4 ms·

> satellite data shows no meaningful warming for almost twenty years I would like to point out that last year was a global temperature record and this year wil

> satellite data shows no meaningful warming for almost twenty years I would like to point out that last year was a global temperature record and this year will probably be a record too. In any case, temperature (and especially surface one) can be deceiving. Ocean heat content (which is in a more direct relation to sea level rise) actually increases quite unabated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content As for the sunshades, well, good luck with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade It's simply a lot cheaper to not burn any more coal or oil.

Recurecur 11y ago
"I would like to point out that last year was a global temperature record and this year will probably be a record too." Not according to the satellite data, which is far less manipulated and inherently more accurate than the NOAA surface record. "In any case, temperature (and especially surface one) can be deceiving. Ocean heat content (which is in a more direct relation to sea level rise) actually increases quite unabated" The claim made in the linked graph equates to an average temperature change of .004 deg C for all ocean water since 1978. The Do you really think we know this? What are the error bars? The graph is made even less credible by the near-instantaneous 5e22 spike around 2013 in the three month average... "As for the sunshades, well, good luck with that" What choice will we have if the alarmists are correct? The claim was that anything over 350 PPM would be catastrophic. We're now at 400 and climbing, with no end in sight. "It's simply a lot cheaper to not burn any more coal or oil." That's not going to happen for a long time. China's emissions will increase until 2030, and it's already the major contributor. India is also on a path to burn a lot of coal. There's almost zero chance of CO2 concentrations not hitting 500 PPM, and they will likely hit 600 PPM easily. The win/win scenario involves vastly expanded next-gem nuclear electric generation, but there seems little likelihood of that happening.
- Recurecur 11y ago
  Whoops, re-reading this I realized it should be a 0.04 deg C change - I slipped a decimal. The point stands though.

Recurecur 11y ago

"I would like to point out that last year was a global temperature record and this year will probably be a record too." Not according to the satellite data, which is far less manipulated and inherently more accurate than the NOAA surface record. "In any case, temperature (and especially surface one) can be deceiving. Ocean heat content (which is in a more direct relation to sea level rise) actually increases quite unabated" The claim made in the linked graph equates to an average temperature change of .004 deg C for all ocean water since 1978. The Do you really think we know this? What are the error bars? The graph is made even less credible by the near-instantaneous 5e22 spike around 2013 in the three month average... "As for the sunshades, well, good luck with that" What choice will we have if the alarmists are correct? The claim was that anything over 350 PPM would be catastrophic. We're now at 400 and climbing, with no end in sight. "It's simply a lot cheaper to not burn any more coal or oil." That's not going to happen for a long time. China's emissions will increase until 2030, and it's already the major contributor. India is also on a path to burn a lot of coal. There's almost zero chance of CO2 concentrations not hitting 500 PPM, and they will likely hit 600 PPM easily. The win/win scenario involves vastly expanded next-gem nuclear electric generation, but there seems little likelihood of that happening.

Recurecur 11y ago
Whoops, re-reading this I realized it should be a 0.04 deg C change - I slipped a decimal. The point stands though.