From 1900 to 1945 the temperature rose by 0.5C to 0C anomaly.
As of 2014 it is .44C anomaly.
If the post-1945 rate was identical to 1900 to 1945, the anomaly would be .76C.
If CO2 had caused the rate of warming to be double the pre-1945 rate, then the anomaly would be 1.52C.
CO2 is the wimpiest GHG ever.
DocMartyn, that is very true, but I was excluding the American Navy (and privateers) because the question had been how the British Navy came to be masters of the sea, not how they slowly got displaced in that role. ^_^
The Constitution was an undefeatable little frigate with some of the best crews who’ve ever put to sea, winning so many battles that eventually the Pope went and stood on her decks.
Perhaps something more relevant to the discussion of scientific consensus was the idea of the line of battle and ships of the line, which became entrenched in naval thought for centuries, giving the British the problem of having the best Navy but not being able to use it to win decisive battles against enemies who didn’t cooperate in getting shot to pieces. Dissenting voices argued that since they had the most ships with the most guns and the fastest gun crews, they should win a melee, and by just mixing it up with the enemy fleet and pounding it to splinters they could win a battle against uncooperative opponents.. Lord Nelson put those ideas the test.
lolwot, Sunspot activity was much, much higher after 1945.
And Feb 1878 was warmer than Feb 2014.
HADCRUT4 Feb 1878 0.403C
HADCRUT4 Feb 2014 0.299C
lolwot, CO2 has had no upwards effect on the warming RATE. It has lowered it.
And it has cut the warming rate of the SST in half.
From 1900 to 1945 oceans were warming at a rate of 0.0116188C per year. After 1945 oceans were warming at a rate of 0.00654978C per year.
Nelson used Alexander’s tactics, and, heh, Napoleon’s.
==========
Black Baltic waters
Attract newly wakened bears.
Blow, wind, blow; sun, glow.
====================
The latest EconTalk with Megan McArdle is very relevant: the upside of down
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/04/mcardle_on_fail.html
I gotta know right now!
==========
Dear JJ, Matthew, and Others — You misread my statement: “Both ozone depletion and greenhouse gases have Nobel Prize winning science theory behind them (Molina and Roland on atmospheric ozone, Arrhenius and others on CO2).”
When I occasionally post, I try to be as brief as possible. Note that I used the phrase “Nobel Prize winning science theory behind them” — and then I tried to give a bullet type illustration.
With ozone depletion, my above statement is 100% clear and factual (Molina & Roland).
On greenhouse gases, I was simply trying to be brief pointing to a scientist as an illustration that everybody recognizes with modern greenhouse theory. Again note I said “Arrhenius and Others”. But again, I only did this in an attempt of an illustration to my statement “Nobel Prize winning science theory”.
In talking about “Nobel Prize winning science”, we could talk about Lord Rayleigh (Rayleigh scattering, Rayleigh distillation), van der Waals (equations of state), Wien (Wien’s law), Planck (Planck’s constant central to radiation theory).
I’m sure that arguments could be made for more people: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/
All Nobel Prizes in Physics
http://www.nobelprize.org
Sorry that I was unclear with my brevity.
If the US would push for more fracking we are looking at adding 400B to the economy and roughly 3 million jobs.
Plus we help the environment.
only obama stands in the way
@Jim Zuccaro
You forgot some of the major ways in which Big Tobacco and Big Carbon are NOT similar:
1) CAGW is far, far, far more well funded than “Big Carbon”. If anything, the fossil fuel industry contributes more to CAGW institutions than any other entity except governments. The same could not be said of NIH/independent researchers vs. Big Tobacco
2) Big Carbon actually provides real, tangible benefits to billions of people, while Big Tobacco was nothing more than a habit forming recreation
3) The remedy for Big Tobacco was to lower costs for its consumers (i.e. stop smoking as well as cough up billions in damages) while the remedy for Big Carbon is to raise costs for its non-consumption
The list goes on and on.
As for long tail – what a load of crock. If we really are concerned about long tail risks, there are a multitude of better (i.e. larger tail) issues to be concerned about: dino-killer asteroids, impending end of cheap fossil fuel energy, Idiocracy-ification of the first world, etc etc.
Your timing is off. The “20.7″ was for the second term, Iraq started in the first term. It was not Iraq that caused the 20.7. It was the housing bubble bursting.
There have been no burst bubbles under Obama.
Also note the main index. Determining the party there is a lot more telling.
Final note. Beware Wikipedia. The numbers on the second Bush term do not add up either. Wiki is not a good source. Whitehouse.gov is however.
What i do not understood is actually how you’re not actually much more well-appreciated than you might be right now.
You are so intelligent. You already know thus significantly in relation to
this matter, made me in my opinion imagine it from numerous numerous angles.
Its like women and men don’t seem to be interested unless
it is one thing to do with Girl gaga! Your individual stuffs excellent.
All the time handle it up!
“Say there was huge and rich coal field 500 feet under the ocean, It probably would not be minable. ”
ummm….
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/drilling-date-set-north-seas-6896191
Coal has been mined under the North Sea for a long time.
I saw your comment over at WUWT and will repeat my response here.
My guess is that there’s plenty of Department of Economics Chairmen in the US with a similar opinion of their field. Especially so after the financial crises. The Dismal Science shares a defining characteristic with Climate Science. The individual parts might be explainable, but trying to model the whole is fraught with propagating uncertainties. In Economics, it is customary for quantitative analyses to be accompanied by several qualifications. Should we expect any different in Climate Science?
I just posted the same link further upthread tony, before I read your comment.
Crisco Kid, peak oil hits in every country at different dates, and many countries have no oil to speak of.
Why do you hate geology so much?
Handel,
Albedo, for one. If I understand the issue properly, Clouds are involved in multiple feedback mechanisms. The water vapor acts to capture lwr. But clouds also change the planet’s albedo, reflecting more swr back into space. One of the big unknowns is how this all sums out. We don’t really know if clouds represent an overall positive, negative or neutral feedback. If anyone tells we do, be careful of what else they tell you.
Personally, I’d go with slightly negative. I believe clouds act far more as a control knob to planetary climate than CO2.
