In the first IPCC report, nuclear was considered the answer to AGW. Now it is considered something that should be minimized.
I don't see that. Nuclear is still seen as essential:
“No single mitigation option in the energy supply sector will be sufficient,” the report warns. “Achieving deep cuts [in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions] will require more intensive use of low-GHG technologies such as renewable energy, nuclear energy, and CCS.”
From TFA: "Most important, the report’s scenarios show how nuclear power boosts de-carbonization efforts. To stabilize the climate at an average global surface temperature no higher than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level, scenarios without nuclear expansion would require global energy supply to be radically curtailed below currently projected demand. With an expansion of nuclear power, however, the climate could be stabilized with far more modest efficiencies."
Similarly, Forbes relies on the HeartlandInstitute's James Taylor (also not a scientist) to report on climate change. How bad is the Forbes reporting? Well, in an August 2012 interview, I correctly stated that in a warming world, hurricane intensity can increase and these increases are being observed. Also, rainfall, storm surge, and storm size can be affected.
In response, Mr. Taylor attacked me and discussed the frequency of landfalling U.S. hurricanes, as if the two were the same. Obviously, he either misunderstood my comments or does not have the knowledge to interpret them. When I asked for the right to rebut Mr. Taylor, what did I hear? Crickets. Did Forbes feel even a bit embarrassed when just over a month later, Superstorm Sandy hit the U.S. coast, causing approximately $65 billion in damage? Do they feel embarrassed now that the newly released IPCC report supports me, not their non-scientist Mr. Taylor? Perhaps we will never know. - http://www.theguardian.com/env...
You are suggesting that female-run companies are more successful because the vagina bestows some management power that penis equipped CEOs lack? You could be right, but I would think that companies that promote based on merit would be more successful. Likely companies with woman as CEO are not promoting based on genitalia but rather based on merit.
Unlikely. But possibly. Companies that promotes based on merit rather than genitalia are probably more likely to succeed. Companies that include "has a penis" as a criteria for CEO are probably focusing on the wrong attributes.
Note that a lot of that money is involved in "clean" energy projects which have dual or triple use: reducing pollution, improving arable land, water management, emergency planning for coastal areas, and switching from unsustainable fuel resources to sustainable, less greenhouse gas producing fuels.
It also covered development and launching of satellites which also have dual/triple use.
How do you know? Do you understand what statistical significance means. You use those words a lot but you don't seem to understand them... In fact, Tamino shows that there is no evidence that the 1970-2000 trend hasn't continued apace.
I spoke of GISS showing the greatest warming in the context of the last 15 years
But the GISS warming is not significantly different from HADCRU for ANY period. Cowtan+Way2014 shows that GISS has a cooling bias.
Yes, and Tamino's method also shows cooling since 1950
No. It clearly hasn't cooled since 1950. You are still confused about what Tamino did. He didn't compare the 1970-2000 trend with 1970-2015. I thought you'd wrapped your head around this five posts back. Yet this is exactly what you are doing in your graph! It makes everything you said afterwards wrong. Try again.
You didn't answer my question. But one crazy at a time. Tamino's method shows that there is no evidence of a deviation from the 1970-2000 trend. Do you get that yet? Do you see now that it is simplistic and wrong to say that there has been no warming since 2000? In fact it is very unlikely that this is true.
I tuned into "Rush" today for some entertainment. According to El Rushmo, the NWS is full of liberals who love crisis... As for the crisis part, I could only think of Fox News with its constant "ALERT" banners.
Sounds like 'they' may have infiltrated Fox news too... I had thought them the last bastions of truth... unless Fox is just a witless patsy?
GISS has been shown to have a cooling bias by Cowtan+Way 2014. BEST shows the same. GISS is hardly an outlier. It's middle of the road.
Either way - even with RSS Tamino's method shows that there is no evidence that the 1970-2000 trend has slowed. So no- wrongo bongo.
As for sea ice, it's about average.
Ha! You can't see the forest if there's a tree that confirms your preconception. Your willing to dismiss this because we have reached 'average' during northern hemisphere winter? This is especially comical since 'average' on your chart is getting lower with each passing year. That is about the level of skepticism I've come to expect from deniers.
Ok. So what is the actual underlying trend since 2000? Based on the 2 sigma confidence intervals we clearly cannot reject cooling of 0.05 C/decade or warming of 0.216 C/decade, although these are on the very outside of the probability distribution and are therefor unlikely.
Based on Tamino's analysis, continuation of the trend from 1970-2000 cannot be rejected.
Based on physics? The properties of CO2 have not changed with the new millennium, so all else being equal we should expect a continuation of the long term trend.... but of course all else is not equal.
On the other hand polar ice extent has decreased overall (summer ice extent more so) so reflectivity (albedo) is diminished. That will have increased the trend: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/n...
Aerosols are the biggest wildcard as they are difficult to measure and their impact is difficult to gauge.
Bottom line, it is simplistic and wrong to say that there has been no warming since 2000. In fact, it is very unlikely that this is true.
My favourite part of the post is "exceeding the threshold of honest mistake" - implying that there was some dishonest conspiracy between the various weather agencies to over-predict. For what nefarious reason, we can only speculate... and who is the mastermind behind this? Maybe George Soros is trying to drive down the price of auto dealerships so that he can get them at a steal, but we can't know for sure. Al we know for sure is:
1) Rig all weather forecasts so that cities shut down the roads.
Maybe not anymore. The current government bet our future on the Alberta oil fields. As a result the Canadian dollar is tumbling along with the price of oil. Income is in CDN$ so it falls as well.
Slashdot Mirror
In the first IPCC report, nuclear was considered the answer to AGW. Now it is considered something that should be minimized.
I don't see that. Nuclear is still seen as essential:
“No single mitigation option in the energy supply sector will be sufficient,” the report warns. “Achieving deep cuts [in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions] will require more intensive use of low-GHG technologies such as renewable energy, nuclear energy, and CCS.”
From TFA: "Most important, the report’s scenarios show how nuclear power boosts de-carbonization efforts. To stabilize the climate at an average global surface temperature no higher than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level, scenarios without nuclear expansion would require global energy supply to be radically curtailed below currently projected demand. With an expansion of nuclear power, however, the climate could be stabilized with far more modest efficiencies."
(define (showNumbers x output)
(if (zero? x)
ouput
(showNumbers (sub1 x) (concatenate x output ))))
Tail recursion should be used if stack is a concern.
There's no way this is not some kind of false flag comment.
Similarly, Forbes relies on the Heartland Institute's James Taylor (also not a scientist) to report on climate change. How bad is the Forbes reporting? Well, in an August 2012 interview, I correctly stated that in a warming world, hurricane intensity can increase and these increases are being observed. Also, rainfall, storm surge, and storm size can be affected.
In response, Mr. Taylor attacked me and discussed the frequency of landfalling U.S. hurricanes, as if the two were the same. Obviously, he either misunderstood my comments or does not have the knowledge to interpret them. When I asked for the right to rebut Mr. Taylor, what did I hear? Crickets. Did Forbes feel even a bit embarrassed when just over a month later, Superstorm Sandy hit the U.S. coast, causing approximately $65 billion in damage? Do they feel embarrassed now that the newly released IPCC report supports me, not their non-scientist Mr. Taylor? Perhaps we will never know. - http://www.theguardian.com/env...
I'm not sure why so many here are threatened by it.
Because women are trespassing on roles that ought to be a male preserve, such as leadership roles,
Soooooo... Sexism?
Ironic :) The finding is interesting though. I'm not sure why so many here are threatened by it.
You are suggesting that female-run companies are more successful because the vagina bestows some management power that penis equipped CEOs lack? You could be right, but I would think that companies that promote based on merit would be more successful. Likely companies with woman as CEO are not promoting based on genitalia but rather based on merit.
Unlikely. But possibly. Companies that promotes based on merit rather than genitalia are probably more likely to succeed. Companies that include "has a penis" as a criteria for CEO are probably focusing on the wrong attributes.
Possibly because they are a meritocracy rather than a patriarchy.
Note that a lot of that money is involved in "clean" energy projects which have dual or triple use: reducing pollution, improving arable land, water management, emergency planning for coastal areas, and switching from unsustainable fuel resources to sustainable, less greenhouse gas producing fuels.
It also covered development and launching of satellites which also have dual/triple use.
The GISS rate of recorded warming since 2000 is almost double that of HadCRUT4
Wrong. They are not significantly different. This failure to understand statistical significance makes everything you said after incorrect.
The recent trend is nearly half the 1970 trend
How do you know? Do you understand what statistical significance means. You use those words a lot but you don't seem to understand them... In fact, Tamino shows that there is no evidence that the 1970-2000 trend hasn't continued apace.
I spoke of GISS showing the greatest warming in the context of the last 15 years
But the GISS warming is not significantly different from HADCRU for ANY period. Cowtan+Way2014 shows that GISS has a cooling bias.
We can check this by comparing the ACTUAL trend from 1970-2015
wrong. Try again.
From 1970 (the period we are talking about here):
HADCRU4 = 0.162C/decade
GISTEMP = 0.162C/decade
Which is the outlier? You say GISTEMP, but it looks like you're just makin' stuff up again.
how much hotter is BEST compared to GISS?
Since 1970:
HADCRU4 = 0.162C/decade
GISTEMP = 0.162C/decade
Which is the outlier? You say GISTEMP, but it looks like you're just makin' stuff up again.
GISS land only = 0.210506/decade
BEST land only = 0.263925/decade
And yes - Cowtan+Way has shown that GISS has a cooling bias.
Yes, and Tamino's method also shows cooling since 1950
No. It clearly hasn't cooled since 1950. You are still confused about what Tamino did. He didn't compare the 1970-2000 trend with 1970-2015. I thought you'd wrapped your head around this five posts back. Yet this is exactly what you are doing in your graph! It makes everything you said afterwards wrong. Try again.
What data-set shows more warming that GISS?
BEST land only shows more than GISS land only.
the hottest data-set..
Wrong. See above.
Skeptics did not create these graphs,
You didn't answer my question. But one crazy at a time. Tamino's method shows that there is no evidence of a deviation from the 1970-2000 trend. Do you get that yet? Do you see now that it is simplistic and wrong to say that there has been no warming since 2000? In fact it is very unlikely that this is true.
I tuned into "Rush" today for some entertainment. According to El Rushmo, the NWS is full of liberals who love crisis... As for the crisis part, I could only think of Fox News with its constant "ALERT" banners.
Sounds like 'they' may have infiltrated Fox news too... I had thought them the last bastions of truth... unless Fox is just a witless patsy?
GISS has been shown to have a cooling bias by Cowtan+Way 2014. BEST shows the same. GISS is hardly an outlier. It's middle of the road.
Either way - even with RSS Tamino's method shows that there is no evidence that the 1970-2000 trend has slowed. So no- wrongo bongo.
As for sea ice, it's about average.
Ha! You can't see the forest if there's a tree that confirms your preconception. Your willing to dismiss this because we have reached 'average' during northern hemisphere winter? This is especially comical since 'average' on your chart is getting lower with each passing year. That is about the level of skepticism I've come to expect from deniers.
Ah HA! But would Sheldon Silver have had the means to pull this off? The governments of multiple countries have been shown to be accomplices to this conspiracy. He is likely just a pawn of the Illuminati who are really the ones pulling the strings.
Based on Tamino's analysis, continuation of the trend from 1970-2000 cannot be rejected.
Based on physics? The properties of CO2 have not changed with the new millennium, so all else being equal we should expect a continuation of the long term trend.... but of course all else is not equal.
Certainly the solar output has taken a nose dive. That will have reduced the trend: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/p...
On the other hand polar ice extent has decreased overall (summer ice extent more so) so reflectivity (albedo) is diminished. That will have increased the trend: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/n...
Aerosols are the biggest wildcard as they are difficult to measure and their impact is difficult to gauge.
Bottom line, it is simplistic and wrong to say that there has been no warming since 2000. In fact, it is very unlikely that this is true.
Not just conspiracy between agencies, but countries. Environment Canada [weather.gc.ca] is predicting the same storm hitting the east coast.
Uh oh! This is bigger than we thought! NWO? Illuminati? Who else would have the power to pull this off?
Middle class incomes are higher in Canada.
Maybe not anymore. The current government bet our future on the Alberta oil fields. As a result the Canadian dollar is tumbling along with the price of oil. Income is in CDN$ so it falls as well.