I’m traveling today, so updates will be few and far between, so here is the opportunity to have a broad discussion. Our usual caveats apply which you can review here.
Normal programming will resume when practical.
I’m traveling today, so updates will be few and far between, so here is the opportunity to have a broad discussion. Our usual caveats apply which you can review here.
Normal programming will resume when practical.
I have been slowly reading Bob Tisdales, new Ebook, and I have been taken by the thought in chap 1-12 how the IPCC attributes global warming to AGW. They say the temp record more closely resembles Natural + manmade forcing. What makes me wonder is if, you remove the temperature record adjustments and then put that observation record against the models, natural and natural + manmade. At that point which one would more closely resemble the observations?
Using the Fig in FAQ 10.1, it becomes real interesting, with the top graph, natural, solar + volcanic forcings. I remember from IPCC 4, I cannot quote the chapt, that they talk about the ‘Grand Maximum’ around 1985, not seen in 800 years, meaning the last Grand Maximum was at the end of the Medieval Warm Period. Yet looking at that graph from the IPCC, there is no discernible uptick in temps around 1985, if this was as IPCC 4 says a ‘Grand Maximum’ not seen in 800 yrs, how is it there is ZERO influence on the model. Yes there was a volcanic eruption that dimmed solar output, however, solar cycles affect weather around the max for approx 5-6 years, so should not the models have measured even the slightest of upticks?
What an interesting question to pose, take away the ‘5 adjustments 1998 – 2003’, Climategate, and the multiple adjustments, all statistically improbably positive adjustments. Then redo that graph, which model more closely resembles the observational record, I am guessing it is somewhere between the natural and the natural + manmade models.
Thanks and shout out to Bob Tisdale, the intro and Chapt 1 are repetitive but overall good illustration and supporting evidence, this is unusually in the Climate Change arena, at least from the true believer side.
if this was as IPCC 4 says a ‘Grand Maximum’ not seen in 800 yrs, how is it there is ZERO influence on the model.
Probably because there was no Grand Maximum either.
Out of curiosity Lief, is my recollection of IPCC 4 saying that incorrect? I have not read that report in many years but I believe I remember reading that.
http://www.iau.org/news/pressreleases/detail/iau1508/
“The sunspot number is the only direct record of the evolution of the solar cycle over multiple centuries and is the longest scientific experiment still ongoing….”
Longest scientific experiment still ongoing? Longer than records of floods of the Nile?
Dr. Svalgaard, are sunspot numbers just a coincidental manifestation of the magnetic undulations in the convective zone, with rough correspondence to the observed spectral changes and variation of the heliosphere during the cycles?
Lief,
Heres my overall problem, the models were designed prior to 2005. All the assumptions that go into them are based off of knowledge prior to 2005. Meaning, they believed there was a double maximum around 1950 and again in the 90’s. I apologize for the date 1985, I thought that was the date I remembered from IPCC 4.
Yet these natural models, that believed, prior to your enhanced data this summer, that there was a maximum in the 90’s. These models show no uptick in temps, only a return to equilibrium after Pinutubo. If they model natural solar forcing and volcanic, then how do they not demonstrate the uptick in the 90’s do to our belief it was a maximum.
Which was my original point, saying that observations that are heavily adjusted. Only correlate to models that have both natural and manmade forcing and do not correlate well to natural forcing models. The natural models, that did not show any temp increase for solar forcing that were at the time believed to be a maximum not seen in 800 years.
Thank you for redirecting me to your article.
Stanford finds a few “coulds” and “mays” …. and freaks out!
24 Nov: Guardian: Oliver Milman: California public school textbooks mislead students on climate, study says
Books voice doubt over whether climate change is real and suggest global warming could be beneficial, researchers say in analysis of four science texts
(MISLEADING) PHOTO CAPTION SAYS: California textbooks are misleading students when it comes to climate change, a study finds.
Textbooks in California public schools are misleading students on climate change, with material that expresses doubt over whether it is real and promotes the view that increasing temperatures may be beneficial, according to a Stanford University study…
“There is an ideology in these books. They use the same kind of language seen on climate change denier blogs,” she (KC Busch, of Stanford Graduate School of Education) said…
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/23/california-public-school-textbooks-mislead-students-climate-study-says
“Whereas California science textbooks on other subjects list facts, the books focused on climate change use conditional words like “could”, “might” or “may” throughout.”
Sounds precisely the same as the words used in a “scientific consensus” brief.
Speaking of which, this showed up today: http://news.yahoo.com/video/climate-change-vastly-misrepresented-california-212450983.html
The G20: Prospects and Challenges for Global Governance
Council for Foreign Relations, 2014:
Start at 44:30 and watch for just 30 seconds, paying particular attention to the facial expressions at the end of the rant.
Enjoy!
Who is going to take any notice of four people who all sit with their legs crossed ??
g
Check out these links, interesting reading I would say
https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/press-release-west-antarctica-snow-accumulation/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065750/full
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/11/13/an-outbreak-of-sanity.html
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Thanks, those are interesting reads.
Very interesting. The dramatic increase in snowfall over the last 30 years shows that something has happened to the local Amundsen Sea that is unprecedented in the context of the 300 yr cores. Wonder what that could be due to? There is one hypothesis that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has raised global temperatures. That might result in exactly this sort of effect, and could be worth considering.
Or we don’t have a very good understanding of how annual accumulation layers change over hundreds of years being compressed, stretched, flowing, etc. Ice is very dynamic.
Are you on your way to Paris by any chance?
This is new.
http://news.yahoo.com/australia-says-el-nino-reinforcing-weather-condition-ends-055752271–business.html
P.S.
The El Niño condition appears to be caused by solar wind bursts which are primarily caused by persistent coronal holes on the surface of the sun. There were starting in February of this year persistent coronal holes on the surface of the sun. The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn causes a current to flow from high latitude regions of the planet to the equatorial regions of the planet.
The current flow changes cloud albedo and cloud lifetime at both locations which causes warming.
In the last couple of weeks the solar coronal holes have started to dissipate evidenced by a ending of solar wind bursts.
Solar observations continue to support the assertion that the solar cycle has been interrupted as opposed to a normal slowdown in the solar cycle. If I understand what is happening to the sun and how solar cycle changes affect the planet’s climate global warming is over. We are going to experience the significant and rapid global cooling as the warming in the last 150 years reverses.
There is a mechanism that has inhibiting galactic cosmic particle modulation of planetary cloud cover. The galactic cosmic particles (called galactic cosmic ‘rays’ GCR or galactic cosmic rays GCR which is goofy as the phenomena is caused by mostly high speed protons, not ‘rays’). The inhibiting mechanism is starting to abate.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: The Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years. There was abrupt cooling 11,900 years ago (Younger Dryas abrupt cooling period when the planet went from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 75% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade and there was abrupt cooling 8200 years ago during the 8200 BP climate ‘event’).
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
The warming and cooling cycles continue into the last glacial period.
Greenland Ice Sheet Temperatures Last 100,000 years
http://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/4.gif
It is interesting that the Dansgaard/Oescheger events (warming cycle in all causes followed by cooling, sometimes abrupt cooling, the cycles are also called Bond cycles named after the late Gerald Bond who discovered that the warm and cooling cycles correlate with solar cycle changes) have a characteristic period of 1470 years has maintained the same period in both glacial and interglacial period which along with the fact that warming and cooling cycles is observed in both hemispheres is due to solar cycle changes rather than internal climate forcing changes.
As there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with all of the Dansgaard/Oescheger events (also referred to a Bond events named after Gerald Bond who tracked 23 of the cycles) and the Heinrich events it is obvious a specific solar cycle change is causing what is observed.
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
P.S. There has been a sudden reversal of the Greenland ice sheet warming (i.e sudden cooling of the Greenland ice sheet).
The high latitude ocean cooling is caused by an increase in high latitude cloud cover and an increase in wind speed which causes more evaporation over the oceans. Ocean sediment analysis shows a cooling of ocean temperature of 10C.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1257
The El Niño condition appears to be caused by solar wind bursts
There is no evidence for that.
There is no evidence that ~3% of ~400ppm/v CO2 is the driver of climate change yet there are whole industries and Govn’t policies to support it.
The “Pause” started in 1993.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/the-pause-started-in-1993/#comments
Santer’s fiddling with figures shows up something he didn’t intend it to.
As I understand matters, Nick Stokes accepts that there is no statistically significant trend in some of the temperature data sets extending for more than 20 years.
Given the realistic margins of errors, and limitations in the various data sets, I do not consider that we know enough to say when the ‘pause’ truly started, but I accept that there is reason to consider that it runs longer than the about 18.5 years often mentioned by Lord Monckton
I am a big fan of open thread days. The open threads at Jo Nova’s site are always entertaining. I hope this becomes a more regular feature here at this site.
I think many here would enjoy reading:
“How AGW isn’t happening in the real Earth system …” by okulaer (the geologist Kristian)
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/how-agw-isnt-happening-in-the-real-earth-system/
It is a short post and easy to understand. It takes the “consensus theory” of the IPCC and its fellow travelers and shows that what their theory says will happen is not happening in the real world — in fact the opposite. It is a nice, short take down just in time for Paris.
~ Mark
24 Nov: Guardian: Oliver Milman: California public school textbooks mislead students on climate, study says
Books voice doubt over whether climate change is real and suggest global warming could be beneficial, researchers say in analysis of four science texts
(MISLEADING) PHOTO CAPTION SAYS: California textbooks are misleading students when it comes to climate change, a study finds.
Textbooks in California public schools are misleading students on climate change, with material that expresses doubt over whether it is real and promotes the view that increasing temperatures may be beneficial, according to a Stanford University study…
“There is an ideology in these books. They use the same kind of language seen on climate change denier blogs,” she (KC Busch, of Stanford Graduate School of Education) said…
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/23/california-public-school-textbooks-mislead-students-climate-study-says
Good catch. More crap coming out of Ed Depts in tertiary education in US. Good, however, to see rational climate writing for school kids, but scary to see how fast alarmists jump on reason.
Climate change is the greatest threat to mankind ???
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/24/turkish-f-16-shoots-down-russian-fighter-jet-near-syria-border/?intcmp=hpbt1
There is currently an interesting article on Climate etc regarding SST, and buoy only measurements. See:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/22/a-buoy-only-sea-surface-temperature-record/#more-20470
Just to say that Paris looks like it will be chilly but not snowy, sadly. Maxes of 7c mins of 2c. Enjoy
Coeur de Lion
November 24, 2015 at 3:52 am
Just to say that Paris looks like it will be chilly but not snowy, sadly. Maxes of 7c mins of 2c. Enjoy
Perhaps Al Gore went home after the Paris atrocity cancelled his Eiffel Tower extravaganza, or possibly hid out in Scotland where it suddenly went cold and snowy. I don’t expect there was a big enough table in Paris for him to hide under.
I just took a look through the most recent agenda for Paris, and it really looks like “AN AGENDA IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE AGENDA…” In other words the best they can hope for is an agreement to agree.
Here’s hoping that they all have a crap-tastic time in Paris, no shops, no restaurants, no brisk sunny strolls, and lots of political in-fighting and embarrassing slips of the tongue.
Mark – It’s been the agenda for the past 20 years.
“SUCCESS! Drinks all around!
All of the attending countries have signed a binding agreement to a 100% commitment to meet again in 2016 and work out the final details of an agreement.”
Fast forward to 2016
“SUCCESS! Drinks all around!
All of the attending countries have signed a binding agreement to a 100% commitment to meet again in 2017 and work out the final details of an agreement.”
Lather, rinse, repeat until they can’t bleed any more money out of us turnips.
The 15% Sea Ice extent graph at DMI has not changed for 11 days, e.g. since 13/11/15
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.ph
The older 30% Sea Ice extent graph is however OK
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Some problem at DMI?
[There have been regular “inconsistencies and interruptions in the Ice Data sheets from every lab this past summer and fall. Not clear why the interruptions, nor why they end. .mod]
The link above that does not work should be: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Why does my Firefox not want me to visit Susan Crockford’s blog? Might someone have their foot on the scales?
Seems like this should have been carried here.
http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.ibiNW4TW.stZZyE4y.dpbs
Browse: Home / 2015 / November / 20 / “Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets
“Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets
By P Gosselin on 20. November 2015
UPDATE 2: Tremendous interest in Ewert’s findings: shared or liked 2400 times up to now. I’ve decided to take the day off from blogging and let this one run another day.
UPDATE 1: Also read here.
Veteran journalist Günter Ederer* writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public.
New study:
Cleaner atmosphere means more Arctic sea-ice melt, study says
http://www.adn.com/article/20151122/cleaner-atmosphere-means-more-arctic-sea-ice-melt-study-says
Hmm, this study bolsters the theory that the increased warming of the 1980s and 1990s was caused by ‘cleaner air’!
This is worth reading:
Richard Lindzen, Will Happer and Patrick Moore:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/prominent_scientists_declare_climate_claims_ahead_of_un_summit_irrational_b/
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: ‘Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.’ – ‘When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.’
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ‘Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?’
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.’
Excerpts from IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 6 Table 6.1
“The table does not include natural exchanges, (e.g. rivers, weathering) between reservoirs.”
Anthropogenic PgC 1750 – 2011
(.50 or .43 or .45)………………….+/- range….+/- %
Atmospheric Increase…….240…..…….10………4%
Fossil Fuel & Cement……375………….30………8%
Ocean to Atmosphere..…-155………….30……-19%
Land to Atmosphere
Net Land Use…………….180………….80……..44%
Residual Land Sink………-160…………90…….-56%
Math Check……………….240
My point is that while the PgC (times 3.67 to get CO2 PgCO2 & * 0.1291 to get ppmv) added by anthropogenic sources is fairly well defined, +/- 4%, the natural sources and sinks are way not! Also note that the caption excludes natural exchanges. This table supposedly and exclusively WAGs how the 265 year anthropogenic increase was partitioned between global sources and sinks. These are just pulled out of someone’s rear end!
IUCN/SSC Polar bear specialist group
According to IUCN/SSC Polar bear specialist group there are 19 distinct polar bear populations: 3 are in decline due to lousy neighbors, 1 is increasing, 6 are stable, and 9, over half, lack useful data. The 9 unknown populations are mostly in Russia which hasn’t bought into the CAGW/disappearing ice cap clap trap. So the observation that when Gore was born there were 7,000 polar bears and only 30,000 are left now might not be exact, but the idea is close enough. I guess “saving” the polar bears beats having real jobs.
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html
how does the Queen mum allow her twit of a son to speak of which he does not know? i have a perspiring mind.
winter is coming, and you don’t know nothing al gore.. maybe if you fly to Paris the snow will follow. it usually does.
I like Open Threads! Here’s why:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6>
click7
click8
click9
click10
+10
From:
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/27271-WWJAD.html
WWJAD? (What would Joan of Arc do?)
===============
Surveillance video released by the New Orleans Police Department shows a hooded man dragging a staggering woman around 4:30 a.m. Friday. Moments later, a car stops and another man, identified as Peter Gold, 25, gets out while appearing to make a call on his cellphone.”The victim drove up and attempted to assist the woman at which point the suspect pointed a gun at him and demanded money,” New Orleans Police said in a statement.”The victim explained to the suspect repeatedly that he did not have any cash. The suspect became enraged and shot the victim once in the stomach,” the statement said.
—————
Speaking of Orleans, WWJAD? It’s not for me to say, but I imagine she would kneel down and tenderly kiss that brave man on his furrowed brow, nurse his wounds, and then go off to see if it was possible to fit the second man into a tuna can.
Constant acceleration force, experienced as gravity, results in the increase of mass with time.
Increase of mass with time results in the constant acceleration force, experienced as gravity.
Friedman postulated in his equation that mass is constant in every system of coordinates. It is not. This monumental error resulted in the Big Bang Creation Theory and in the whole confusion in the 20th century cosmology.
According to Foyle & Narlikar, m = at^2, where “a” is a universal constant.
And here I thought it was d=at²
How could Newton have gotten it so wrong?
I think these go a long way to describing what is wrong with current methodologies/ideologies regarding Al Gore’s Warming:
Summary – http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/11/11/Idea-of-slow-climate-change-in-the-past-is-flawed-researchers-say/5681447257780/
More detailed info – http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151110/ncomms9890/full/ncomms9890.html
Hope these make it as front page news, not just here, but everywhere.
Do I understand correctly that the warmist criticism of the temperature-monitoring satellites is that the satellite temperatures might be accurate for the bulk of the atmosphere, but for whatever reason, they are not accurate right at the surface where AGW is a concern, unlike ground-based temperature monitors that are supposedly accurate?
I understand that the satellite temperatures have been calibrated using accurate balloon temperatures. If these balloons are brought to ground level, do the balloon temperatures agree with the satellites or do they agree with the ground-based temp monitors?
Are the ground-based and satellite-derived ground temperatures identical in places other than where a heat bubble effect might be a factor? Are the satellites agreeing with the temperatures from ground-based monitors in places where the heat bubble effect may be in play?
Or is there a better way to characterize the controversy between ground and satellite-based temperature monitors?
I have a question about water vapor. I am sure I wrong about a bunch of things.
what happens when humidity turns into clouds to both insolation and the greenhouse values? I mean, isn’t this a funky question because water vapor’s absorption spectrum overlaps CO2’s?
Say it’s a very humid and zero clouds. The humidity is sharing space with the CO2 and so the CO2 does very little (?) … but at the same time there is full insolation because no inbound lwr is hitting the top of a cloud.
Suddenly the humidity turns into a thick clouds & the air becomes super dry. Somehow … presto, full CO2 greenhouse effect (now it’s blackbody radiation matters) … meanwhile the clouds stop some inbound lwr, = less insolation
anyway my point is , if it is like this, then is possible clouds do not do very much the temperature of the Earth?
[sort of parallel to how arctic sea ice doesn’t matter that much because the when the insolation goes up, so the heat lost to space?]
Thick clouds and dry air do not coexist at the same spot. Equilibrium of evaporation & sublimation with condensation is present. Vertical circulation is needed to grow rain droplets. If rain droplets fall through dry air, they evaporate. The process is called Virga.
Thanks for the that. Interesting.
I would just add that I wasn’t saying there *would be* dry air & thick clouds together. Rather I wanted to ask a question by making a contrast.
In the recent article in Climate Etc, defending the Karl et. al revision of SSTs, the authors state: “As an aside, the decision to adjust buoys up to ERIs or ERIs down to buoys should nominally be trend neutral. Indeed, in their work on HadSST3 Kennedy and colleagues explicitly tested this, and found ‘no appreciable difference’ on trends.”
The obvious question should be, “If there is no difference, then why did Karl et. al adopt the unusual procedure of adjusting state-of-the-art buoy temperatures up to align with older data with a known hot-bias when they should have known it would be controversial? Might it have been so that they could claim that the actual temperatures (versus anomalies) were still increasing?
Because we have two different measurements. ERI’s apparently read higher than bouys. Imagine the difference was 10°C instead of 0.1°C. When all readings are ERI’s everything is OK as far as spotting trends goes. If we introduce one bouy with a reading 10°C lower, we will apparently see a reduction in average temperature. If we introduce an increasing number of bouys, each with a 10°C lower reading, we will see an apparent downward trend. We need to correct for the difference between the bouy and the ERI. As far as the trend goes, it doesn’t matter if we adjust the ERI down 10°C or the bouy up 10°C. We will remove the false trend that occured because we were introducing more and more bouys. This is similar to ERI in °F and bouys in °C.
I think you would agree that it would be crazy not to make the correction. It doesn’t matter if we measure in F or C, as long as we are consistent.
Seaice,
Yes, it would be crazy not to correct the data when a problem has been identified. But, you missed the whole point! The conventional approach to concatenating outputs of different sensors is to adjust lower quality data to match higher quality data. So, I’ll restate my question:” Why would they use an unconventional procedure when they should have known it would be controversial?” There should be a good reason for deviating from standard practices and I have not seen that reason stated. Stating that it makes no difference in trends is not a good reason, it is a rationalization. For them to know that it made no difference in trends, they would have had to do the corrections both ways before publication. Why not go with the conventional procedure and avoid that issue?
The Belgian Delegation to the Paris Climate Conference:
http://www.leif.org/research/The-Belgian-Delegation-Paris.png
Speaking of unthreaded
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-20-its-not-co2-so-what-is-the-main-cause-of-global-warming/#comment-1765837
Over recent weeks I have been going through my VHS tapes while I still have a functioning Player, then digitising my collection of purchased tapes as well as some programs I’ve recorded myself. This morning I came across a Beyond 2000 special, “Climate in Crises” that aired in 1989, 26 years ago. Below are a few notes I jotted down. I have uploaded the video to youtube here. If interested watch it now just in case somebody has it pulled because of copyright.
“ At the eight minute mark our host states, as the greenhouse heats the planet, the oceans will warm and as they warm they will expand, it means that in maybe just 40 years time the see level will be (spreading her arms) about this much higher. That’s about a meter than it is today, now it might not seem like much but it will cause tens of millions of people in Bangladesh in Egypt and in other low lying countries to lose their homes and their farmland, it will mean that some countries will disappear entirely”. We are now twenty six years into that forty year time span, by now if her prediction had any legs we should already seen a rise of seventy five centimeters.
She then goes on to state Han Island in Papua is already being inundated by rising seas, then contradicts herself by explaining that Han’s inundation is caused by changing currents and not climate change, hoping that the vision of affected shore line will carry more wait than her true statement of the cause.
About seventeen and a half minutes or so in our old friend David Attenborough speaks of the possible loss of Kirtland’s Warbler due to the probable loss of the Jack Pine forest in Michigan, all this was supposed to happened already, “the models said so”. A quick google search finds that the warbler is making a comeback and the State Forestry runs guided Kirtland’s Warbler tours . So much for that doom and gloom story.
At about the thirty minute mark they actually admit that CO2 acts as a plant fertiliser, but claim it is the major green house gas, did no one tell them of the greenhouse properties of water vapor. Later they admit renewable energy can’t compete, not because it is expensive but because fossil energy is unrealistically low.
In closing remarks they say “The United Nations believes we have just ten years left to stop the planet from spiralling into a catastrophic green house effect, just ten years left to put the greenhouse solutions into action” We are now sixteen years past the U.N.’s deadline and all seems well to me.
It’s interesting to watch now with the benefit of hindsight.
Wow, what a great retrospective.
Well done.
Enjoyed it immensely.
Han Island, 9+00 minutes into the video, still there.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-4.7819718,155.4675973,1500m/data=!3m1!1e3
Ah Open Thread … hmmm what a nice idea
Sometimes it takes walking back thru the history to figure out how to fix something.
Currently reading
http://environmentalismgonemad.com/
Alan Carlin
Good read about a retired senior policy analyst living thru the emergence of CAGW at EPA.
Makes connections, names, where and how proposed regs got rammed thru. Talks a good bit about how the Supreme Court piece got done. Also addresses styles of attack of the movement as well as his slow but steady awakening to the bad science.
So far so good.
Learning sumthin.
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/26/ap-fact-check-on-climate-science-most-gop-candidates-fail/21273556/
Supposedly this was a test of knowledge of climate science. “Scientists” evaluated statements on climate made by candidates, and found Hilary scored a 94 with Sanders close behind, and Cruz a 6. We need to see the statements and evaluate them ourselves.. A list of the “scientists” would be nice too.
These government-paid “self-called scientists” are fighting for their agency’s funding, their credibility, and their own publicity.
Interesting posting just in from ScienceDaily “2015 likely to be warmest on record, 2011-2015 warmest five year period” The global average surface temperature in 2015 is likely to be the warmest on record and to reach the symbolic and significant milestone of 1° Celsius above the pre-industrial era. This is due to a combination of a strong El Niño and human-induced global warming.
See more at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151125233741.htm