@stevenreincarnated: I especially like the part about the warming being inconsistent with CO2 generated warming.
Quite right, SRI. The idea that a mere 400 ppmv of CO2 could explain a sea level rise of 20 m back in the Pliocene several million years ago is a very tall order. 10 m is a lot more plausible.
What would you expect when CO2 hits 1000 ppmv in 2100?
VP, good question. Since we have ocean heat transport and solar going in a different direction then CO2 now, perhaps a better attribution will be possible in a decade or two.
@SRI: Since we have ocean heat transport and solar going in a different direction then CO2 now,
Averaged over five minutes or five weeks?
It can make quite a difference.
“Meltdown-Proof Nuclear Reactors“?
http://junkscience.com/2015/09/05/meltdown-proof-nuke-reactors-i-vote-yes/
UN’s population estimators have been very accurate over the past 40 years. I have no reason to think they’re far off, now.
There is nothing to suggest population growth will significantly drop before we hit 9 billion people — if it does, it would probably be good (unless the cause were war or famine). As people get rich as a population, they have fewer children, and population growth drops. So lower population growth usually means there is a vibrant and growing economy and families are accumulating income and assets.
We’ve relied on technological miracles in the past to meet population growth. Norman Borlaug is dead, however, and we need to work harder now to make things go well.
No indication same sex marriage slows population growth.
Gotta stick with the facts.
Vaughn Pratt writes about sea level being 10-20 meters higher a few million year ago when CO2 level was 400ppm.
Well Vaughn, in the Eemian interglacial just 130,000 years ago sea level was 10-20 meters higher with CO2 level at 280ppm.
The two observations taken together would seem to indicate no connection between elevated sea level and elevated CO2 level.
But you knew that already, right?
If a climate scientist is honest he/she gets verbally attacked and their carer threatened by the progressive/green elements.
The progressive/green elements do this because they are not honest and the facts are not on their side. If the Progressive/green elements were honest, if they were correct on the facts and not clueless, they could “win” by simply letting the facts speak for themselves.
Obviously the facts aren’t on their side. The truth isn’t good enough and needs be enhanced. This leads to other arguments such as a bogus consensus that does not speak for the facts.
Progressives/greens believe that this is a win at all costs political debate and not a simple investigation of the facts. They don’t appear to be capable of conducting objective unbiased science.
Progressive/Greens should be debarred by law from receiving government grants, excluded from peer review, and denied any participation in the climate science arena so climate science can regain some integrity.
There is a $1.5 Trillion dollar/year global warming juggernaut that can fund green research if it wants to. Federal dollars should not be wasted on green propaganda.
VP, averaging over either will give you the same answer. Perhaps you should think about expanding your horizens instead of waking up each morning, plugging the same numbers into your calculator that you did the day before and determining that you must surely be correct or you would have gotten a different answer.
Can you recall a time when you didn’t think like a scientist? Scientists are born not made.
If a climate scientist is honest he/she gets verbally attacked and their carer threatened by the progressive/green elements.
Or dishonest.
There are two sides to a debate, in case you hadn’t noticed.
Thank omanuel. Interesting. I’ve been following especially the IFR for a long time. But I think any of these new designs are a decades away from being economically viable – probably not in my lifetime. Did you see this interesting post:
Molten Salt Fast Reactor Technology – An Overview
by Hubert Flocard? http://euanmearns.com/molten-salt-fast-reactor-technology-an-overview/
Hubert Flocard:
“A former student of the Ecole Normale Supérieure (St Cloud) Hubert Flocard is a retired director of research at the French basic science institute CNRS. He worked mostly in the theory of Fermi liquids with a special emphasis on nuclear physics. He has taught at the French Ecole Polytechnique and at the Paris University at Orsay. He was for several years a visiting fellow of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and he spent a year as visiting professor at the theory department of MIT (Cambridge). He has worked as an editor for the journals Physical Review C and Review of Modern Physics (APS, USA) and Reports on Progress in Physics (IoP, UK). He has chaired the nuclear physics scientific committee INTC at CERN (Switzerland). When the French parliament asked CNRS to get involved in research on civilian nuclear energy, he was charged to set up and to manage the corresponding CNRS interdisciplinary programme. He still acts as a referee to evaluate research projects submitted to Euratom.”
And today Motorola is a powerhouse in the flat panel industry!
Oh wait… no it isn’t. Not even listed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liquid-crystal-display_manufacturers
ROFL
It’s spelled grayscale, not greyscale. And it’s exactly that – shades of GRAY ranging from black to white. No color. Amazing.
@Vaughn
Now it is often argued that the policy-makers pressure the scientists. Without entering into that debate, what would you [MGW] do to reduce that pressure, while still permitting the original goals of the IPCC to be met?
Vaughn, I did not respond to that comment because its premise is debatable and because I am not comfortable with the topic. My interests are parochial and I have usually avoided IPCC matters.
I do not mean debatable in that I contest the premise, but instead ask myself why initiate a string of comments where inevitably someone will contest that premise—in earnest or for sport? I am tired of that and so I will comment more generally.
Pressures are a fact of life and would exist regardless of how things are shuffled. It is important to note that pressures in various forms also may go the other way—-from the scientists directed at the policy makers. There has been plenty of discussion on aspects of that, e.g., advocacy. It might be of value to address the pressures from both sides at the same time. I also would be a good idea to revisit the role of the IPCC. More people are aware of issues than 20 or 30 years ago [assumption]. Besides any long term program should be periodically thoroughly re-assessed.
From my point-of view handling pressures begins to get at the extent of and how one might perceive science being re-scientized and policy being re-politicized. Further I think that the norm suggested by von Storch is a starting point. The details there are reasonable to me but paramount is the idea of agreement on a norm of interaction including agreement on handling disputes before the public. All of this would be in light of what has been learned—if anything—over the past couple of decades.
But all of this is opinion intended for the sake of discussion and it will not buy a can of beans. Also the reality is that in the bigger decision-making realm time is a factor.
No indication same sex marriage slows population growth.
Male gays aren’t going to add much. But the partners in a lesbian marriage could in principle reproduce at twice the rate of a heterosexual marriage.
So are there more male or female gay marriages? Way above my pay grade.
Wagathon,
Furthermore, if we didn’t have fossil fuels the Amazon and all other forests would be long gone by now – torn down for fuels and to grow food with no tractors and not fertilisers to give us the productivity the world has achieved so far – just like the Europeans did to their oak forests before the start of the fossil fuel era.
And I have a patent for a power management scheme using cold cathode electron beam flat panels too with 24 references by IBM, Intel, Google, Sun, Sony and Microsoft among others.
http://www.google.com/patents/US5936608
So I guess that makes me an expert in the field.
jim2,
I understand that this is an article of faith with you, but you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t share your unshakeable belief in evidence free assertions.
