The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability.
The simplest explanation? You mean the simplest explanation for the lack of warming that you deny? Let me explain: if there is no statistically significant trend, that means the trend, for all practical purposes, is considered zero. Ie: a plateau. Ie: a pause. Ie: no warming or cooling. It means the changes were too small to be considered significant. It means the changes in temperature were statistically indistinguishable from zero. It means the claim that no warming has occurred for 17 years is accurate.
Oh the irony of a CAGW supporter calling me out on an "appeal to authority". Good lord the world has turned upside down. Are the self-proclaimed "pro-science" crowd only "pro-science" when it suits them? Here you willfully ignore the data and thumb your nose at one of the most prestigious journals in the world. It would be refreshing if people would take the time to think about what the other person is saying rather than being so sure they are right all the time. But hey, this is the internet.
I would take your question about the linear trend to a statistician. I'm sure there are math forums around somewhere. (I could direct you to skeptic statisticians, but I have a feeling that would not be suitable.) I personally think it's an artifact from the OLS method, possibly combined with other minor factors. It is an interesting question by the way, and I'm no expert in statistics. But I do know that linear trend methods can be misleading with non-linear data, and I know that you can't disprove a short term trend-line with a long term trend-line, especially using the same data. Like I said, you can only really argue that the short term trend is not meaningful in light of the long term trend. Obviously I don't think that's the case here.
Reading comprehension is important.
a) I never said there wasn't a methodology, just that they hadn't released it at the time. You seem to be deluding yourself into believing that the code was always publicly available.
b) I was not angry, but I disagreed with their decision to keep the information private. Good for them for changing their tune. You apparently see nothing wrong with keeping scientific data hidden away from prying eyes.
c) Interesting that you still deny the recent lack of warming. The HADCRUT4 warming trend since 1997 is a statistically insignificant 5 one-hundredths of a degree per decade. I find it interesting how people react when confronted with plain facts that challenge their views. Maybe you should contact the Journal Nature and explain to them how they made a big, amateur blunder when they said there was a 16 year "hiatus" in global warming.
17 years is too short? You were fine utilizing the trend between 1979-1997 when the results showed a warming trend. The 1946-1980 trend is also statistically insignificant. By your logic that means the "trend estimation is poor" and that therefore the "period is too short to estimate a statistically significant trend." Maybe you are having difficulty expressing yourself, but it appears as though your thinking is not being applied consistently. And I don't think you know what "statistically insignificant" means.
Just to be a bit pedantic, and to help explain what you are seeing, the warming didn't literally "stop" in 1997. 1998 is the third hottest year on record. But the temperature trend from 1997 evens out because of the slight cooling later on, showing no significant net warming.
The OLS method is useful in this case to show (you guessed it) a linear trend, but can be misleading when applied to non-linear data, ie: curves. I've adjusted the dates so the curve is easier for you to spot. Your posts above serve as a good example, showing why long term trends can't disprove claims of short term trends. At best you can try to argue that the long term trend shows that the 17 year pause is not that meaningful. But in this case the pause is almost as long as the recent warming period itself, and climate scientists themselves have said that a 17 year pause is meanigful (although some are now trying to change the goalposts.)
Anyways, if you still have doubts, take it up with Nature. If you are correct, they have made a big, amateur blunder. You should let them know.
Funny. No, I created a new account to match my blog name. I'm not using the old account anymore, although I should have continued using it here for continuities sake I suppose.
The HADCRUT4 temperature trend from 1997 to 2014 is about 5 one-hundredths of a degree per decade. That figure is not statistically significant. My statement is accurate: according to the HADCRUT4 dataset, there has been no statistically significant warming in over 17 years. If I start one year later in 1998, the trend is less, at about 4 one-hundredths of a degree per decade. If measured from 2001, there's a cooling trend at (-0.01) deg/decade. Measuring from the last ten years also shows a slight cooling trend at (-0.02) deg/decade. You are spouting nonsense.
Maybe you should take your insightful analysis to the Journal Nature, and explain to them how there is no global warming "hiatus", and explain to them how they got it wrong. I'm sure they'd learn something from your technique: you measure the trend from 1997-2014 using data that starts at 1976. Insightful indeed.
Well, the earth has been warming since the little ice age. With respect to recent warming, the warming has plateaued for the last 17 years. If the warming stops at a high, you are still going to get variations from year to year. Some years will be slightly hotter and some years will be slightly cooler, but on the whole it averages out. And we're talking about differences of a few hundredths of a degree here, well within the margin of error. "2010: Hottest Year in History!" (...beating 2005 by one one-hundredth of a degree.) I guess it makes an exciting news story, but it's essentially meaningless.
Glad you find it interesting, rather than trying to shout me down which is the usual response!;)
The various datasets show no statistically significant warming for around 17 years. This estimate will vary, depending on the particular dataset you use and how you choose the start-date. The satellite record shows no significant warming for about 20 years for example. Global warming has indeed "paused", and nobody in the scientific community disputes that, nor do they understand why. All of the IPCC models predicted warming. That has not been happening. The Journal Nature writes: "Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation."
Scientists are trying to "piece together" an explanation? That doesn't sound like settled science to me. One obvious explanation is that the climate sensitivity estimates were way off. The latest estimates are much lower. That would mean no dangerous levels of global warming, which should be good news. You would think that environmentalists would overjoyed at the possibility that global warming may have been significantly over-estimated. But they are not. They don't even seem to be aware of the "pause" at all. It's almost like they want catastrophic global warming to be a reality.
What's your point? The warming trend hasn't stopped since the earth began heating after the little ice age. Nobody disputes the long term warming trend. There are periods when the temperature is actively increasing, and there are plateaus. My point was to compare two periods when temperatures were actively increasing to show that the recent warming period was not unusual. I am glad you agree. The active warming period ended around 1997. Temperatures have since plateaued. There has been no global warming for the last 17 years.
I've grown 6 feet over 40 years. I'm arguing that I stopped growing decades ago, and that my previous growth rate, when I was actively growing, was not abnormal. You are arguing that the trend shows a growth rate of 1.5ft/decade. When my height starts to diminish as I get older, you will still be claiming a long term growth trend.
The antarctic ice levels recently set a record high. There is more antarctic sea ice that ever before. It is unfortunate how much misinformation is being spread by the media, whose only function it appears is to press peoples panic button. It is also unfortunate that the many people who see themselves as "pro-science" rely solely on pop-science, do little research of their own, and refuse to listen to anybody who's opinion does not confirm their bias.
Actually, many people on the right will happily support innovative nuclear programs. You don't have to believe in dangerous global warming to see the benefits. Fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive.
But lets assume that the entire right suddenly "saw the light" and became CAGW devotees. If nuclear is off the table, it makes no difference. Nuclear is the only viable solution. And even if CAGW is not a real threat, nuclear is still the only viable option.
Don't forgot an important part of the science: climate sensitivity.
4.8) The earth's climate is hyper-sensitive to heat from CO2.
4.9) The climate amplifies the CO2 heating by 3-4 times.
"Climate sensitivity" is the whole basis for the belief in dangerous global warming.
And there is nothing solid about it. The latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower.
Lower climate sensitivity would explain why
it hasn't warmed in the last 17 years.
You forgot an important part of the science: climate sensitivity.
4) CO2 absorbs energy from IR
5) CO2 radiates that energy, causing some heating.
6) The earth's climate is hyper-sensitive to heat from CO2.
6) The climate amplifies the CO2 heating by 3-4 times.
"Climate sensitivity" is the whole basis for the belief in dangerous global warming. And there is nothing solid about it. The latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower. Lower climate sensitivity would explain why it hasn't warmed in the last 17 years.
Simple. That's about the time the warming stopped. I was comparing two periods where temperatures were actually rising, not the plateaus. The point was to show that the recent warming period was not unusual, even in the last 100 years. The planet has been warming since the little ice age.
As I've said elsewhere, there has been no statistically significant surface warming for the last 17 years. The RSS data show no warming for around 18 years.
Answer to b): No I did not say that. I do find it interesting how you could fail to accurately reproduce what I actually wrote only a few posts up. It almost looks like you are deliberately misquoting me.
Maybe you should take it up with the Journal Nature? They talk about a sixteen year pause in global warming. Or the HADCRUT dataset? There is more than one dataset to look at. The RSS dataset shows no warming for almost 18 years. That's a tad more than a "few years". NASA's GISS data you reference shows no statistically significant warming for at least 16 years. The data is freely available if you want to download it and examine it for yourself.
Apparently admitting what I don't know is a fault in your book. Yes, I am not well read on the land ice mass issue. But thank you for providing more information. It weakens what some AGW proponents are saying, and helps balance my understanding. There appear to be conflicting reports. Someone should tell the guys at skeptical science to get their shit together.
Re: CMIP5, I suppose that's why it's called "An Initial" assessment of the models they were using? I double checked elsewhere before posting to satisfy myself that the CMIP5 models did in fact predict less sea ice, and were in fact wrong. The whole point was to dispute your statement: "Go right ahead and point me to where a decline in Antarctic ice was a forecast of AGW", which is plainly wrong if we were talking about Antarctic sea ice extent. I see now that you misinterpreted A.Michael's post.
Do you agree that Antarctic sea ice was falsely predicted to decline?
I'm pretty sure Archangel Michael was talking about sea ice. The antarctic ice sheet on land, as far as I know, has less total ice, not more. Correct me if I am wrong. I am not as well read in this department and don't have time at the moment to research it further. I have not read any papers that show how the +/- half degree of warming attributed to CO2 significantly increases the current glacial ice cap melt. (Assuming the +/- half degree figure is even accurate, since it is based on incorrect climate models.)
Your post on sea ice agrees with mine. The IPCC has "low confidence" in the ability to predict antarctic sea ice precisely because the CMIP5 predictions failed. The 2010 paper was evaluating the failed CMIP5 predictions. They suggest that "the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly." Pretty obvious after the fact.
Since the "dangerous global warming" scare is based largely on predictions that have failed, why is there still such widespread belief in it?
Global temperatures have been increasing since the 1800's. The temperature increase where CO2 was supposedly a driver practically mirrors the temperature increase earlier in the century, which CO2 had nothing to do with. The IPCC recently said that increased CO2 is very likely responsible for more that 50% of recent warming. According to NASA, the earth has warmed 0.8 degrees since 1820. Most estimates I have read suggest around 1 degree increase since the 1800's, two thirds of it in recent times.
That means AGW is supposedly responsible for around a half degree of warming. And this "half degree" estimate is based on climate models that have failed to predict the last 17 years of no global warming. Please explain to me how this supposed half degree increase in global temperatures has had such a profound effect upon antarctic glaciers. Show me the scientific papers detailing how a half degree of global temperature increase is responsible for all of this ice melting?
Just to be clear: are you saying that antarctic sea ice decline wasn't a forecast of AGW? How is it the supposedly "pro-science" AGW believers can have their facts so horribly mangled? You probably don't remember the 50 million climate refugees by 2010 either.
Oops.
As a left-leaning, somewhat green Canadian and former believer in CAGW, I used to think "our side" would come right out and admit it when we were wrong. How wrong I was.
You are misinformed. Here is an article from the journal Nature: "Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation." Scientists are trying to "piece together" an explanation as to why the climate model predictions have failed? This does not sound like settled science to me. Check the data-sets for yourself. It's a plain fact: global surface temperatures show no statistically significant global warming for the last 17 years.
Yeah, I hear you. While you are correct about fusion, considering the supposed stakes, why would they get their funding cut? And why don't GW believers seem to care? I'm curious about the off the shelf designs you mention. I'll poke around a bit. Haven't looked into fission possibilities much.
Global warming is not hard science. It's based on model predictions which have failed. It has not warmed in 17 years. While CO2 very likely has a heating effect, the models assumed an outrageous climate sensitivity of 3-4 degrees. They are saying that for every degree added by CO2, the earth warms an additional 3-4 degrees because it is hyper-sensitive to CO2. That's complete nonsense, it's unproven, and the latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower.
Here I am supporting a solution that you support as well, yet you personally attack me simply because my opinion is different from yours. Such rude behaviour will only diminish your credibility.
Thorium based LFTR tech looks interesting as well. It's not perfect, but it's much better than coal. Focus Fusion has the best chance for fusion success in the near term.
I'm a climate skeptic. This is an issue everybody should be able to agree on, regardless of CO2. Fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. If global warming activists took half the money and energy they spend on global warming "awareness" programs and spent it on innovative nuclear technologies, we'd all be better off, and it would make the global warming debate a moot issue.
Slashdot Mirror
The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability.
The simplest explanation? You mean the simplest explanation for the lack of warming that you deny? Let me explain: if there is no statistically significant trend, that means the trend, for all practical purposes, is considered zero. Ie: a plateau. Ie: a pause. Ie: no warming or cooling. It means the changes were too small to be considered significant. It means the changes in temperature were statistically indistinguishable from zero. It means the claim that no warming has occurred for 17 years is accurate.
Oh the irony of a CAGW supporter calling me out on an "appeal to authority". Good lord the world has turned upside down. Are the self-proclaimed "pro-science" crowd only "pro-science" when it suits them? Here you willfully ignore the data and thumb your nose at one of the most prestigious journals in the world. It would be refreshing if people would take the time to think about what the other person is saying rather than being so sure they are right all the time. But hey, this is the internet.
I would take your question about the linear trend to a statistician. I'm sure there are math forums around somewhere. (I could direct you to skeptic statisticians, but I have a feeling that would not be suitable.) I personally think it's an artifact from the OLS method, possibly combined with other minor factors. It is an interesting question by the way, and I'm no expert in statistics. But I do know that linear trend methods can be misleading with non-linear data, and I know that you can't disprove a short term trend-line with a long term trend-line, especially using the same data. Like I said, you can only really argue that the short term trend is not meaningful in light of the long term trend. Obviously I don't think that's the case here.
Reading comprehension is important.
a) I never said there wasn't a methodology, just that they hadn't released it at the time. You seem to be deluding yourself into believing that the code was always publicly available.
b) I was not angry, but I disagreed with their decision to keep the information private. Good for them for changing their tune. You apparently see nothing wrong with keeping scientific data hidden away from prying eyes.
c) Interesting that you still deny the recent lack of warming. The HADCRUT4 warming trend since 1997 is a statistically insignificant 5 one-hundredths of a degree per decade. I find it interesting how people react when confronted with plain facts that challenge their views. Maybe you should contact the Journal Nature and explain to them how they made a big, amateur blunder when they said there was a 16 year "hiatus" in global warming.
17 years is too short? You were fine utilizing the trend between 1979-1997 when the results showed a warming trend. The 1946-1980 trend is also statistically insignificant. By your logic that means the "trend estimation is poor" and that therefore the "period is too short to estimate a statistically significant trend." Maybe you are having difficulty expressing yourself, but it appears as though your thinking is not being applied consistently. And I don't think you know what "statistically insignificant" means.
Just to be a bit pedantic, and to help explain what you are seeing, the warming didn't literally "stop" in 1997. 1998 is the third hottest year on record. But the temperature trend from 1997 evens out because of the slight cooling later on, showing no significant net warming.
The OLS method is useful in this case to show (you guessed it) a linear trend, but can be misleading when applied to non-linear data, ie: curves. I've adjusted the dates so the curve is easier for you to spot. Your posts above serve as a good example, showing why long term trends can't disprove claims of short term trends. At best you can try to argue that the long term trend shows that the 17 year pause is not that meaningful. But in this case the pause is almost as long as the recent warming period itself, and climate scientists themselves have said that a 17 year pause is meanigful (although some are now trying to change the goalposts.)
Anyways, if you still have doubts, take it up with Nature. If you are correct, they have made a big, amateur blunder. You should let them know.
Funny. No, I created a new account to match my blog name. I'm not using the old account anymore, although I should have continued using it here for continuities sake I suppose.
The HADCRUT4 temperature trend from 1997 to 2014 is about 5 one-hundredths of a degree per decade. That figure is not statistically significant. My statement is accurate: according to the HADCRUT4 dataset, there has been no statistically significant warming in over 17 years. If I start one year later in 1998, the trend is less, at about 4 one-hundredths of a degree per decade. If measured from 2001, there's a cooling trend at (-0.01) deg/decade. Measuring from the last ten years also shows a slight cooling trend at (-0.02) deg/decade. You are spouting nonsense.
Maybe you should take your insightful analysis to the Journal Nature, and explain to them how there is no global warming "hiatus", and explain to them how they got it wrong. I'm sure they'd learn something from your technique: you measure the trend from 1997-2014 using data that starts at 1976. Insightful indeed.
Well, the earth has been warming since the little ice age. With respect to recent warming, the warming has plateaued for the last 17 years. If the warming stops at a high, you are still going to get variations from year to year. Some years will be slightly hotter and some years will be slightly cooler, but on the whole it averages out. And we're talking about differences of a few hundredths of a degree here, well within the margin of error. "2010: Hottest Year in History!" (...beating 2005 by one one-hundredth of a degree.) I guess it makes an exciting news story, but it's essentially meaningless.
;)
Glad you find it interesting, rather than trying to shout me down which is the usual response!
The various datasets show no statistically significant warming for around 17 years. This estimate will vary, depending on the particular dataset you use and how you choose the start-date. The satellite record shows no significant warming for about 20 years for example. Global warming has indeed "paused", and nobody in the scientific community disputes that, nor do they understand why. All of the IPCC models predicted warming. That has not been happening. The Journal Nature writes: "Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation."
Scientists are trying to "piece together" an explanation? That doesn't sound like settled science to me. One obvious explanation is that the climate sensitivity estimates were way off. The latest estimates are much lower. That would mean no dangerous levels of global warming, which should be good news. You would think that environmentalists would overjoyed at the possibility that global warming may have been significantly over-estimated. But they are not. They don't even seem to be aware of the "pause" at all. It's almost like they want catastrophic global warming to be a reality.
What's your point? The warming trend hasn't stopped since the earth began heating after the little ice age. Nobody disputes the long term warming trend. There are periods when the temperature is actively increasing, and there are plateaus. My point was to compare two periods when temperatures were actively increasing to show that the recent warming period was not unusual. I am glad you agree. The active warming period ended around 1997. Temperatures have since plateaued. There has been no global warming for the last 17 years.
I've grown 6 feet over 40 years. I'm arguing that I stopped growing decades ago, and that my previous growth rate, when I was actively growing, was not abnormal. You are arguing that the trend shows a growth rate of 1.5ft/decade. When my height starts to diminish as I get older, you will still be claiming a long term growth trend.
The antarctic ice levels recently set a record high. There is more antarctic sea ice that ever before. It is unfortunate how much misinformation is being spread by the media, whose only function it appears is to press peoples panic button. It is also unfortunate that the many people who see themselves as "pro-science" rely solely on pop-science, do little research of their own, and refuse to listen to anybody who's opinion does not confirm their bias.
Actually, many people on the right will happily support innovative nuclear programs. You don't have to believe in dangerous global warming to see the benefits. Fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive.
But lets assume that the entire right suddenly "saw the light" and became CAGW devotees. If nuclear is off the table, it makes no difference. Nuclear is the only viable solution. And even if CAGW is not a real threat, nuclear is still the only viable option.
Don't forgot an important part of the science: climate sensitivity.
4.8) The earth's climate is hyper-sensitive to heat from CO2.
4.9) The climate amplifies the CO2 heating by 3-4 times.
"Climate sensitivity" is the whole basis for the belief in dangerous global warming. And there is nothing solid about it. The latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower. Lower climate sensitivity would explain why it hasn't warmed in the last 17 years.
You forgot an important part of the science: climate sensitivity.
4) CO2 absorbs energy from IR
5) CO2 radiates that energy, causing some heating.
6) The earth's climate is hyper-sensitive to heat from CO2.
6) The climate amplifies the CO2 heating by 3-4 times.
"Climate sensitivity" is the whole basis for the belief in dangerous global warming. And there is nothing solid about it. The latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower. Lower climate sensitivity would explain why it hasn't warmed in the last 17 years.
Simple. That's about the time the warming stopped. I was comparing two periods where temperatures were actually rising, not the plateaus. The point was to show that the recent warming period was not unusual, even in the last 100 years. The planet has been warming since the little ice age.
As I've said elsewhere, there has been no statistically significant surface warming for the last 17 years. The RSS data show no warming for around 18 years.
And now I've been told (by an AGW supporter no less) that the Antarctic land ice has not been melting. Go figure.
Again, do you support keeping data and methodology "private" so nobody can examine it?
Answer to b): No I did not say that. I do find it interesting how you could fail to accurately reproduce what I actually wrote only a few posts up. It almost looks like you are deliberately misquoting me.
Maybe you should take it up with the Journal Nature? They talk about a sixteen year pause in global warming. Or the HADCRUT dataset? There is more than one dataset to look at. The RSS dataset shows no warming for almost 18 years. That's a tad more than a "few years". NASA's GISS data you reference shows no statistically significant warming for at least 16 years. The data is freely available if you want to download it and examine it for yourself.
Apparently admitting what I don't know is a fault in your book. Yes, I am not well read on the land ice mass issue. But thank you for providing more information. It weakens what some AGW proponents are saying, and helps balance my understanding. There appear to be conflicting reports. Someone should tell the guys at skeptical science to get their shit together.
Re: CMIP5, I suppose that's why it's called "An Initial" assessment of the models they were using? I double checked elsewhere before posting to satisfy myself that the CMIP5 models did in fact predict less sea ice, and were in fact wrong. The whole point was to dispute your statement: "Go right ahead and point me to where a decline in Antarctic ice was a forecast of AGW", which is plainly wrong if we were talking about Antarctic sea ice extent. I see now that you misinterpreted A.Michael's post.
Do you agree that Antarctic sea ice was falsely predicted to decline?
I'm pretty sure Archangel Michael was talking about sea ice. The antarctic ice sheet on land, as far as I know, has less total ice, not more. Correct me if I am wrong. I am not as well read in this department and don't have time at the moment to research it further. I have not read any papers that show how the +/- half degree of warming attributed to CO2 significantly increases the current glacial ice cap melt. (Assuming the +/- half degree figure is even accurate, since it is based on incorrect climate models.)
Your post on sea ice agrees with mine. The IPCC has "low confidence" in the ability to predict antarctic sea ice precisely because the CMIP5 predictions failed. The 2010 paper was evaluating the failed CMIP5 predictions. They suggest that "the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly." Pretty obvious after the fact.
Since the "dangerous global warming" scare is based largely on predictions that have failed, why is there still such widespread belief in it?
Correction- NASA's date is 1880, not 1820.
Global temperatures have been increasing since the 1800's. The temperature increase where CO2 was supposedly a driver practically mirrors the temperature increase earlier in the century, which CO2 had nothing to do with. The IPCC recently said that increased CO2 is very likely responsible for more that 50% of recent warming. According to NASA, the earth has warmed 0.8 degrees since 1820. Most estimates I have read suggest around 1 degree increase since the 1800's, two thirds of it in recent times.
That means AGW is supposedly responsible for around a half degree of warming. And this "half degree" estimate is based on climate models that have failed to predict the last 17 years of no global warming. Please explain to me how this supposed half degree increase in global temperatures has had such a profound effect upon antarctic glaciers. Show me the scientific papers detailing how a half degree of global temperature increase is responsible for all of this ice melting?
Just to be clear: are you saying that antarctic sea ice decline wasn't a forecast of AGW? How is it the supposedly "pro-science" AGW believers can have their facts so horribly mangled? You probably don't remember the 50 million climate refugees by 2010 either.
An Initial Assessment of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent in the CMIP5 Models "...all of the models have a negative trend in SIE [sea ice extent] since the mid-nineteenth century."
Oops.
As a left-leaning, somewhat green Canadian and former believer in CAGW, I used to think "our side" would come right out and admit it when we were wrong. How wrong I was.
You are misinformed. Here is an article from the journal Nature: "Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation." Scientists are trying to "piece together" an explanation as to why the climate model predictions have failed? This does not sound like settled science to me. Check the data-sets for yourself. It's a plain fact: global surface temperatures show no statistically significant global warming for the last 17 years.
Yeah, I hear you. While you are correct about fusion, considering the supposed stakes, why would they get their funding cut? And why don't GW believers seem to care? I'm curious about the off the shelf designs you mention. I'll poke around a bit. Haven't looked into fission possibilities much.
Global warming is not hard science. It's based on model predictions which have failed. It has not warmed in 17 years. While CO2 very likely has a heating effect, the models assumed an outrageous climate sensitivity of 3-4 degrees. They are saying that for every degree added by CO2, the earth warms an additional 3-4 degrees because it is hyper-sensitive to CO2. That's complete nonsense, it's unproven, and the latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower.
Here I am supporting a solution that you support as well, yet you personally attack me simply because my opinion is different from yours. Such rude behaviour will only diminish your credibility.
Thorium based LFTR tech looks interesting as well. It's not perfect, but it's much better than coal. Focus Fusion has the best chance for fusion success in the near term. I'm a climate skeptic. This is an issue everybody should be able to agree on, regardless of CO2. Fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. If global warming activists took half the money and energy they spend on global warming "awareness" programs and spent it on innovative nuclear technologies, we'd all be better off, and it would make the global warming debate a moot issue.