WTF are you talking about, Pratt? First line of the report:
Insured losses in US totaled $8.2 billion – far below 2000 – 2014 average loss of $11.2 billion (Jan-June)
Farther down it confirms that worldwide losses are far under the Jan-June average for the past 30 years.
Were you having a senior moment or just being dishonest in having not noted that all comparisons were Jan-June?
The surface of the rocky crust on Venus is so well insulated that internal heat is being felt at the surface. If you dig down 10 kilometers into the crust on the earth it gets as hot as the surface of Venus. Neither temperature is due to the greenhouse effect above but rather from the well insulated molten core of the planet below it. Duh.
So aside from being off by a marginal amount what Vaughn is struggling not to say is that Wojick is correct in saying that a significant fraction of ostensible global warming (at least 24%) is due to land use changes instead of CO2 emissions.
Vaughan Pratt | July 20, 2015 at 1:42 am |
@AK: I’ve been suggesting (in comments) here for years that whaling might have played a part in CO2 increases.
By what mechanism?
———————————————
The mechanism he described immediately following the quoted sentence.
Did you not read farther or are you just feeling trollish?
Mechanism described in the comment preceding the quoted sentence.
Pipi,
Thank you . Your comments here have given me a much better understanding of this critically important input to the IAMs, to estimates of SCC and optimal carbon price.
Pekka Pirila,
What coefficient of relative risk aversion value do you think should be used in IAMs like DICE if not 1?
Rud,
BEST is not associated with UC Berkeley. Don’t give the poseur any undeserved credit.
It’s not science. It’s gibberish. Mosher is unable to distinguish between the two. This explains why:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/06/who-is-steven-mosher.html
At other times Mosher argues that all data is estimated from a model. In this case, because it’s convenient, he argues that model output is not data.
You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too.
“Is it possible to estimate the consumption per person for the whole world?”
Peter, are you thinking in terms of aggregates, as in GDP? If so, nominal GDP would not equate well to differences in consumption in richer and poorer countries, I think you’ld need to use purchasing power data. The differing quality of both economic and population data might mean that any resultant figure would have significant margins of error.
I haven’t followed the whole exchange, so can’t add to that. Faustino
Judith Curry, how about a responsible and intelligent reply to this. The problem appears to be that people have latched onto the single broad spike in GISP2 around 1000AD, and said oh look its was warm in Greenland in the MWP without actually checking when the mid latitudes were warmest in the MWP, and neglecting to scrutinise the rest of the data series before 1000AD. There were in fact some very cold episodes in the late 10th and early 11th centuries in the temperate zone when GISP2 shows it so warm.
Oh the mysteries of WordPress moderation, responding
ter mwgrant with an on-topic pome by Robert Frost – sigh.
willard
‘The death of coal might be a bit :”
Note: dying is not death.
coal is dying. just read any solar PV propaganda.
not dead yet. dying.
‘ing” must have confused U
No damage to the pause. It never was a pause. It remains a crawl. The worst scenario assessment presumes we can understand the crawl. Unfortunately, the crawl negates all we thought we knew.
The math is that if we keep emitting at the current per capita rate, you get to about 700 ppm around 2100. That’s 4 C(!), not a hundredth. These are the temperatures the rest of the world outside Congress are talking about. They live in a coccoon.
A Falsification would require proof that some part of the AGW modelling is wrong.
=================
you are mistaking correction after the fact with prediction and falsification.
science makes predictions. otherwise it has no value. end of story. if those predictions are wrong, the theory is wrong. also end of story.
after the fact there are an infinite number of reasons that will present themselves as to why the theory was wrong. once of those reasons may be correct, but that is not science.
it is superstition, because in an infinite universe there are ALWAYS explanations after the fact. These explanations tell us nothing, except that the theory was wrong, and that in an infinite universe there are infinite excuses for the past. end of story.
A little bit is not meaningful, Steven. You know that.
I have to disagree. At best you end up copying and pasting someone’s arguments, hopefully with quotation marks. At worst you try and paraphrase.
The reason I don’t click on links is because some people I don’t trust have a habit of pretending the definitive answer is at the other end. What ends up happening is a chain of links that don’t provide the needed information.
But if I trust the source I will click on a link. I don’t click on willard’s links because he is just playing games. But I would (and have) cheerfully clicked on links from JimD, for example.
But I wish he would link to more kpop, I admit. In Shanghai, Korean TV series are all the thing. They’re almost as popular here in Taipei.
The words “pause” and “hiatus” presume that warming will resume. The question is when? It could be after the much hyped upcoming el nono; it could equally be a couple hundred thousand years hence after the next glacial stage. In neither case would we have even the first clue why it happened. What the crawl unquestionably shows is that whatever forcing we self aggrandizingly attribute to our Carbon liberation is at very least nearly equaled by a countervailing natural force. Of course, it also remains possible that ALL of the warming is natural and we are simply delusional.
