You can choose to begin where you like, the 30-year trend has not changed much.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:240/mean:120/plot/gistemp/from:1985/trend
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by popesclimatetheory
Peter Lang: you wrote: And 75% of the past 500 years has been much hotter than now – no ice at the poles – and life thrived.
This is not what you meant to write?
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by popesclimatetheory
I read your grandson’s post. Excellent!
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by cwon14
That’s 100% on point GaryM. Agenda21, Club of Rome, UN empowerment through climate fraud science is just another step in collective statism. Even if much of quoted funding is a sham in itself the basic totalitarian instruments are put in place.
The counter productive aspect of low grade skeptics who can’t put the essentials of the political forces involved is also apparent. Does Dr. Curry still think inspired science critical thinking over spaghetti chart data or the “pause” really matter?
Climate science has been largely a political enclave of the statist left-wing type for over 40 years. If Dr. Curry were really in a redemption phase she own up to that publically rather then dwelling on her relatively minor moderation since 2009 or Climatgate. Anyone with clue would have seen the cultural conspiracy of Climate agendas decades before. So even many skeptics (imagined or real) suffer from cognitive dissonance to the sort of Anti-Market totalitarian designs in full view in Paris or this current executive government in the U.S.. A government that Dr. Curry voted for it might be added.
Without total political scope the villains gain funding and propaganda campaign remains high. They’re destroying as much as possible at the academic levels and the Soviet science/social model was highly reinforced by the Paris success.
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by Jim D
I guess some of the skeptics are still combing through the 31 pages, trying to find where they hid the world government and global carbon tax clauses. So much for the Agenda 21 and Club of Rome types. Time for them to get back to reality.
↧
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by matthewrmarler
Jim D: <i> I guess some of the skeptics are still combing through the 31 pages, trying to find where they hid the world government and global carbon tax clauses.</i>
I personally was looking for binding agreements to achieve some quantitative goals. The somewhat lauded INDCs were explicitly excluded from the agreement.
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by popesclimatetheory
I did listen to Happer in Austin in Nov. I met and briefly talked to him.
This was at a Climate summit. I recommend you watch the videos.
I did briefly talk to more than half of the speakers. More to some of them.
http://www.texaspolicy.com/blog/detail/at-the-crossroads-energy-climate-policy-summit-videos
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by Peter Lang
Thanks for picking that up.
Correction:
And 75% of the past 500 million years has been much hotter than now – no ice at the poles – and life thrived.
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by popesclimatetheory
I am not concerned about anything that causes warming. Any Warming does warm the oceans. Warm Polar oceans thaw and turn on snowfall and it snows without bounds until it gets cold again. The thermostats in the north and the south are the temperature that polar oceans thaw. That cannot be changed. Exceed that, oceans thaw, and snowfall is increased and warming is bounded. Sea level is also bounded.
↧
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by timg56
Ken,
You whine about being labeled and and then use it as justification to call Larry a science denier. (You posing it as a question just means you qualify for a stupid pet tricks competition.)
The funny thing about this is the label you seem to object to is “activist”. You walk like a duck and quack like a duck, yet complain when someone points out the duck.
Meanwhile, you have yet to identify the science Larry is denying. You really shouldn’t let your high opinion of yourself allow you to make such foolish moves.
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by Peter Lang
I’ll rephrase. The takeaway message is the weather-dependent renewables like wind and solar, are not as environmentally benign as most people believe.
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Peter Lang
timg,
Actually, he’s a goose!
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by Peter Lang
I want to know what are the likely economic impacts of Paris agreement. I suspect they will be much worse than Lomborg’s initial estimate of $1-2 trillion per year which is just the result of increased energy cost
What was the cost of the climate industry before and what’s it likely to become as a result of Paris?
What will be the total economic impact of Paris on world GDP growth?
What are the expected benefits (quantified in US$ please)?
↧
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by knutesea
About a year old, but still relevant in terms of target messaging.
↧
Comment on Open thread by popesclimatetheory
There are many skeptic scientists who believe that science has not adequately proven that CO2 causes warming. Gerlich & Tscheuschner being two of them.
I have heard many lectures from people on the different sides. More CO2 should cause a little warming. The actual warming is smaller than the error bars on temperature measurements. It is not possible to adequately prove that CO2 does cause warming. Actually, CO2 should cause a little warming if nothing else changes. In real life, everything else does change.
The climate system is extremely robust. Forty watts per meter squared moved out of the north and into the south, over the past ten thousand years, and it did not change the temperatures bounds recorded in the ice cores for the north or the south.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page85.html
The watts per meter squared due to CO2 is tiny compared to 40 watts per meter squared due to orbit and tilt.
CO2 is just spitting into the wind to regulate temperature and sea level.
CO2 can only make green things grow better and that is wonderful.
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Willard
> ATTP is drowning in confirmation bias […]
Is that a description, or just another way to label someone’s mental states?
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by Don Monfort
No need for us to comb, yimmy. We know from Hansen’s reaction that none of that stuff is in there. You are really hurting, yimmy. You should find a new cause to preach about. PETA is good. They have those models getting naked all the time.
↧
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Don Monfort
Your boss is really struggling here, willy. I am sure he will appreciate it in the morning, if you drive him home.
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by Jim D
Section 2 of the agreement specifically welcomes the INDC measures, and wants to evaluate and have new ones on a regular basis.
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by willb01
“You can choose to begin where you like …”
Apparently not, because if I choose to begin 15 years ago when “Climate models projected stronger warming over the past 15 years than has been seen in observations”, then over the next 15 years climate models will have to underestimate warming to get the 30-year trend right. Yet you’re telling me No, the models won’t be doing this.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
