The Nobel Prize winning economist blogged about why we should be very worried about climate change, and acting on the problem despite the costs coming mostly decades down the road, while we should not be so worried about the apparent problems we may face with Medicare and Social Security in the decades to come.http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/on-the-non-equiv..."On the Non-equivalence of Greenhouse Gases and Entitlement Spending...Serious people are and should be deeply worried, indeed horrified, by the lack of action on greenhouse gases. But why? Why not just assume that when climate change becomes undeniable, we’ll do whatever is necessary?The answer, first and foremost, is that each year we fail to act has more or less irreversible physical consequences. We’re pumping around 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually; this stuff will stick around for a very long time, and its consequences for warming and sea level rise will last even longer. So each year that we fail to act has a direct physical impact on the future.There’s also an investment aspect: each year that we fail to get the incentives right, people commit limited resources to the wrong technologies, especially coal-fired power plants instead of wind, solar, conservation, whatever. Again, these choices have a physical impact on the world of the future.Now ask, what in the debate about “entitlements” corresponds at all to this kind of impact? Nothing physical, clearly. ...It seems probable if not certain that we will eventually either have to cut Social Security benefits (relative to current law) or raise additional revenue. ... To avert this threat, the usual suspects insist that we must gradually reduce the program’s generosity. That is, in order to guard against cuts in future benefits we must … cut future benefits. Huh?"
The Nobel Prize winning economist blogged about why we should be very worried about climate change, and acting on the problem despite the costs coming mostly decades down the road, while we should not be so worried about the apparent problems we may face with Medicare and Social Security in the decades to come.Not to worry. We can always mint some of those trillion-dollar platinum coins....DB2
Krugman is doing what Lomborg basically did, determining what we should worry about. Although Lomborg used experts from various fields instead of just himself like Krugman did.http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=788
Serious people are and should be deeply worried, indeed horrified, by the lack of action on greenhouse gases. But why? Why not just assume that when climate change becomes undeniable, we’ll do whatever is necessary? There is no warming for over 16 years now. So, why should we worry about something that does not exist?-=Ajax=-
"Serious people are and should be deeply worried, indeed horrified, by the lack of action on greenhouse gases."why? The US emits less and less carbon each year. We're doing out part. THe cars are more efficient. NG is displacing coal in power plants. We're going in the right direction without being 'deeply worried'. Deeply worried means gigantic carbon taxes to Krugman and his ilk. More porkulus and wealth redistribution, mostly to the 3rd world tyrant's Swiss bank accounts and their corrupt cronies, with 5-`10% siphoned off by the Al Gore 'broker' types. Trillions of redistribution. On the other hand, our annual actual deficit spending of about 7 trillion a year, including the piling on of SS and Medicare and soon to be ObamaKare....is very very very worrisome. SS will be facing 30% cuts in less than 20 years. Medicare will be broke in 10. THe Krugmans of the world won't be happy till you hand over your entire paycheck to the government and they decide 'how much' you are allowed to have. Maybe a few hundred in food stamps.....(no cash).....and enough barely to pay your mortgage and other bills....and that's it...... you don't need a car or two, or lots of electronics or fancy stuff. Just think of all those poor people you need to 'share with'. Sorry...more of the same 'progressive' redistribute the wealth scheme through global warming hysteria. t.
Ajax, you can stop repeating this lie. We all know it is a lie. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-19...http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
Ajax, you can stop repeating this lie. We all know it is a lie.BJ, if you don't like the term 'pause' perhaps you would be happier with Hansen's 'standstill'.www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2...<IThe 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing....A slower growth rate of the net climate forcing may have contributed to the standstill of global temperature in the past decade, but it cannot explain the standstill, because it is known that the planet has been out of energy balance, more energy coming in from the sun than energy being radiated to space.10 The planetary energy imbalance is due largely to the increase of climate forcings in prior decades and the great thermal inertia of the ocean. The more important factor in the standstill is probably unforced dynamical variability, essentially climatic "noise".DB2
This is from your link - Hansen is not describing ANYTHING except the global surface temperature there... the warming is continuing... "We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature."...as is indicated in the increasing ocean heat content pointed at by Nuccitelli et.al. Now maybe you want to defend Ajax, and maybe you are winding me up, but I am not in a good mood. People who deny that the planet is warming are, to put it charitably, those people that "God must have loved because he made so many of them". We remain on the escalator. Ajax continues to repeat a lie.
Again, to say there has been no warming for the past 16 years is misleading.NOAA releases their data ~15th of each month. I loaded up my spreadsheet yesterday and here is what I find:The peak 12-month trailing average occurred in July 2010 at .6751C above baseline. The prior high had been .6698 in Aug '98.The peak 60-month trailing average occurred in January 2007 at .6150C above baseline.The peak 60-month trailing exponential average occurred in August 2010 at .5755C above baseline.Velocity appears to have peaked in November 1999, at a rate of 2.66C per century.The most recent velocity I am able to calculate (Feb 2005) indicate an increase of .53C per century and decelerating. Deceleration appears to be increasing. The most recent I am able to calculate (July 1999) is -.0012C. This is significantly more than the prior max deceleration of -.0008 (June 1981).I am willing to suggest that there may currently be no warming. The rate of deceleration implies this. But to say the pause began in 1997 is not to my mind supported by the evidence.OTOH, if you really want to go back in time and look at things, I find the peak acceleration occurred in Dec 1992. What ever was pushing seems to have begun scaling back at that time. I am very curious to know what that was.
I notice that Hansen says that aerosols are the 2nd highest human forcing.I thought it was soot now.
"I notice that Hansen says that aerosols are the 2nd highest human forcing.I thought it was soot now. "Changes by the week. They still don't have their 'global warming hysteria ' hoax don't pat yet.t.
Using HadCRU annual global temperature averages one can run a simple linear regression to find the trend.Number of Trend Significantly years °C/decade different than zero? 23 0.13 Yes 22 0.14 Yes 21 0.14 Yes 20 0.12 Yes 19 0.10 Yes 18 0.07 No 17 0.06 No 16 0.01 No 15 -0.00 No 14 0.04 No 13 0.00 No 12 -0.00 No 11 -0.01 No 10 -0.01 NoDB2
Number of Trend Significantly years °C/decade different than zero? 23 0.13 Yes 22 0.14 Yes 21 0.14 Yes 20 0.12 Yes 19 0.10 Yes 18 0.07 No 17 0.06 No 16 0.01 No 15 -0.00 No 14 0.04 No 13 0.00 No 12 -0.00 No 11 -0.01 No 10 -0.01 No
OTOH, if you really want to go back in time and look at things, I find the peak acceleration occurred in Dec 1992. What ever was pushing seems to have begun scaling back at that time. I am very curious to know what that was.Here is a graph of a reconstruction of the North Atlantic Oscillation for the last 140 years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winter-NAO-Index.svgIt reached an all-time high in the early 1990s. Assuming it reflects unforced changes in the global climate, superimpose it on a general warming trend and you also get the post-WW2 cooling and the accelerated warming in the first part of the 20th century.DB2
The temperature of the atmosphere at the surface again. Are you actually DB2 or someone less respectable is out to ruin his reputation?My suspicion that Ajax is a 'bot is stronger though.
Now maybe you want to defend Ajax, and maybe you are winding me up, but I am not in a good mood. People who deny that the planet is warming are, to put it charitably, those people that "God must have loved because he made so many of them". The assertion that the planet is warming, is a lie BJ. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the global temperature data is statistically indistinguishable from zero for 18 years (HadCRUt4), or 19 years (HadCRUt3), or even 23 years (RSS). http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/has-the-met-office-com...And the HadCRUt data are the same data used by the IPCC to promote the fraud of global warming.-=Ajax=-
The assertion that the planet is warming, is a lie BJ.I would suggest that the most one can say is that the planet clearly has warmed and does not appear to be cooling.
Which point was answered by me several times in several ways. Where is the warming going Ajax... 4/5 of the planet's surface is water which holds a HELL of a lot more heat than air. Much as Watts' site generates a great deal more heat than light. Get off the escalator mate.
The temperature of the atmosphere at the surface again.Happens to be where most people live. :-)Been thinking some about the ocean warming and had a couple of questions.If, over the last 30 years years, the ocean has warmed some 10^23 joules then the ocean temperature rise would be what? 0.01°C/decade?It seems to me that the uncertainty in ocean heat content some 30 or 50 years ago would huge. A few measurements at a few scores of sites. Each measurement would have to represent thousands of cubic miles of ocean. How could the uncertainty be quantified?If the 'missing heat' has been going down into the ocean during the 21st century why wasn't it going there in the late 20th century when the GHG forcing was smaller and surface temp rise greater?What is the above mechanism?DB2
I would suggest that the most one can say is that the planet clearly has warmed and does not appear to be cooling. Ok WuLong, have a rec but I would phrase it differently and add context - as follows:The planet has been warming for the last 350 years (since the mid 1600s) because we are coming out of The Little Ice Age and most important, this warming has nothing to do with CO2. In fact, if we look at the earliest data-set in existence (That of Central England), we can see both of these statements loud and clear:a. The gradual warming beginning in the mid 1600s andb. The fact that CO2 has nothing to do with this warming.http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/cet-temperatures.htmlSee also http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig1.html where you can see the Medieval Warm Period (about 1000 years ago) when it was warmer than today - and this without the current levels of CO2.Interestingly enough, the fraud of global warming attempted and failed to erase these periods from the Historical record. Note for example that the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Periods were world-wide events and not local European events:http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/hockey-stick/mwp-glob...-=Ajax=-
I notice that Hansen says that aerosols are the 2nd highest human forcing.I thought it was soot now.Soot contains black carbon. Soot can be suspended in the air, where it is an aerosol, or deposited on the ground. As an aerosol black carbon warms the planet through several mechanisms. If black carbon is on deposited on a high albedo surface such as ice or snow, it lowers the albedo and absorbs sunlight which warms the black carbon and can melt the snow or ice.It seems the biggest impact of black carbon is when it is an aerosol.So you and Hansen are both correct.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbonhttp://e360.yale.edu/feature/carl_zimmer_black_carbon_and_gl...
Regarding the forcing from black carbon vs. aerosols, we must be aware that the two are not equivalent.Aerosols include tiny particles of black carbon, but also include a vast number of other tiny floating particles and droplets. Hansen says that aerosols are the second largest human-made forcing, but says it is probably negative:From Hansen et al.:"The second largest human-made forcing is probably atmospheric aerosols, although the aerosol forcing is extremely uncertain. Our comparison of the various forcings...assumes that the aerosol forcing increment is half as large as the greenhouse gas forcing but opposite in sign. This aerosol forcing can be described as an educated guess."http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Tempera...Black carbon is estimated to be the second largest warming human-made forcing by Bond et al. 2013, but aerosols overall, including secondary effects, are a substantial net cooling human-made forcing, also discussed in Bond et al. They increase the global albedo by reflecting sunlight away before it can reach the ground, and by contributing to cloud formation.Figure 10.1 shows that pollution sources rich in black carbon are warming short-term net forcing, even including other cooling aerosols. But it also shows that total aerosol forcing is substantially negative at about -1 watts per square meter.PDF of Bond et al. (hefty at 19 megabytes) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/pdf
Who persuaded Richard Muller to join in on the worldwide climate change hoax and how did they talk him into it?http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/20/1474571/koch-fun...
Who persuaded Richard Muller to join in on the worldwide climate change hoax and how did they talk him into it?Perhaps it was because he actually looked at the data?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |