But a gov can choose whose research to fund. Our gov basically picks those researchers who support the global warming meme. That's why the "global warming deniers" (actually lukewarmers as Dr. Michaels describes us) get no gov funding to challenge the global warming alarmists of the Obama administration and the gov administrations of the EU.
You mean our GOP run congress? Is that who mean about who decides on the funding? Obama can't spend a PENNY without them.
Of course he can. The spending is in the executive branch budgets. I forgot to include the link in the post above: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/de...gislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
Yes, really. The budget for global warming has existed for the duration of both D and R controlled House and Senate. Currently the R's are in a holding pattern until they can hopefully gain control of the Presidency and negate the veto power. Having a fight over global warming spending leading to a gov shutdown is a battle not worth fighting.
Except the numbers didn't figure the South West Pacific Ocean acting as a carbon sink, that's phytoplankton carbon - not acidification, according to Science Magazine. BTW CO2 levels were 5 times higher in dinosaur days yet the oysters survived.
Of course it's real. The data indicate a warming of ~ 1.5 deg C per 100 years which is easily accommodated by adaptation paid for by the accumulated wealth generated in that 100 years - the average citizen living in Africa will have a standard of living comparable with Belgium. Reducing the CO2 emissions per the AR5 A1B scenario during those 100 years won't practically effect temperature but will adversely effect wealth creation. - - - Updated - - - And the earth did not turn into Venus.
Ice is solid water, a polar molecule. If a mixture of gases is encased in ice, does it diffuse at all? Are the individual diffusion of a gas in the mixture of gases influenced by molecular weight or polarity? Or is it all, same, same - fershur That is why I do not trust ice core gas analysis and their implications gone malignant. The sky is falling. The Bane of Global Warming Alarmist is the Medieval Climate Optimum. Good, "Christian" as well as heathen records exist from the warm up around 800AD, some say 950AD - but peoples' movements would favor a date earlier than 950 AD. And lasting until 1250 to be followed by The Little Ice Age. People of Amsterdam ice skating on frozen canals ala Hans Brinker. We do live in a relatively brief interglacial period, eh? I want to know that a mixture if gasses trapped in a bubble encased in water ice will not diffuse differently. Is the mixture analyzed truly representative of what was frozen in the ice? Gracias. Moi r > g View attachment 40996 They "know" and will not share. I mean who knows Ice better than a or an Andorian Andoria is an icy moon orbiting a ringed gas giant. It has also been referred to as Andor. Most of its cities are built underground to take advantage of geothermal warmth. Temperatures have been known to reach -28 °C in the summer. Andoria has at least one moon or neighboring planet. Andorians share their homeworld with an obscure telepathic subspecies, Aenar, which have either light blue or white skin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorian Never Forget: Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against America needs to close the Ice Science Gap !
Weren't the same arguments used when a cap-and-trade plan was enacted in 1990 to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions?
Yes and those arguments are correct. But the acid rain problem was isolated, a real problem, and there were ways in which reduce the SO2 emissions from the original 110 coal fired power plants. http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...and-trade-harms-the-economy-and-reduces-jobs/
Your source might have an argument, if anyone was suggesting cap and trade as the solution for transportation, farm animals or any of the millions of other individual sources other than the same power plants SO2 limits were applied to.
The article says that "regulating millions of different and individual sources of emissions is considerably different from regulating 445 plants" but nobody is suggesting cap and trade for those "millions of different and individual sources of emissions." That is what is commonly referred to as a strawman.
OK, but the main point of the article is to summarized why via a "Cap and Trade Primer" there are at least "Eight reasons why cap and trade harms the economy and reduces jobs."
See where people get tripped up is the failure to understand AVERAGES The average may only rise 1.5 degrees but the maximums will be much much higher
That has nothing to do with averages. If the climate sensitivity to CO2 is 1.5 - 2.0 there will be an increase in temperature of 1.5 - 2.0 deg C by 2100. - - - Updated - - - Global warming of 1.5 - 2.0 deg C by 2100 will be a net global economic benefit.
No, your source is a CATO web page. The real MAGICC model can be found here: http://live.magicc.org/ I played with the real model, and the results were nothing like CATO's claims. The do-nothing scenario showed 3.5C warming, while the restricted emission scenario showed 2.2C, a difference of 1.3C. So, CATO claimed a difference of about one-tenth of what the MAGICC model actually showed. Hence, it looks to me like CATO is just faking everything. Why did you choose to just believe CATO instead of actually checking the real model?
You are not entering the correct information. This is the fine print from Dr. Michaels. His point is that curbing CO2 emissions from the OECD 90 countries (which does not include China and India) is ineffective.
Your understanding is only about averages. That 1.5 rise represents AVERAGE global (and this is another sticking point for denialists - failure to understand the term global) temperature So - do you really think the ecology of earth can adapt in 100 years? http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/rising_temperatures/scientific_proof/ What does NASA say?? For Precipitation read flooding - because that is what they mean but they cannot use the word flooding or the denialists will accuse them of being "alarmist" This plus more intense precipitation = (*)(*)(*)(*)ed farming http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
OK, I misinterpreted your statement. The average global temperature increase by 2100 is indeed an average. What is the source for the maximums (and minimums) being much greater ?? Are you saying that the standard deviation will be much larger ?? The WWF link is based on a paper written in 2006 which states that all these will happen due to the warming which has occurred over the last 30 years. But indeed there has been no global warming since 1998 (which granted was an El Nino year followed by 2 relatively cool years as is the pattern). How have those predictions worked out ?? You're confusing weather patterns with climate change. Increased levels of CO2 in the air stimulates plant growth. Warming temperatures results in fewer human deaths due to cold and increased crop yields.
Not saying that. What I am saying is that 1.5 degrees is not going to translate into every day is 1.5 degrees hotter. How it may translate is into more "Heat Wave" type events with many "normal" temperature days. Nope the paper does not say that You ARE joking aren't you? Weather patterns ARE what climate change is about - changing weather patterns Oh! and read some research - some plants do better with a higher CO2 - some don't. And more people die during heat waves than cold spells
The global average temperature would be 1.5 deg C higher than today in 2100. That's an increase of 0.15 deg C every decade (10 years). What is your source that predicts more heat waves in 2100 ?? Yes, the WWF piece that you linked to specifically indicates James Hansen's 30 years of warming. No, weather variability is not global warming. Global warming might result in changes in local weather patterns in the future (tens of years from now) but current weather pattern variability can not be attributed to global warming. See "The Rightful Place of Science - Disasters and Climate Change What plants show lower growth rates with increased CO2 exposure ?? And more people die due to cold than heat.
And when someone puts forth a plan saying only the OECD 90 countries should curb emissions, then that scenario will mean something. But since that's not anybody's plan, CATO is just tossing up a strawman.
