To melt away the Arctic ice, it will take a lot more than 274 deg. K!
See the 2019 summertime temperatures north of 80 deg. North latitude? Same as the 1958-2002 mean!
Both Ron and Rand are sane. I met them both, and contributed to their campaigns. Ron is more of an absolutist. Rand is more pragmatic.
As I said. Same crap different day
Incapable of separating the politics from the science.
The Paul's are all for keeping politics out of science.
When you see climate researchers demanding policy changes, they are stepping out of the science and straight into politics.
what do you care
you deny the science
You cannot separate science from politics. Unfortunately the Trump regime ignores the science and makes policies that go contrary to the science and impact us in a negative way. Good politicians look at the science, weigh the facts and make wise decisions accordingly. This is the reason we feel that Trump is such a poor leader. And are the Pauls, Lindsay Graham, Devin Nunez, MItch McConnell, Jim Jordan and even Marco Rubio very far behind????
The late great Dr. William Gray explained it best how the entire "climate change" issued should have handled from the beginning back in the 1980s. The climate researchers who thought CO2 was a major driver of climate should have received half of the government funding for research. And the other climate researchers who thought the climate was changing due to natural climate variation should have received the other half. Both research groups then could come together and hash out their differences, examine each others' data, and then report their findings to the policy makers.
But this isn't what happened. What happened instead was that government made a proclamation that humans are causing the earth to heat up, now prove that it is happening. And all climate research money flowed to those who were willing to play the game. Many of these climate researchers knew that climate goes through cycles. After all, they very well knew of the climate warming period of the early 20th century followed by the mid 20th century cooling period. They knew a warming period was on its way, and they could easily tie that to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. And that is how the climate change gravy train got started.
Paragraph after paragraph, you are incapable of separating politics from science. Nor are you capable of distinguishing the difference between the two.
We should use our resources to address more plausible scenarios like CO2 being the cause.And the investigations have indeed shown that greenhouse gases are superimposed on natural variation and needs to be addressed.
It's like Trump and his cronies wanting to waste resources on investigating Biden and ignoring Trump when Trump is the elephant in the room
Had the government followed Dr. William Gray's suggestion, this would have minimized the politics of science greatly!
By the way, Al Gore asked Dr. William Gray to jump on board the human-caused global warming wagon. Gray refused. Subsequently, Gray's research funding was stopped. This was a political intrusion into science!
Hence the problem with climate science. If the research is not in support of human caused warming, it gets defunded. Just like any other study ever. Who is funding it and why is more important than the study itself.
@andy. Nonsense. Science is funded based on solid initial studies. I have received hundreds of thousands of dollars of government research grants in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I had to submit good supporting data to get my funding. Most research grants are highly competitive and are reviewed by scientists who know what they are talking about . And not politicians. It is Trump and the Republicans who are trying to turn science political. You are almost as naive as Mitch and Darth when it comes to how science is funded.
You cannot correlate the funding you receive for medical practices to what kind of funding is received for climate science research.
I trust the late great Dr. William Gray about how climate research gets funded.
You sure are a sucker for false prophets. Faith in this or that person is not necessary. What's necessary is facts, something you play fast and loose with 95% of the time.
@andy. Do you have any evidence that climate science is funded differently. It may be different departments but the principle is the same. You spend too much time listening to these denier clowns and are beginning to believe them. This is why they do it. Occasionally they find someone who believes them.
William Gray may have been a hurricane expert and was recognized for that. His ideas on climate change were BS and that is the reason he lost his funding. If DeSmogBlog quotes you there is likely something seriously wrong with your science
Sure. Read any of the provided links below and read the grant research requirements. Not a single grant being offered on the basis of climate research.
They are all about human health impacts, or societal impacts.
Those all look like good research grants and are non political. I would say that health and societal impacts are of prime importance. You have not shown any specific climate research grant that has value and priority above those listed that has been denied. It's like me having some specific medical topic that I wish to researched and then claiming that my wish is not granted based on them providing money for cancer research or HIV.
If there are no grants for funding of exclusive climate science that is not related to human activity, who is going to fund it?
Here you gohttps://www.epa.gov/research-grants/climate-change-research-grantshttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check...
First link you provided is the location of all the links i provided to you. Guess you didnt really read.
OK. So that should answer your question. They sponsor a bunch of stuff. But that could change under Trump
"They are all about human health impacts, or societal impacts."
Which was my point about posting all those links. We went in a circle.
I answered that. Don't you think that the priority of the EPA would be the health and societal impacts. I doubt there is any money and time value in trying to reprove CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is causing climate change. That is well known to those that matter. Spending money on trying to convince these trolls is pointless. It's like trying to convince Lindsay Graham and Devin Nunez that Trump is a serial criminal.
If government is not funding climate research, who is? That was all my point was. This stemmed from saying that climate research gets funding differently. This is what i mean. Who is funding it? Is anyone funding researching our planet so we can understand how our climate is working?
That is climate research. What would you like them to study? Submit your proposal that you think needs to be studied.
Dr. Lindzen will tell you the way it is concerning climate research funding.
And if you don't jump on board the global warming bandwagon, then you get investigated by the likes of SCCRENDODO and company!
Climate Alarm - Follow the money
I'd like to see research being done to understand our climate, not related to human activity. Like a research team being deployed to understand earthquakes and supervolcanoes. Once we understand them well enough, we can determine what kind of impacts to human society they have.
Yeah, follow the money that Lindzen received first.
@andy. We have research related to the natural variation in our climate. Nobody is debating it. The deniers push the point and we all agree. The issue is that burning fossils fuels is changing the climate in a negative way beyond natural variation.
Here is something from the American Meteorological Society which is far more credible than a 3rd rate weathermoron who refuses to join the societyhttps://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/archive-s...
Lindzen had been a MIT scientist for over 3 decades RedShift. You think MIT would have kept him for all of these years if there was something faulty about him? MIT has a reputation to protect by the way. Obviously, Lindzen's powerful intellect swatted away any pep squeak global warming alarmist who complained about him!
Im interested in the research that is not contaminated with human activity.
"You think MIT would have kept him for all of these years if there was something faulty about him?"
Maybe. But him being at MIT for 3 decades is not evidence of him being authentic. There are politicians in office longer than that who are corrupt piles of excrements.
Do you deny he took fossil fuel money, Mitch. Do you?
@andy. Design the research. I guess you need to control all the natural factors and keep them stable. Then pump CO2 into the atmosphere for a few years and see what happens. I guess that is why scientists study it differently. I am also guessing you are not a scientist.
Is there an incapability of doing research without it being about the effects CO2 has on warming?
Andy, your comparison of a politician and a long-term college professor is weak. A college professor does not have constituents who keep voting him in every two years.
If you reference Wikipedia, you will see an extensive list of the papers published by Lindzen. Most of them are about the dynamics of the atmosphere - all government funded.
Its always someone else's argument for you, and never your own.
@Andy.Is this what you are asking about?https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenho...http://www.carboeurope.org/education/CS_Materials/Bernd-BlumeExperiments...https://www.picotech.com/library/experiment/global-warminghttps://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Lindzen slashes and burns climate alarmism.
Lindzen sucks and blows fossil fuel cock.
Then why did MIT keep him on for over 3 decades RedShift?
I'll tell you why. Whenever some Green New Dealer tried to confront Lindzen, Lindzen would eviscerate them in public. That is why they are so afraid to debate him!
MIT knew they had a real climate scientist in their staff. And there was nobody who could topple Lindzen in a climate science fight!
It’s raining in CA, that is good right.