...hopefully, JB will include it in his address this evening...btw, Dr. Spencer's global temperature data, and NOAA's CO2 readings are unquestioned. This is why over 190 countries have policies to get off Fossil Fuels for heat and power...thankfully, the House recently passed a bill supporting next generation nuclear plants by a 365 to 36 margin.
Link: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
(no message)
of Broadway, on top of the pavement and looking up at all the lights, and ask yourself why that might be so. Get back to us.
is the kicker that makes it all so critical...per the attached link from MIT, it takes a VERY LONG time for the Fossil Fuel generated CO2 to leave the atmosphere...meaning that Global Warming...and all of its effects on current human habitation...will continue for quite some time...our task is the keep the level as low as possible.
It's hard to find a physicist who disagrees with the greenhouse process, the only real debate is on timing and severity...given the 'finiteness' of Fossil Fuels along with the global warming, it seems prudent to take action to get off FFs...ASAP....which admittedly is difficult for many reasons, but hardly an excuse to do nothing...or even deny its existence.
Link: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere#:~:text=“The%20first%2010%25%20goes%20quickly,thousands%20of%20years%20to%20leave.HY
And since virtually ever climate disaster prediction has been wrong the past five decades, I'm going with the minority on this one.
wrt magnitude and timing...as for Dr. Lindzen, here's an excerpt from his Wiki page section on Climate Sensitivity...
--------------------
Contrary to the IPCC's assessment in 2001, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[56]
------------------
I've also included a paper by Dr. Curry just below...you'll notice that her arguments have to do with 'Climate Sensitivity" and not Global Warming itself. So, given that virtually all Climate Scientists are in agreement with the data of increasing temperatures and some degree of human cause, and given that we've never seen such a process before...and that the vast majority of scientists believe the risk is large and imminent...the Prudent choice is to shift away from Fossil Fuels, given that alternative sources of energy for Heat and Power exist...e.g. Renewables and Nuclear Power...seem logical to you?
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Have you even looked at his website? Quoted from his site:
"“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution."
Link: https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
be influenced by them...but no longer. The increased NOAA CO2 readings (now at 421 ppm, and rising steadily), along with his temperature data...plus the American Physical Society's unequivocal statement on Climate Change/Global Warming (see link) has changed my mind. There's no rational reason for you not to change yours.
Link: https://www.aps.org/newsroom/pressreleases/climate.cfm
(no message)
of Climate Change is surprisingly lacking, given the analysis by the American Physical Society, which you should read.
Have you got a source as credible as the APS that refutes their judgement?...btw, that's another rhetorical question.
(no message)
a) He acknowledges Global Warming due to human causes (e.g. burning of Fossil Fuels)...
b) His only complaint is the Rate of warming...says his readings show an average increase of 0.13 deg C per decade...but this month's data shows a total increase of 0.86 deg C over 4.5 decades ==> 0.19...and, for the last two decades an average increase of 0.275 deg C...which is what caught my eye and caused me to post his data.
c) At no time since 1979 is there a trend downward...nor btw is there a trend downward in CO2 injection into the atmosphere...which will not come out of it for hundreds of years...so the rapid rise in CO2 is virtually all additive.
As evidence by, well, you know...