oversimplification has
undercut the political process and dialog necessary for real solutions in a highly complex world
II think you’ve not clearly made the important point that attempts are underway to engineer the climate without the models to judge the engineering trade-offs. That is just awful from an engineering perspective.
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by timg56
BB,
You don’t foresee any unfortunate consequences from … “if the US government puts a price on all carbon fuels and acts directly to constrain their supply and availability” ?
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)
Joseph
I did not write that they should be ignored, but they also should not be considered reliable assessments unless or until there is additional observed evidence to confirm the theorized result.
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by timg56
BB,
The “Progresive Left” wants everyone to believe that all roads pass through the EPA. But then the Progressive Left also likes to believe that the Constitution is a “living” document that can be ignored whenever it suits their purpose.
Obama’s plan is toast. DOA. The current EPA regs on CO2 are not going to survive on their journey through the courts. So why would any reasonable person think they would go further and follow the plan you outlined?
↧
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by PA
Joseph, there is something fundamentally wrong with the warmer thought process.
Warmers brainstorm all the possible ways that warming and more CO2 can cause problems – then assert that the worst case will happen.
This is crazy.
What should happen is that all the grants since 1988 should be audited to determined the total outlay for identifying harm from warming or CO2.
This total should be applied to a new series of grant whose purpose is to to assign dollar values to past benefits from more warming and CO2, and future benefits from more warming and more CO2. They can make empirical measurements, use theory and models, or just dream up hypothetical benefits without any proof or measurement. They can include benefits such as calming weather, improving precipitation distribution, etc. etc. which are unproven but hypothetically possible. In other words they can approach estimating benefit the same way that global warmers’s approach estimating harm.
Whoever comes up with the highest benefit numbers in their studies goes to the front of the line in the next round of grants – just global warmers. Given that there is at least $1 trillion per per of easily identified benefit – they should be able to identify $ 1 to 5 trillion/year of benefit.
Since global warmers inflate their numbers by 3 to 10 times, the final benefit amount should be multiplied by 3 to 10 times so an apples and apples comparison can be made to global warming harm numbers.
About $10 billion or more from now we will have established the total benefit from more warming and more CO2. If the total benefit from more warming and more CO2 is greater than estimated harm, the executive branch should be forbidden by law from taking any action to reduce CO2 emissions or promote renewables.
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Steven Mosher
“I need to know when was the climate stable and why are doing this green-zombie walk to no apparent end – as if there were no world and no geopolitics around us?”
The goal is not a “stable” climate. That term is relatively meaningless any way. The goal is reducing our influence on the climate. If you want to focus on geopolitics then please just surrender in the climate war, quit trying to fight on two fronts and go comment on geopolitics at some other blog. Your, ahem, insights, won’t be missed..
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)
Steve
You are mistaken when you write— “The goal is reducing our influence on the climate.”
The stated goal is to stop the negative human influence on the climate.
Now this makes sense if someone knew that the human influence was in fact negative, but we don’t do we??? Nobody would want to stop the human influence if it was positive would they?
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by timg56
Clueless as always Joseph.
Do you understand what is meant by folks who say “We need to put a price on carbon”?
Can you grasp the meaning of the word constrain in this partial sentence from Beta Blocker …. “acts directly to constrain their supply and availability” ?
Transportation networks run on fossil fuels. If the cost of those fuels is artificially driven up and at the same time their supply and availability is restricted (i.e. constrained), then not only does the cost of moving goods skyrocket, but (more importantly) the amount of goods goes down.
↧
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by timg56
And every ad for male enhancement produces indicate increased amounts of sex as you consume their product.
I bet the people running phone scams asking for money love you Joseph.
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by mosomoso
No, I think I’ll keep bothering you. You are certainly bothered. Ahem.
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Don Monfort
Well, they invented the hockeystick myth to promote the idea that the climate had been stable for a long time, until the age of ACO2. They holler about the temperature rising, ice going missing, sea level rise, butterfly migration, severe weather, cats sleeping with dogs blah…blah…blah. They want to limit the temperature rise to under 2C, to forestall all the alleged bad effects of “climate change”. One might suspect they are advocating a “stable” climate, if one didn’t know that term is relatively meaningless.
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by catweazle666
“Here’s a clue: physics based scientists can tell you why landing on a comet is easy ( its just ENGINEERING not science) and why predicting the weather is hard.”
In that case Steven, perhaps you ought to get some ENGINEERS to have a go at predicting the weather, they’re good at doing hard stuff, perhaps because unlike you lot, they’re generally held accountable for their success or failure.
↧
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by catweazle666
Joseph, please explain how increasing the price of fuel to such an extent that pensioners are obliged to choose between heating their houses or being able to afford to eat is going to affect the climate one way or the other.
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by catweazle666
“Every IPCC report (and the research) indicates that risk of extreme weather events increases as the temperature increases.”
So, as out here in the real world there is absolutely zero evidence of that -in fact, rather the opposite, in fact – every IPCC report appears to be wrong, doesn’t it?
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Bad Andrew
“The goal is reducing our influence on the climate.”
Get back to us when you figure out what our influence on the climate is.
Andrew
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
