<a href="0.0465796" rel="nofollow">Burl's intuition that it is significant surge in warming is entirely correct.</a>
The last 5 years have averaged .0465796C per year, and not all of the 2015-2016 El Nino is in the number.
Comment on Climate closure (?) by JCH
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by AK
Yeah, but prior to 1950 the correlation is probably not significant. The temperature rise is similar with a linear time axis, while the rise in CO2 is much smaller, and the actual amounts are little different from baseline.
Not only that, but the rise in atmospheric pCO2 shows a strong likeness to an exponential curve taking off over a century before significant fossil-carbon emission.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by tumbleweedstumbling
Excuse me I meant to say “arrogant” not ignorant.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Jim D
No ‘yeah buts’, that is what the graph tells you. Small CO2 change, small temperature changes within natural variability, large CO2 change, large temperature changes above natural variability accelerating at the same time and on pace. It is that simple.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ristvan
You assume correctly. I knew Berkeley had fallen low. It produced Naomi Oreskes. Stanford is rather sadder. Used to be top three. Of course, then number 1 hired Oreskes from Berkeley and bagan its own tumble down. And number 2 fronted an attrocious website…so clisci is bringing all of academia down–except certain corners of GIT.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ristvan
JimD, PCT below new comment on the same paper gives an adequate rebuttal. Big/small land area balderdash. One always grows what works. That is what farmers do.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
Who/what is PCT? The only adequate rebuttal would be someone redoing the study and showing the opposite result. I suspect badmouthing is easier, and will be the first course of action, but it is just hot air until actual numbers are produced.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
PCT (below) appears to be a random blog person giving an uninformed opinion on a peer-reviewed Nature paper. Study the data first if you don’t believe it. Ask for the peer reviews.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ristvan
In case that reference was not clear, where I come from ( and back then) Harvard 1, Yale 2, Stanford 3. Now to ‘prove’ this case with 95% IPCC certainty and 97% comsensus of all Harvard alumni, Harvard won the Rose Bowl over Stanford in 1906. Figures, since it was a gone bad rugby scrum Harvard/Princeton about 1880 that ‘invented’ football. So Harvard had one whole generation more practice time. And then Harvard beat Yale 28-28 in THE GAME ( a clear moral victory) in the miracle of 1968, coming back 16 points in the last 2 minutes.
I also note that yesterday GIT prevailed over Florida State on the last play. Fitting.
Oh, this thread is not about college football? But football is surely as good a proxy to academic superiority as Mann’s tree rings are to paleoclimate temperatures…
Or something illogical like that. Maybe. Sort of. Carry on.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Michael Flynn
magmacc,
The key word, as you wrote, is “opinion”.
It is your opinion that Lovejoy’s opinion was interesting, etc. Mike Mann was of the opinion that he was awarded a Nobel prize.
Warmists, generally seem to be of the opinion that it is a good idea to wipe out the human race by removing CO2 from the atmosphere, and that the Earth hasn’t cooled since its creation.
Why should I care about a Warmist’s opinion any more than the Warmist cares about mine?
I guess your opinion of mainstream science includes agreeing with the indivisibility of the atom, the caloric theory of heat, and the existence of the luminiferous ether? All mainstream science!
There is an alarming and frightening process where Warmists are carelessly losing their clues. Maybe you have fallen victim to this? It certainly looks like you no longer have a clue, but I might be mistaken.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
Another Obumbles “success.” From the article:
…
ObamaCare’s image of invincibility is increasingly being exposed as a political illusion, at least for those with permission to be honest about the evidence. Witness the heretofore unknown phenomenon of a “free” entitlement that its beneficiaries can’t afford or don’t want.
This month the Health and Human Services Department dramatically discounted its internal estimate of how many people will join the state insurance exchanges in 2016. There are about 9.1 million enrollees today, and the consensus estimate—by the Congressional Budget Office, the Medicare actuary and independent analysts like Rand Corp.—was that participation would surge to some 20 million. But HHS now expects enrollment to grow to between merely 9.4 million and 11.4 million.
Recruitment for 2015 is roughly 70% of the original projection, but ObamaCare will be running at less than half its goal in 2016. HHS believes some 19 million Americans earn too much for Medicaid but qualify for ObamaCare subsidies and haven’t signed up. Some 8.5 million of that 19 million purchase off-exchange private coverage with their own money, while the other 10.5 million are still uninsured. In other words, for every person who’s allowed to join and has, two people haven’t.
Among this population of the uninsured, HHS reports that half are between the ages of 18 and 34 and nearly two-thirds are in excellent or very good health. The exchanges won’t survive actuarially unless they attract this prime demographic: ObamaCare’s individual mandate penalty and social-justice redistribution are supposed to force these low-cost consumers to buy overpriced policies to cross-subsidize everybody else. No wonder HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said meeting even the downgraded target is “probably pretty challenging.”
…
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-decline-of-obamacare-1445807092
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Danny Thomas
Jim2,
Kinda have to wonder how much of the decline of Obamacare is a result of mass media headlines which state things like “The Decline of Obamacare” than any inherent problems with the system.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
I find myself questioning all government pronouncements with ever increasing cynicism these days, especially international studies and anything having to do with the UN. Meat is again making headlines for causing cancer, but rest assured that only salami is rated right up there with tobacco for increasing cancer risk the most.
The North American Meat Institute (NAMI) said the IARC “tortured the data to ensure a specific outcome”. Who’s against meat? Oh yea, every green group.
Not coincidentally they were still able to work in the number of deaths caused by air pollution in this article, go figure.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sausages-ham-cancer-causing-red-meat-probably-too-110856457.html
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Tucci78
<blockquote><i>An argument can only truly be settled when both sides agree it’s settled. That said, perhaps in my lifetime both sides of the climate issue will agree there is in fact, </i></blockquote>
Not gonna happen. The warmunists (the "true believer" cement-heads of the climate catastrophe ruck, if not the lying, thieving, predatory politicians and "consensus" quacks masquerading as scientists) are obliteratively committed to the Social Justice agenda, meaning that there is nothing in the way of logic or reason impelling their thoughts and actions.
For the AGW alarmists to climb back down out of their trees and cease flinging their dung at humanity, they have to learn better.
They have to accept the fact that their hysteria is driven by error, and because their error serves the emotional needs by which they're driven, they're far less likely to agree that <b><i>factual reality vitiates the "man-made climate change" premise</i></b> than that the average drug addict will voluntarily go cold turkey on his various psychoactive substances of choice.
<blockquote><blockquote>[Social Justice Warriiors] <b>do not engage in rational debate because they are not rational, and they do not engage in honest discourse because they do not believe in objective truth. They do not compromise because the pure spirit of enlightened progressive social justice dare not sully itself with the evil of the outdated Endarkenment. They are the emotion-driven rhetoric-speakers of whom Aristotle wrote: “Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.”</b>
<blockquote>-- Vox Day, <i>SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police</i> (2015)</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by aaron
+1000
We tried to force bio-fuels too early. Most of the world is still dependent on cheap carbs. But if concentration get high enough, that could change as more variety becomes economical as vegetables become more productive and grasses produce more carbs relative to protein (so it may make more sense to use them to produce meat, bio-fuels, and, of course, tasty social beverages).
But sinks are growing faster than our emissions. We should be more worried about whether we can keep concentration high enough to see the projected benefits.
Paul Erhlich gets a lot of flack for being consistently wrong, but the general idea is not. Malthusian events happen all the time in biology on smaller scales. Past performance is not a guarantee of future success. He may be wrong until he’s not.
The biggest risks of global warming are societal, our tendency to create problems when none exist and our tendency to ignore real risks of the past when we experience long boom times.
The biggest problem of global warming way be that the benefits cause us to grow for lean times to come. Perhaps it is contributing to unusually good weather, food productivity, water availability etc. On top of that, we may have been incredibly lucky during the past 50 years. We expanded into riskier territory where people just didn’t go in the past and just didn’t get hit with the disasters that kept people away in the past.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by timg56
Jim D,
“Mitigation becomes even more economically optimal with this new study”
Did it occur to you that was the purpose of the study?
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by aaron
The biggest problem of global warming may be that the benefits cause us to over-grow for lean times to come.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by PlattBob3
Assuming climate science is correct there are 2 questions we have to ask:
1. What’s the worst-case scenario if we change nothing?
2. What do we do about it that doesn’t involve destroying transportation and forcing poor countries to stay poor?
Nobody can answer either of these questions with any satisfaction. The best I get is “crops will suffer leading to mass starvation” and “more solar and wind,” respectively. Both are far too simplistic and have massive holes in logic.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Burl Henry
JCH:
On Oct.25 (7:15 pm), you wrote “name the natural variation that can both warm the oceans and the land to record levels simultaneously, and then produce some evidence that it was doing it” and other astute comments.
I can give you the answers, but you probably won’t like them. First, you should view the graph “Global Anthropogenic SO2 emissions” in the paper “Anthropogenic Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, 1850-2005”, by Smith, S. J. et al.
This graph shows that global SO2 emissions peaked around 1972 at approx. 131 Megatonnes. then steadily decreased over the years due to Clean Air efforts, but began to rise again between 2000 and 2005 due to increasing pollution in the Far East.
(Data for later years can be found in “The Last Decade of Global Anthropogenic Sulfur Dioxide: 2000-2011 emisssions, by Z. Klimont et al.)
This decrease in SO2 aerosol pollution was detected by both land stations and satellites as a period of “Global Brightening’, which began around 1983 and ended around 2000, due to the Eastern emissions.
The cleaner air resulting from the reduction in aerosol emissions resulted in greater insolation, and this natural warming was wrongly attributed to warming due to greenhouse gasses.
From the 1991 volcanic eruptions, a Climate Sensitivity factor of .02 deg. C. temp. rise for each net Megatonne of reduction in global SO2 emissions can be determined. This is applicable identically to both stratospheric and tropospheric emissions.
Multiplication of the Climate Sensitivity factor times the cumulative net reduction in SO2 emissions over the years results in agreement with average global temperatures so closely that there can never have been any additional warming due to greenhouse gasses. For example, between 1972 and 2015, net reductions in global SO2 emissions amounted to approx. 38 Megatonnes. .02 x 38 = 0.76 deg. C. temp. rise, almost precisely the current anomalous temperature.
The “pause” resulted from the near balance between Western reductioins in SO2 emissions and increases in Eastern emisssions. That balance has now tipped a bit, due to beginning Chinese efforts to address pollution, with the result that warming is now increasing again, as evidenced by 2015’s “Super El Nino”–the majority of its warming is due to the cleaner air–and it will continue upward as more cleansing of the air takes place.
What should absolutely NOT be done is to try for even
cleaner air (as the EPA is pushing, and is the major agenda of the forthcoming December Climate meeting).
Mitigation will be extremely difficult. Perhaps injection of SO2 into the atmosphere, as has been proposed.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Stephen Segrest
And you, apparently along with Bjørn Lomborg, do not understand integrated resource planning and operations using engineering economics. Obviously you don't understand about decision making involving combined cycle natural gas (and how this impacts Renewables like solar). Engineering concepts like ELCC just don't matter to you.
The problem here at CE are the ridiculous and extreme <b>Straw-men</b> you and others present -- 100% Renewable Vs. Zero Fossil Fuels.
If you want to make arguments where U.S. Renewable <b>penetration levels</b> are too high (where solar is currently about one-half of 1%) and you have unquestionable and independent 3rd Party proof where engineering economics have not been followed here in the U.S. -- <b>then you have a valid point</b>.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
