tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post8962197511373111563..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Climate Change Isn't Our Top Public Health ThreatUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-54578498407210148282013-12-09T14:02:39.405-08:002013-12-09T14:02:39.405-08:00paper finds climate sensitivity 1.16C
http://hock...paper finds climate sensitivity 1.16C<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-low-estimate-of-climate.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-79153833769421908902013-12-07T12:10:31.317-08:002013-12-07T12:10:31.317-08:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/why-the-new-...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/why-the-new-otto-et-al-climate-sensitivity-paper-is-important-its-a-sea-change-for-some-ipcc-authors/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-56005889606806610312013-12-07T11:34:03.924-08:002013-12-07T11:34:03.924-08:00"And climate sensitivity is only less than 1...."And climate sensitivity is only less than 1.2 C in the make-believe people like you have constructed. No serious scientist thinks that. It's not even true if you do a blunt analysis of the 20th Century."<br /><br />Appell, you are the one in the computer game fantasy world, believing the output of climate models falsified at confidence levels of 90-98+% over the past 15-35 years.<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/observations-now-inconsistent-with.html<br /><br />According to the arrogant journalist Appell: <br />Lindzen, Choi, Spencer, Christy, Braswell, Curry, Happer, Bjornbom, Lewis, Stokes, etc etc are not serious scientists. Nor over 12,000 PhD scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition.<br /><br />Here's a simple blunt analysis of the 20th century:<br /><br />Lacis, Hansen, Schmidt, Colose et al claim CO2 contributes 20% (alone) to the greenhouse effect. That means CO2 was responsible for 6.44°C warming in 1850 [32.2*.2] and 6.6°C now [33*.2], a warming effect of 0.16°C despite a 40% increase in CO2 levels [assuming a total 'greenhouse effect' of 33°C].MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-43418143872376274292013-12-07T11:22:31.135-08:002013-12-07T11:22:31.135-08:001. If you bothered to read the link you would find...1. If you bothered to read the link you would find the figure comes from The Climate Policy Initiative, not GWPF.<br /><br />http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2013/<br /><br />So, only $380,000,000 per day is wasted on the CO2 non-problem by the public sector.<br /><br />"The private sector has a right to spend its money the way it sees fit, unless you think you have the right to them what they can or can't do. "<br /><br />Of course I don't tell the private sector what to do, but I am opposed to wasting public funds for private sector subsidies of 'green' energy, which is a large portion of the remaining $1 billion wasted per day.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-56752227150314754092013-12-06T14:52:54.284-08:002013-12-06T14:52:54.284-08:00The $1 billion spent per day on the CO2 non-proble...<i>The $1 billion spent per day on the CO2 non-problem should instead be spent on things that will make a noticeable difference.</i><br /><br />A portion of this money (if you can believe GWPF -- doubtful) goes to energy efficiency -- useful in anyone's opinion. Only 38% came from the public sector. The private sector has a right to spend its money the way it sees fit, unless you think you have the right to them what they can or can't do. <br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-49078141687320095282013-12-06T14:46:46.944-08:002013-12-06T14:46:46.944-08:00Do you have a source other than GWPF? They simply ...Do you have a source other than GWPF? They simply aren't credible. <br /><br />And climate sensitivity is only less than 1.2 C in the make-believe people like you have constructed. No serious scientist thinks that. It's not even true if you do a blunt analysis of the 20th Century. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-8068894321079499722013-12-05T11:39:08.424-08:002013-12-05T11:39:08.424-08:00http://www.thegwpf.org/world-spending-1-billion-da...http://www.thegwpf.org/world-spending-1-billion-day-tackle-global-warming/<br /><br />"The world invested almost a billion dollars a day in limiting global warming last year, but the total figure – $359 billion – was slightly down on last year, and barely half the $700 billion per year that the World Economic Forum has said is needed to tackle climate change.<br />These are the findings spelled out in the latest Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) report."<br /><br />Climate sensitivity to CO2 is highly likely to be < 1.2C and likely to be <.7<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-confirms-findings-of-lindzen.html<br /><br />= non-problem and beneficial CO2 fertilization effects<br /><br />"Why do I think we wouldn't"<br /><br />Money doesn't grow on trees. The $1 billion spent per day on the CO2 non-problem should instead be spent on things that will make a noticeable difference.<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/eu-plans-to-waste-7-trillion-on-climate.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-78216819040392625272013-12-05T11:17:21.901-08:002013-12-05T11:17:21.901-08:00$1 billion per day? Says who?
Creating 1/3rd to 1...$1 billion per day? Says who?<br /><br />Creating 1/3rd to 1/2 of an inverse ice age, in just a century or two, is hardly a "non-problem."<br /><br />Is there some reason we can't address climate change while ALSO reducing poverty, ensuring clean water, access to medical care, true public health needs, adaptation, etc. etc.?<br /><br />Why do I think we wouldn't <br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-7770424545854172232013-12-04T20:30:31.172-08:002013-12-04T20:30:31.172-08:00"There is a lot of uncertainty how that imbal..."There is a lot of uncertainty how that imbalance will play out in space and time, but there's no reason at all to doubt that our CO2 emissions are enhancing the greenhouse effect."<br /><br />The $1 billion per day wasted on fighting the non-problem of a trivial added 'greenhouse' effect from doubled CO2 levels is an absurd waste of resources that could have instead been spent on reducing poverty, clean water, access to medical care, true public health needs, adaptation, etc. etc. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-51045878316058583242013-12-04T18:22:14.803-08:002013-12-04T18:22:14.803-08:00Carbon dioxide didn't recently stop being a gr...Carbon dioxide didn't recently stop being a greenhouse gas.... More of it causes more of a planetary imbalance, which will cause more warming. <br /><br />There is a lot of uncertainty how that imbalance will play out in space and time, but there's no reason at all to doubt that our CO2 emissions are enhancing the greenhouse effect.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.com