You don’t think the rate of warming will increase over time even though the rate of change of radiative forcing will?
The rate of radiative forcing has decreased since peaking around 1979:
What makes you think the rate of radiative forcing will increase?
It most likely depends on who wins the 2016 election. If Billary, or one of the thin skinned RHINOs, then it has a better chance of surviving in some form. If a republican with a bit of sense and a smidgeon of courage, then it will be likely be abandoned.
<iYou know, Fiction, the operative word in Turbulent’s purported “demonstration” that AGW is “incorrect.”
Imagining things again?
GHGs likely induce AGW, though natural fluctuations continue.
If one assumes AGW is significantly greater than natural variability, then:
AGW at the high end is wrong.(4.5 C per doubling)
AGW at the mid range is wrong.(3 C per doubling )
AGW at event the AR4 LOW END is wrong( 2C per Century)
AGW causing more ‘intense storms’ is wrong (Manabe and Hansen)
AGW causing more drought is wrong ( satellite sensing of vegetation )
AGW causing more intense tropical cyclones is wrong ( ACE )
Certainly there are benefits of AGW.
At what global temperature would detriments exceed benefits?
No one knows because rational discussion is impossible.
The largest impacts are natgas and phase out of already obsolete coal plants, so pretty good. Since the EPA gave fracking a clean bill of health as far as water quality goes.
So warm and fuzzy states can install wind and solar if they like and other states can install natgas.
I didn’t read the entire document, do appreciate the extra nap time, but since 2005 was picked for the baseline year, nuclear uprates and efficiency improvements plus a hand full of new nuke plants should out perform the “sustainable” part of the plan. So the Obummerians will take credit for a lot of stuff they opposed initially.
Since Germany has increased coal power using the “option” of carbon capture, the US coal industry could take the same approach should natgas prices increase. With low natgas prices though, Nuclear, Coal and “Sustainables” will all have a hard time doing anything major.
In any case, thanks to the natgas boom and a third of “global” nuclear, the US is in pretty good shape in spite of politics.
Eli,
A carbon tax would solve WHAT problem?
In rational thought processes, one must first clearly state the PROBLEM (deviation from normal that also requires a definition of normal), define the problem in terms of specific What?, Where?, When? and How Much? statements. With the PROBLEM adequately specified in terms of answers to these questions, you should have enough data to prove root cause of the deviation from normal. With root cause(s) of the PROBLEM clearly understood, you can begin to develop alternative courses of action you might take to eliminate or mitigate effects of the problem. Then you can study and choose which of these alternatives would provide an optimal solution, considering the Pros and Cons of each alternative solution.
This is the way our government defined PROBLEMS and developed effective solutions to those PROBLEMS as we explored the unknowns of manned space travel. I see no such rational thought processes being applied to the postulated climate problems that some believe will occur due to continued unconstrained use of fossil fuels.
> Are you suggesting the economists should be seen as a source of authority?
Actually, I was suggesting that AK’s claim was underwhelming. This claim does not cohere with the economists’ agreeement about a one-page solution that Denizens raise concerns about on a daily basis. Usually, substantiating these concerns imply a more orthodox view on economic matters.
However, since Denizens try to second-guess climate scientists, I don’t know why they shouldn’t also raise concerns about economics. This would be a welcome development, and might change Vaughan’s opinion on what Judy’s has become. Go team!
As I am sure you can see, that suggestion does not rest on what I think about authority.
***
> Question being posed…
Real questions are asked, TonyB, but you sure know how to pose with questions.
KenW,
You ask a great question: “And why do we have extra studies about Poison Ivy and Ragweed?”
Answer: For the grant money. If you want your work to get funded, because you have to pay the rent, you better put “CO2″ or “global warming” in the grant proposal.
Willard
I don’t think me posing would be a pretty sight…
tonyb
Jim2,
What does that mean?
nickles,
“…the ability for …trading of energy credits, and an incentive for energy …efforts that benefit economically disadvantaged communities.”
I smell two rats – a corruption rat and a political rat. Money will be made and politicians will get elected and we will get stiffed.
Rud
Great comment back to Steve on the need for an “alternate theory”.
Eli writes-
“No, the best thing would be a carbon tax. Every economist on earth agrees with that. Most agree that the tax should be offset by reductions in other taxes such as social security, medicare, etc.
and
Harold asks- “A carbon tax would solve WHAT problem?”
My response- A carbon tax would generate needed revenue for the USA. There is a substantial risk of severe economic issues as the US population ages and our economic expenses rise over the next 10 years. If the US does not either vastly cut expenses (unlikely) or increase collection of revenues, there will be an economic issue
Steven, what you are advocating is to make up a straw man and then build an argument for costly policy to address it. But first we need a persuasive case that cage is true. Please present the persuasive case for the “C”.
Go!
+1
Ak, that’s easy if you want to be objective. Simply advocate to remove the irrational regulatory blocks to nuclear power. But of course, you don’t like that. Your gullibility and attraction to beliefs of catastrophes prevents you taking an objective and rational approach, right?
Severest why do you keep mentioning good faith, when you don’t ever practice it yourself?
While I don’t doubt the credentials of the authors as far as climate research and modelling is concerned, I do not see how this gives them any particular expertise in formulation of public policy. Sorry guys, but you are not experts in the field of which you speak.
[…] Curry, an American climatologist, argued in a blog post that the Obama administration sold the Clean Power Plan as an economic and public health issue, […]
First, there is no objective basis for the 2C ‘dangerous’ limit.
Agreed. 2C or not 2C is a political question.
Besides the misplaced use of “resilience” and “anti-fragility” in the excerpts and beyond:
– how can anyone index anthropogenic attribution without a model?
– how can this divorce the problem from climate sensitivity? (What’s the relevance of anthropogenic attribution if climate sensitivity were 0.5°C per co2 doubling or lower?
