Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

Happening more quickly, by definition of acceleration over at Webster, with some peaks and valleys, like gag me with a spoon uniformly increasing as with "uniform acceleration," but hey it's a word that can be used outside of physics class. Looks like Heat vs time: http://wmueller.com/precalculus/families/1_10.html
If it wasn't "happening more quickly" there would be no need to worry, we'd bees all natural.

If we are still learning something, we don't know something. Still, results happen, models work, without knowing every freaking thing.

 

Silly, "uniform acceleration" doesn't have peaks and valleys, it's increasing at a constant rate. Climate can't do that because of Krakatoa...

 

You clearly don't understand the difference between velocity and acceleration.

The models are not working. They consistently predict double the rate of warming than is happening. It is ridiculous to formulate public policy based on climate models.

 

Doubling our taxes will not change the climate.

 

But doubling our taxes will regressively harm the low income quintiles.

 

“In physics, acceleration is the of change of velocity of an object with respect to time.”

The word acceleration can be used to describe economic growth too. The graph of constant acceleration of a car is like the graph of the climate change, in the yellow (see below) but I goofed up in explaining. Like nobody is perfect. I did get an "A" in all three college physics classes I took, but that was like decades ago.

“the act or process of moving faster or happening more quickly : the act or process of accelerating”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acceleration

Simply like Socialist Democrats, if elected, will accelerate the demise of America, so vote Trump and Make America Great Again.

Going back, you said:

“The trend line shows steady warming with no acceleration.” (AFM)

Acceleration depends upon which graph we look at, and how far back we go, he was displaying a recent graph, similar to yellow (see graph at the following link):

"Linear trend fits to the last 25 (yellow), 50 (orange), 100 (purple) and 150 years (red) are shown, and correspond to 1981 to 2005, 1956 to 2005, 1906 to 2005, and 1856 to 2005, respectively. Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming." https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=3&t=123&&a=491

The linear line (red) going back farther shows steady warming, just like each line taken separately shows steady, but those closer to man’s pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere, the graph you were looking at in post 1404 is closer to those linear lines of the models, shows acceleration in comparison to the red line.

At some point we want the lines on the parabola to go over and be running horizontal or at least man not be the cause of the continued increase in warming. All of this still does not prevent something like Krakatoa cooling a hemisphere and making a single short linear line look good for an end to Global Warming.

Post 1404:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...jections-right.566751/page-57#post-1071419315

 

Elect the Socialist Bernie, and a Congress that loves him, and that will change one climate, when I barf on you.

 

We don't have to raise taxes for the climate to be improved; personal responsibility, ever heard of that? To get to personal responsibility you have to believe in it.

 

How many degrees C will the rate of warming be reduced by personal responsibility of the Chinese government ??

 

None. Just my opinion. I'm figuring if everyone who can reduces their impact, then that is better than nothing.

Global Warming is a market, even if a hoax, it will take manufacturing, it screams for cleaner energy and less dependence on others, leaving that market to China will accelerate our demise.

 

That’s your personal decision. I adamantly disagree with government subsidies being used for so-called “green energy”. The fact that subsidies are necessary means that it’s the wrong technology.

All China is interested in with regard to green energy is selling to the west to both weaken their economies and make some money. That’s the Chinese hoax.

 

I'm not Chinese, so it's not my hoax here.

Subsidies don't mean something is the wrong technology. Just because technology can improve, and usually does, does not mean the Zero motorcycle is wrong for city riding; an adventure version, a little before it's time, primarily because of charge time and lack of stations at adventure sites for sure. Subsidies for "greener" products usually means a subsidy of richer people, buy new SUV...first get back later, because most of the subsidies involve some kind of tax break...

 

Technologies that cannot compete economically without being subsidized are the wrong technologies. And as usual the effect of those subsidies is to increase energy prices which is regressive harming the low and middle income quadrants the most.

 

The list of technologies subsidized by some sort of investor, government or private body of people, to even get invented is vast.

It's been a while since I watched this show:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)
If you can find those somewhere it's worth watching.

Rural electrification would not exist at all without subsidies of some sort. The railroad probably would never have made it without blacks...on government payroll killing "Indians." The words "Guam," "Cuba," and "Railroad" being in a cartoon of a guy in a Top Hat having a slave shoved down his throat before the Civil War, was the precursor of subsidies to make America Greater. Most roads never would have been laid or improved without subsidies from the Roman Empire...

 

What does any of this have to do with the moronic idea that subsidizing solar panels on house roof tops are a good idea ???

 

Subsidizing Solar Panels on house roof tops now means that Solar Panel technology can get better in the future. We are already nearing the breakpoint where solar technology is cheaper (it is already cleaner) than fossil fuel energy production.

 

No it doesn't. Taking the subsidy money and investing in different types of economically competitive energy sources does it.

We are no where near any cost effective solar energy which is available 24/7/365.

 

Battery technology must be combined with solar energy technology to make it available 24/7/365 and yes, we are close to the breakpoint where both combined will be cheaper than fossil fuel energy production.

 

No where close.

 

Research, the only way we get new stuff and improved tech is research, and unless someone buys something the company doesn't have the money to research. Other governments (socialist/commie governments) subsidize research, and if we don't they win.

It's probably better for many scientists working in many companies to have the money to research, because of tax breaks, than for a bureaucracy to hand out money (acquired by taxes) to a few with some bureaucrat deciding who gets what.

Certainly, if the solar panels or cars...are NOT domestically manufactured, they shouldn't get a fracking penny of subsidy or tax break. That's the moron part, us subsidizing foreign research.

Tax breaks are not socialism, but if you want it, do nothing and eventually they will AOC mandate green houses, buildings, cars, and everything, and redistribute until you are puke green and just as poor as Bernie's commie little twits who want their college loans paid off.

 

They predicted warming, great. I think I acknowledged that. If you eat McDonald's every day, I predict you'll get fat. That's useless. The implications of getting fat are what matter.