==> “People like jim 2 blame the USofA for all of the worlds problems”
Only when there’s a Democrat in the executive office.
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Well, we shall see, won’t we? Remember too, that Gates’s Human Carbon Volcano is a piker compared to the output of those volcanic periods of which you speak.
With present evidence, we’re not likely to be able to raise the temperature much, and it’s far more likely than not that what we can do will be net beneficial, both warming us and feeding us.
====================
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
kim, it doesn’t take much. As I mentioned and showed with a picture, 700 ppm gets us to conditions that last existed before Antarctica glaciated, while at 500 ppm Greenland and Arctic sea ice are not supported. We can just learn from the past in this way, and these are relevant amounts for policy too, being below the burn-it-all limit. Some has to be left in the ground to avoid these levels.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
lil kim, those are of course in the sunspot integral, but not in the temperature signal.
Somebody like the rapper lil kim who doesn’t deal with the data makes those kinds of observational errors.
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Well, even if that is true, what we put in the air will be re-sequestered before either ice cap melts significantly.
========
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Correlation is not causation, but I could propose a few mechanisms, one playing golf like there’s no tomorrow.
=============
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Particularly if you want to make any use of the missing heat in the abyss argument.
=========
↧
Comment on Atlantic vs Pacific vs AGW by alcheson
Over at RealClimate, on this topic they claim ”
It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
This logically CANNOT be true can it? If the ocean has a 60 yr warming/cooling cycle, you MUST have net heat LEAVING the ocean during the warming cycle (likey in the form of increased evaporation and then rain). The ocean cannot ALWAY be taking heat away from the atmosphere (just less during the warm cycle) but never giving any back, or else it would have boiled away millions of years ago. Therefore, the contention that the ocean does not (did not) release heat into the atmosphere during the 1970-2000 cannot be true and therefore the statement that all of the observed warming during that time period was due to human causes incorrect.
↧
Comment on Week in review by angech
The Antarctic Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent with Anomaly map at WUWT has small holes in multiple spots (small black spots) on the coastline where it should be solidest for the last week. If these are being counted as water it would make the volume less than it really is.
On the Arctic Sea Ice Extent with Anomaly no such spots.
I did not see these in the last 4 years at this time.
Have they been put in deliberately to give a lower Antarctic Sea Iced extent?
Anyone?
↧
↧
Comment on Atlantic vs Pacific vs AGW by kim
This phony attribution is being defended like the phony hockey stick. Telling.
========
↧
Comment on Atlantic vs Pacific vs AGW by kim
Interestingly, they really need this phony attribution to make the science justify the policy. The phony hockey stick wasn’t necessary to make the science, only the false narrative of stable climate before man.
So this will be defended even more fiercely. Gad, it could be decades.
================
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
kim, there are various things that can mess up the sequestration which takes centuries anyway. For example the surface ocean acidifies and gets warmer holding less CO2, and the warm layer may stagnate and not sink preventing deep cold water, that you need for sequestration, from rising to the surface. Do you want to do that experiment? Meanwhile the sea level is already rising and the polar caps are melting. It’s a race between rising sea level and natural sequestration that we get into.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
There’s also biological sequestration, else there’d be no hydrocarbon reserves, with a rate that rises as CO2 rises.
====================
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
And thanks for ‘centuries’. Compare with multiple, multiple millennia for icecap melt.
================
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
There is time to finish this game of bowls.
============
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
kim, it might have been that slow after the Ice Ages, but that didn’t have the forcing change that we will have which is more equivalent to the atmosphere of the Eocene under BAU. For example 1 W/m2 can melt a meter of ice every 10 years, not that this is the process, but it gives an idea of the power of the imbalance.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
kim, yep, and Drake still defeated the Armada after finishing his game, so when Obama takes time to finish his golf, people should not complain.
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
That’s pretty amusing comparing the intrepid Drake with the handicapped Obama. And frankly, Obama hasn’t any idea whether the tides or anything else are going in or out.
Note that Drake had a strategy within moments of the alarm, which gave him time to bowl. Obama announced his lack of strategy, then went off to play golf.
Those who can’t learn from the past, are doomed to have Obama for President. Too bad they have to drag those who can learn along with them.
====================
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Also, Drake hardly defeated the Armada, that’s myth. He was an able assistant at the endeavour.
============
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
