Johnnie wrote on Dec 8^th, 2018 at 3:42pm:



Yeah. As I have previously said there are problems with  the ice core data. I really suggest you look at CO2 in the firn. Not to mention the lack of stations in the southern hemisphere in the early years. But just ignore all that.

Btw - how did your research on Cook et al go? You know the 64 papers out of 11,944? Or don't you want to go into that?

Johnnie wrote on Dec 8^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:



You would for one. Heaven forbid that you ever researched anything.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 8^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:



Two things I noted.

1. There is no attribution. Why should I trust an anonymous source?

2. There is no quantification of this increase that "must" cause the Earth to warm.

There are many things that affect warming of Earth. Man understands some of them, certainly doesn't understand all of them, perhaps not even most of them. Why did the Earth's temperature endure a hiatus 1998 - 2008 with burgeoning CO2 (17.13ppm), if it "must cause the Earth to warm in response"?

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1998-20...

In 2016 the accuracy, should you believe it, was 0.15C. The difference in the graphed time was 0.03C. So statistically no difference.

And that's from NOAA. Isn't that one of the agencies you trust?

Edit: For your edification -

"We estimate the permeation coefficient for CO2 in ice is ∼4 × 10−21 mol m−1 s−1 Pa−1 at −23°C in the top 287 m (corresponding to 2.74 kyr). Smoothing of the CO2 record by diffusion at this depth/age is one or two orders of magnitude smaller than the smoothing in the firn. However, simulations for depths of ∼930–950 m (∼60–70 kyr) indicate that smoothing of the CO2 record by diffusion in deep ice is comparable to smoothing in the firn. Other types of diffusion (e.g. via liquid in ice grain boundaries or veins) may also be important but their influence has not been quantified."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/co2-diffus...

Johnnie wrote on Dec 8^th, 2018 at 6:50pm:



You do know what attribution means? I suspect it is wiki.

Once again you post about ice core data.

Tree ring data? They are not referring to Mann and the one strip-bark pine from which he got his "data" and truncated it then added the modern thermometer reconstruction? Why wouldn't the data until the tree got cut down be utilised?

How is the Cook et al paper going? You were sure that more than 50% of papers said man was responsible for most of the warming.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 9:04am:



Er... Trump.

Focus on climate change draws resources best used elsewhere
BJORN LOMBORG Follow @bjornlomborg
The reason we are failing to cut emission isn’t because people aren’t willing to take action. It’s because green energy sources are not yet competitive enough to take over from fossil fuels for all of our energy needs. Picture: AP.
Politicians are gathering in Poland for a climate summit being billed as the most important conference since the Paris treaty was signed in 2015. Around the world the chattering classes have declared that more political willpower is needed to solve global warming. This is deluded: it ignores the privileged place climate change has among all of humanity’s challenges and misses the real reasons for our failure.
Across the past quarter-century climate change has received more attention — and generated more prophesies of doom — from political and religious leaders, celebrities and royalty than any other issue.
It is given so much attention that it is sacrilegious to even point out that we face other vast, complex, expensive challenges including war and domestic violence, super-killers such as tuberculosis and HIV, hunger and a lack of clean drinking water, gender inequality — and the list goes on. Many of these global challenges have a greater cost and have policy responses that are better understood, more easily implemented and will help humanity much more than our current response to climate change.
Climate change is real but it’s not our only problem — and it’s not the apocalypse painted in the media. The IPCC’s last major planetary survey calculated the global effects of unstopped climate change. The scientists established that globally the effect of climate change will be similar to a single recession. It will mean the average person forgoes benefits equivalent to between 0.2 per cent and 2 per cent of income in the 2070s. Bear in mind that by then incomes will have increased by at least 300 per cent to 400 per cent.
...
Yet we are being told once again that we have one slim last opportunity to save the planet. How familiar. Nearly 40 years ago the UN environment chief warned we faced environmental disaster “as final as nuclear war” by 2000.  In 2009 British prime minister Gordon Brown was among those claiming we were at doom’s door: if no climate deal was struck that year, it would be “irretrievably too late”. (No climate deal was struck that year.)

There have been 23 annual UN-convened summits attracting the great and the good. In Paris in 2015, world leaders signed a treaty to cut carbon emissions. This loose collection of national carbon-cutting promises until 2030 (with vague promises after that) is not backed by any repercussions for failing or quitting. Despite the clear likelihood that nothing would change once everyone got home, the leaders heartily slapped each other on the back and environmentalists cheered.

Even at the time, the wishful thinking seemed bizarre. One climate analysis group gained attention for finding that the Paris Agreement could result in a significant temperature reduction of 0.9C. This came not from analysis of the promises up until 2030 but from assuming there would be much stronger climate policies after the Paris agreement: 98 per cent of the expected reductions came from actions after 2030.

Activist group 350.org was even giddier, declaring the date of the treaty’s signature marked “the end of the era of fossil fuels”. That same group today says: “Staying under 1.5C is now only a matter of political will.” It was utterly wrong in 2015 and it is still wrong today.

The IPCC itself sets out a string of highly implausible, incredibly expensive, technologically complex actions that are all required together to have any hope of cutting carbon enough to keep temperature rises under 1.5C. We need to hit peak carbon dioxide emissions within just a few years, stop using coal entirely, shut a string of natural gas-fired power plants, massively expand carbon capture technology and increase our reliance on nuclear energy. An area between one million square kilometres (all of France plus all of Germany) and seven million square kilometres (three-quarters the size of the US or all of Australia) needs to be dedicated to growing crops for energy, in a way that doesn’t displace food crops, otherwise more people will go hungry.
The truth is that keeping rises under 1.5C in any realistic sense is impossible. The newest Nobel laureate in climate economics points out that even 2C is unrealistic: “2C appears to be infeasible with reasonably accessible technologies even with very ambitious abatement strategies.”

poor David is being reactionary- he doesnt know about the grand solar minimum- this will put and end to GW

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 8^th, 2018 at 10:09pm:

link ?

go to weather on my board- the vid is there-