global tepid

Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-ridley-on-GW

1.6* C seems survivable, maybe even benign.
Ridley isn't a scientist, but he does cite credible
sources.

Of course, we know Sam Wormley will give this
due consideration, famous as he is for rationality
and objectivity and erudition, immune to hysteria
and ego and emotional investment.

PS Epigram from the article: "... given the IPCC's
record of replacing evidence-based policy-making
with policy-based evidence-making..."

 

That sure roasts a lot of old chestnuts. Cool.

 

AGW is only one method by which the presumed most intelligent species of
this lonely planet will succeed in destroying the habitat and themselves.

Another worth your consideration is the strong resistance to liberal
democracy among many mid-east folks.

Yet another is the extreme polarization between economic classes in, the
gold standard of social equity, the U.S.A.

Does not look so hot ... should ameliorate warming :>)

 

Given the Wall Street Journal's enthusiasm for publishing denialist
propaganada, the epigram is a trifle commical - the Wall Street
Journal publishes as piece of hobbyist speculation as if it trumps
peer-reviewed science, presumably because somebody with lots of money
has made them an offer they weren't game to refuse, and then has the
nerve to complain about the IPCC's objectivity.

 

More denialist propaganda, from one of the regular publishers of
denialist propaganda. James Arthur lacks the wit to appreciate what is
actually going on.

He wont' read "Merchants of Doubt". It's too unkind about some of his
favourite people.

 

It does take a Pollyanna level of optimistic ignorance to be that
unrealistic , but John isn't short of incorrigible ignorance.

More CO2, quite a bit warmer and wetter is places that didn't used to
be wet before may be good for plants, but it's more likely to be good
for weeds than for the crops which we've selected and bred to do well
in the climate we've had for the past ten thousand years or so, in the
places where those crops have always grown well up to now.

But does he cite them correctly? Monkton published a plausible-looking
piece in the US Institute of Physics "Physics Today" but a detailed
follow-up found some 128 howlers (and I suspect that the critic lost
interest at 2^7, rather than running out of mistakes to identify).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton

Hilarious in the circumstances, but John Larkin doesn't know enough to
notice.

Really? We could certainly engineer a population crash, and the
survivors wouldn't be well placed to sustain a modern industrialised
society, but extinction isn't all that likely. One argument is that
language based cultural learning was our trick to adapt to the
relatively rapid cycling between ice-ages and interglacials that has
been going on since we split off from the chimpanzees, and it should
leave us well placed to cope with a comparably abrupt warming.

 

Actually, Matt Ridley is a scientist, but a zoologist, and - like most
of the "scientists" active in the denialist propaganda machine -
rather prone to post total nonsense on anthropogenic global warming.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Matt_Ridley

This is just "The Wall Street Journal" doing it's usual service to the
denialist propaganda machine.

 

"global" warming is really nothing but a grotesque 100-year-old
nonsequiter
of glass "house" effects, as is seen by using spherical trig and
Snell's law (for putative changes in albedo). Ahrrenius did not
get teh first Nobel in chemistry for that ****.

you will probably have to use "geometrical optics," that is to say,
one normal "ray" to the wavefront from Sun, but
that doesn't make Newton's "theory," a theory!

 

actually, as far as I've seen,
they publish just as much Confirmerist stuff, because
that is just the nature of the market. in particular,
although the so-called Republicans might aver that
my Congressman's old ('91) cap-and-trade bill was
just a "tax on SOx and NOx," it is really just "free-er trade;"
perhaps that is why this mandatory program was passed
unanimously by both houses.

 

Actually it is the science denier alarmists that are prone to total
nonsense. They don't even bother to read their own links or examine their
own data.

This sure looks like Global Tepid to me:

http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSOCT.gif

I keep waiting for that accelerating and dramatic temperature rise that
we keep being told is going on, but so far for the past decade nada.

So are you going to say that Dr. Hansen is not a scientist? I might agree
with you on that one...

 

Why don't we just use a graph straight from NASA;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.pdf

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

gives the story in rather more detail, and with a rather better grasp
of physics.

<snipped incoherent rubbish>

 

As if you were equipped to know.

It would. It's a twelve year sequence, and probably tells you more
about what the Atlantic multidecadal osicillation is doing over the
period than anything about global warming. Anthropogenic global
warming is rapid - in geological terms - but it takes decades to show
above the noise, and wandering ocean currents are definitely noise in
this context.

Patience is a virtue. Foresight is a bigger virtue, but it takes more
knowledge than you seem to have yet acquired.

I'm not saying anything of the sort, and since you've got that wrong,
it's no surprise that you misjudge Hansen too,

 

The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wall_Street_Journal

<snipped irrelevant rubbish>

 

Why not? Sure it's designed to cover a wider range, but if you look
closely at the end you get the SAME flat line for the last decade.
Obviously it SHOULD since it's supposedly from the same data.

And while you are at it take a good look at that period from 1940 to
about 1975. MORE than 30 years of FALLING temperatures while CO2
continued to rise! So much for the CO2 is the ONLY cause of global
warming theory.

We won't even get into how this data has been fudged to produce apparent
warming and even with the cheating it STILL shows the AGW theories to be
fake!

Just who do you guys think you are fooling?

 

Sure I have a newsreader and I have a brain. You only have one of those.

It's a twelve year sequence in the face of DRAMATICALLY RISING CO2!

If your "Radiative forcing" theory is correct, then this data is bullshit.

Right?

So your idea is to just wait, for the next statistical up-tick and then
start screaming GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! WE TOLD YOU SO!!

You obviously not only have no knowledge nor education nor honesty nor
ethics, so none of this means anything to you. All you know is lies and
propaganda and faked data and massaged graphs and ways to fool the public
into being scared into some kind of civilization-busting tax to be spread
around the Third World. Sweet. You are evil. But then you are doubtless
also an evolutionist and morality, ethics, honesty or legality mean
nothing to you as they are "fairytales".

No doubt he's your hero making millions off of the AGW scam he's promoted
for so long. Too bad all his dire predictions turned out wrong like all
those predictions of the end of the world.

 

As is the propensity of the BBC, Scientific American, Physics Today, and
most major media to simply repeat warmist lies as if they were true. I'd
say nobody can be that stupid, but facts show otherwise.

 

In fact these people are reporting a better-than-usually-well-
established scientific consensus, but there do seem to be a few
conspiracy theory nuts around that want to believe something
different.

 

If you want the scientific chapter and verse, go to

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

The crap about the "state-supplied SUV" wasn't mine, and that's what I
snipped.

 

As a citizen of the North, I welcome a warmer climate. I'll take that
1.6C anytime.