US scientists: Global warming pause 'no longer valid'

I do not think you realize that efficient does not mean productive when it comes to agriculture. Efficiency is why aquifers are being drained and the waters are being filled with fertilizers and other chemicals. The soil works the same way to trap CO2 as the poles do. In addition to being just as sensitive to heat and getting stuck in the feedback loop, tilling the soil itself releases vast amounts of CO2.

 

From the Minoan Warm Period 3500 years ago to the end of the little Ice Age about 1065 years ago, CO2 steadily rose as the temperature continued to fall for a span of 2435 years. I'm sure you can explain that with citations. As you can see the modern Warm Period" is rivaling the Medieval Warm period, but doesn't even come close to previous warm periods with substantially lower CO2.

 

And yet you are still the world's second/third worst polluter.

 

Like any emerging technology the majority of its initial expense is in research and development. Once the economies of scale come into play it becomes significantly cheaper. Remember how much the first CD players cost? The first Sony player in 1982, the CDP-101, was $750. How much does the equivalent (significantly better technologically) cost today?

 

Propaganda.

If it were true there would be a measurable decline in the exchange of commodities relative to the coal industry but instead there is growth.

China would not think twice about dumping such a large sum of money into whatever green energy project was trending at the time.

They don't care about energy impact, they care about ENERGY.

These people think generations upon generations into the future and they have the will and the money to set the pace of green tech for times to come.

Please don't be fooled into thinking they've fallen victim to the same environmental thuggery that victimizes the American and European economies.

China is very much aware of the AGW scam and has decided that rather than be blatantly resistant to it they will play a strategic and self beneficial role in the game.

China runs its country with business and innovation, American runs its country with feelings and ignorance.

I'd happily take root in the Chinese side of the world but, alas, as an outsider I'd never truly be accepted ...yet another reason for their greatness.

 

Any solid links available to support your guesses? I don't mean WND or any of those other goofy sites.

As for "wattssupwiththat" web site, it's run by a denier named Willard Anthony Watts and spends most of its time peddling twisted trips for those on the right.

 

In which case, the human race clearly is moving towards a non-polluted world(generally, a good thing no?) I'd love to achieve Japan's 3,000(That would be a 17 K reduction on our part). Part of it is geographics though, Japan's an island nation, we're a country of 50 States(if you exclude the US territories).

Another part of it, is admittedly(and this is a huge part of the problem here in the US) is our aging grid here in the US. I don't know of many homes outside of Native American that aren't powered electronically. Getting the nation off the Grid, in a very fluid, safe manner is going to be a very difficult challenge. Almost as difficult as getting to the Moon(remember, at the time space travel wasn't verified)

Should we have started the process sooner? Yeah. In peace-time rather than war time? Of course. Are US Politicians far too corporate to do this? Yeah.
Part of it, is I personally don't want to move back to the stone-age for climate change, or to have my living expenses more expensive in the name of the planet.

So if Green Technologies want to take the lead, they need to develop from "providing alternatives" to being a major, verifiable power player that's easy to plug into.

 

Can some "scientist" here please provide me with details of the model that predicts climate behavior with any reasonable degree of accuracy?

 

Most climate models have been pretty accurate. Here is a chart of AR4 model predictions vs the observations.


The red line is the observations. The black is the AR4 model average prediction. It's pretty spot on so far.

- - - Updated - - -

CO2 is not the only factor that can cause climate change.

 

????? Not yet they havent. Read your own source.

 

AR4? Why use an older model when there's a more current one that does an even better job of not predicting the climate?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/...ing-prediction-is-lower-than-ar4-tar-and-far/

 

Yeah. They've predicted it's gonna get warmer and then stuff would happen. It did and it has. 'k?

 

You are uninformed or dishonest.

 

You see that is the mentality from the right-wing. It's as if they are saying, if everyone else isn't going to do it, why should we care about it. That's great! And this is the crowd that wants to be in charge? What a disaster that would be. And not just for the country either.

 

I predict you'll post again with a series of letters arranged in a way intended to be cogent but in reality only conveys ambiguity.

The computer models, and our logical models in general, are limited by the poor resolution of our data, our poor understanding of turbulence, our limited capacity to mathematically describe these complex interactions, and our arrogant assumption that our guess are...how does your quote put it...

"..true whether or not [skeptics] believe in [them]"

That's why the climate models are currently so terrible at predicting the climate. It's like trying to build a model of the universe using Lego blocks the size of the Milky Way Galaxy. The black hole Legos are super hard to take out of the box, and while the guys in dev are working on the dark matter Legos, we are still about 50 years away from being able to snap them together with the regular matter Legos. Despite these drawbacks, I'm certain our current crop of scientists could find some way to conclude that the Lego models show that capitalism will cause the universe to collapse in 5 years.

So please, let's all make sure that people in developing nations remain in poverty so that we can be sure that our Lego universe predictions don't actually come to pass.

 

They haven't done it yet and the US HAS ACTUALLY reduced carbon emissions more than any other nation.

 

But then, we've had a lot further to go in reducing our emissions than any other nation.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you notice that all of those models have a positive slope? All of them.

 

Who are you going to believe, the data, or our super awesome billion dollar taxpayer funded model?

 

Actually, China has agreed to reduce emissions, partly out of international pressure to do so, and largely because their own people are now demanding it. No, it isn't nearly enough, but it is a start.

 

We are coming out of an ice age. Of course its getting warmer.

 

Actually, they haven't agreed to do any such thing. They have only promised to continue to increase CO2 emissions.

 

Doesn't change the fact that China HAS NOT reduced emissions and HAS NOT agreed to reduce emissions.

 

I've just struck upon a brilliant idea.

Premise: Science is true whether we believe it or not.

Science apparently tells us the consensus is that the Earth is warming due to a positive CO2 feedback.

Since the consensus is so large..

Could we offset the positive feedback by simply radiating consenting scientists?

Thus both diminishing consensus, and delta enthalpy completely eliminates our problem.

It's science!

 

Sure I do, I remember the costs all the way back to the first TV's. But what sort of green energy is going to replace coal, oil and nuclear for power plants? Batteries have been tried for cars, with very limited success. But how far one can go miles wise on batteries is very limited. Then there is the hybrids which is more successful, battery in the cities, gas on the highway etc. But one almost has to be a millionaire to afford a car like that and the size of the car is really small.

But back to power plant energy, solar works for a house or two. But one has to have a back up generator or tied into the the electrical grid for rainy and cloudy days. Wind farms take up huge amount of space and kills birds while producing not much electricity. Then the cost factor is usually lots more expensive.

What ever type is developed it has to be cheap and portable or most of us are not going to buy it. I do not have the slightest idea of what is on the horizon as cheap renewable energy. I haven't paid much attention to it.

 

I for one, welcome warmer temperatures.