Speak for yourself.
I wish I could have increased my 401k contributions with my SS. I will never get close to what I paid in with inflation. Compound interest since the early 70's adds up well. In XRay's case, I'll bet he paid in more than he will receive back too.
President Obama’s big carbon crackdown readies for launch
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...#ixzz31yhDUbHt
How brown do you like your electricity. Especially when it is about 102 degrees out.
You going to pimp coal now?
I can tell he is much more educated than you are. You do seem somewhat dull but I think that is as much from a lack of curiosity as it is a lack of intelligence. It is hard to attribute. You are a good minion parroting what you are fed diligently.
Meanwhile, the Repugs OBSTRUCT the wind production tax credit renewal/extension (because they were blocked from adding an XL amendment), while OBSTRUCTING any and all reductions in the $Bs annually to BigCarbon in tax breaks, subsidies, etc.
I am going to rename you FuzzyChumpkins. Look for it. If you couldn't insult someone, you would have nothing to say at all.
What about my other post regarding coal? You just going to ignore that and posture this bull ?I am going to rename you FuzzyChumpkins. Look for it. If you couldn't insult someone, you would have nothing to say at all.
So the discussion of momentum, capillary action, sea ice versus glacier formation, the elevation of antarctica, and the substance of claims from the global warming policy center are all insults?
You gave up substantive discussion several days ago but still spam us with your oil lobby mailers like the death rattle of the coal industry that you posted for us. There is little substance to that, you won't discuss anything on merit and you did begin discussing your intelligence.
With my lifetime earnings and using their 2 percent figure, I will still get less in SS than I contributed, unless I retire at 65 and live to be more than 115.
I have had several years where I get an effective X-Mas season bonuses, because I hit the max they take out in SS deductions, in October or November.
I would go along with cracking down on aerosols, but not CO2.
I thought he was a FuzzyBugger.I am going to rename you FuzzyChumpkins. Look for it. If you couldn't insult someone, you would have nothing to say at all.
Like I have said before, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Read the article I posted and quit flapping your lips. Chumpkins.
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (for ill-informed people you, they are part of NOAA)
In the Southern Hemisphere, autumn is well underway, and sea ice extent is growing rapidly. Antarctic sea ice extent for April 2014 reached 9.00 million square kilometers (3.47 million square miles), the largest ice extent on record by a significant margin. This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000 square kilometers (124,000 square miles), which was set in April 2008.
Antarctic ice extent graph
Figure 6b. The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of May 5, 2014, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2014 is shown in blue, 2013 in green, 2011 in orange, 2007 in brown, and 2006 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 average is in dark gray. Sea Ice Index data.
Following near-record levels in March, a slightly higher-than-average rate of increase led to a record April ice extent, compared to the satellite record since 1978. During April, ice extent increased by an average of 112,600 square kilometers (43,500 square miles) per day. Ice extent on April 30 was a record for that day; record levels continue to be set in early May.
You will note they speak of sea ice.
And you double down on the stupid.
Again, the glaciers are not 'sea ice.' They are depositing into the sea and that subsumes everything you are talking about here.
Thus me saying you are quite dull. If a glacier moves into the ocean then what do you think that will do to the amount of sea ice? Let's see some critical thinking.
For advanced study? If ice moves from above water and into the sea, what does that do to sea level. Here is a hint: when you add ice to a glass with water in it what happens to the water level?
I have to wonder, who turns on your computer in the morning. You are about the stupidest person I have ever seen. Do you know that there is a difference between apples and oranges? You insist on talking about a whole together different thing that what was posted.
I swear if you had a brain you would take it out and play with it.
End of discussion.
you're so completely lost.
End of discussion.
SO you whine about me only insulting you. I make a post about the science and then you resort to insulting me. Hypocrisy does seem to be a common trend amongst magic sky man worshipers.
I will part with the following. When you have a cup of ice water and you fill it to the brim, what happens to the water level as the ice melts?
Science: A glacier is migrating from above sea level in troughs and on land out into the open ocean. Relatively warm water is undermining the glacier and removing all friction. Although glacier movement is slow and precipitation in freezing months replenishes the glacier, the movement into the sea has passed the point of replenishment and is still accelerating. We estimate that the glacier at this current rate will take anywhere from 200 to 700 years to completely migrate but when that is complete the expected sea level rise will be over several feet.
Stupid: There is now more ice in the antarctic sea than ever before. AL GORE!!!
Science: I just said that the glacier ice is moving into the sea. Your observation is consistent with the mechanics we are discussing here.
Stupid: You're stupid.
What exactly are you hoping to illustrate with the above?
Stupid deniers...
Rubio Can't Name A Single Source Behind His Climate Denialism
by Annie Rose Strasser at Think Progress
But Rubio was unable to respond with a single source, and dodged the question.Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was unable to name a single source when asked on Tuesday to name the information he is reading that has led him to recently further cement himself as a denier of human-caused climate change.
At a National Press Club event, Rubio was asked by an audience member, via a moderator, “what information, reports, studies or otherwise are you relying on to inform and reach your conclusion that human activity is not to blame for climate change?”
“Well, again, headlines notwithstanding, I’ve never disputed that the climate is changing, and I’ve pointed out that climate to some extent is always changing, it’s never static....”
Well Dan, this guy will make you happy he cites several concerns:
UN climate change expert reveals bias in global warming report
By Richard Tol
Published May 20, 2014
Three of the four installments of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which claims to show the state of the global climate system under stress, are now available.
All three show things are seriously amiss – although not necessarily with the climate itself. The final installment, to be published in September will further underline the need to reform the IPCC.
The IPCC has three working groups, each producing its own report. Working Group I, focusing on climate change itself, released its findings last September. Compared to the previous report, of 2007, it quietly revised downwards its estimate of eventual global warming.
The first rule of climate policy should be: do no harm to economic growth. But the IPCC was asked to focus on the risks of climate change alone, and those who volunteered to be its authors eagerly obliged.
The IPCC became less pessimistic about climate change, although its press release would not tell you so.
The report also illustrates just how outmoded the IPCC has become since it was founded in 1988. Its reports are written over a period of three years, and finished months before publication.
When preparations started on AR5, the world hadn’t warmed for 13 years. That is a bit odd, if you believe the models, but not odd enough to merit a lot of attention.
By the time the report was finished, however, it hadn’t warmed for 17 years. That is decidedly odd, but hard to accommodate in a near-final draft that has been through three rounds of review.
After the report was finalized, but before it was published, a number of papers appeared with hypotheses about the pause in warming. AR5 was out of date before it was released.
The IPCC model – every six years a big splash of climate analysis – is broken.
Working Group 2, published in March, and focusing on the impacts of climate change, had a different problem. It lies at the heart of the previous IPCC controversy. The scientific literature now acknowledges that many of the more worrying impacts of climate change are in fact symptoms of social mismanagement and underdevelopment.
The first rule of climate policy should be: do no harm to economic growth. But the IPCC was asked to focus on the risks of climate change alone, and those who volunteered to be its authors eagerly obliged. There is even a groundbreaking section on emerging risks.
The first paper on an issue is always dramatic. That is the only way to get something onto the scientific agenda. Follow-up papers then pooh-pooh the initial drama. But the IPCC chose not to wait for those follow-up papers.
IPCC reports are often two to three thousand pages long, but there are two or three main findings only.
Authors who want to see their long hours of IPCC work recognized should thus present their impact as worse than the next one.
It was this inbuilt alarmism that made me step down from the team that drafted the Summary for Policy Makers of Working Group 2. And indeed, the report was greeted by the four horsemen of the apocalypse: famine, pestilence, war, death all made headlines.
April’s Working Group 3 had yet another problem. Its focus, climate policy, is a hot political debate in many countries.
The Summary for Policy Makers is drafted by academics, but approved line-by-line by government representatives. Every clause that could possibly be used against a government position, either in a domestic debate or in international negotiations, was neutered or removed.
But the authors are at fault, too. A little bit of emission reduction costs little. But as targets get more stringent, costs escalate. Not so according to the IPCC: Very ambitious targets are said to be only slightly more expensive than less ambitious targets.
This surprising finding is a statistical fluke. Emission reduction is easy according to some studies, which duly explore very ambitious targets.
Emission reduction is hard according to other studies; very ambitious targets are prohibitively expensive and results not reported.
The surprisingly low cost of meeting very stringent emission reduction targets is the result of selection bias.
Oddly, the IPCC made the same mistake in the previous report.
The final part of the AR5 report, the Synthesis, will be published in September. It will fail to offer policy makers what they need to know: a systematic comparison of the costs of climate policy to its benefits, the avoided impacts of climate change.
Compared to the most famous cost-benefit analysis of them all, the Stern Review, published in 2006, the IPCC finds that the impacts of climate change are lower and the impacts of climate policy higher. But the IPCC will not suggest that the emission reduction targets recommended by Stern – global emissions 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2050; stabilize warming at 2-3˚C – are, perhaps, too stringent.
Given its flaws, should the IPCC be disbanded? That would be pointless. Climate change is a problem of the future. Climate policy responds to forecasts of the future rather than measurements of the past.
There are large climate bureaucracies around the world, who exist by virtue of climate science. If you abolish the IPCC, the climatocracy will create a new IPCC. The IPCC should therefore be reformed.
Here are some suggestions:
Away with the infrequent, massive set pieces. Away with alarmism – that has been tried for 25 years, with no discernible impact on emissions. Away with activists posing as scientists. Away with the freshman mistakes.
Just good, sober, solid science. Let the chips fall where they may.
Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He has been involved in the IPCC since 1994.
FoxNews.com
the plateau in warming doesn't change the FACT that the world's avg temp is highest in 4000 years
and where is the prediction that global warming would be monotonically increasing?
Gee, 4000 years, are you sure. And climate change is going to affect us in 100 or so years or maybe centuries later. Great time frame.
How El Niño Might Alter the Political Climate
El Niño is coming. Above-average sea surface temperatures have developed off the west coast of South America and seem poised to grow into a full-fledged El Niño event, in which unusually warm water temperatures spread across the equatorial East Pacific. Models indicate a 75 percent chance of El Niño this fall, which could bring devastating droughts to Australia or heavy rains to the southern United States.
The debate over climate change, however, brings additional significance to this round of El Niño, which will probably increase global temperatures, perhaps to the highest levels ever. It could even inaugurate a new era of more rapid warming, offering vindication to maligned climate models and re-energizing climate activists who have struggled to break through in a polarized political environment.
For a decade, climate scientists have battled a public-relations challenge: Even though atmospheric temperatures are higher than at any time in the past 4,000 years, surface temperature increases seem to have slowed down since 1998. The planet has gotten warmer over the last decade, but climate change skeptics have used this so-called hiatus or pause in warming to take aim at the accuracy of the climate models, which appeared to predict more significant warming than has so far happened.
Most climate scientists argue that the climate models never predicted steady, uninterrupted warming. Annual global temperatures always rise and fall on either side of the longer-term average, in much the same way that the stocks rise and fall from day to day, even during a strong market. They believe, based on computer simulations of hiatus periods and measurements from new floating sensors, they can account for the “missing” heat, much of which they believe is deep in the ocean, more than 700 meters below the water’s surface.
Nonetheless, the hiatus helped climate-change skeptics earn mainstream adherents last year, as global temperatures hung perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest model projections. “Apocalypse perhaps a little later,” as The Economist put it.
There is some evidence that the number of Americans who don’t believe in global warming has increased by about 7 percentage points since the pause or hiatus began to gain mainstream news media attention, according to polling data provided by Edward Maibach, the director of the Center for Climate Change Communicationat George Mason University.
(
But this year’s El Niño might represent a turning point. The oscillation between El Niño and La Niña, El Niño’s cold-water cousin, is part of the reason for slower atmospheric warming. Sea surface temperatures in the Pacific rise during El Niño and ultimately heat up the atmosphere in what Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, calls a “mini” global warming event. The reverse happens during La Niña.
The shifts between El Niño and La Niña offer an elegant explanation for at least some or perhaps most of the slowdown in atmospheric warming. The hiatus is said to have begun in 1998, just after the historic El Niño of 1997 and early 1998. La Niña has often prevailed since then, cooling the atmosphere.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/upshot/how-el-nino-might-alter-the-political-climate.html?from=homepage
Nice. You found an economist who was brought in to calculate the economic impacts making claims that the Earth is not warming.
At no point does he try to quantify anything. He just lumps all other attempts at quantification together and blanket dismisses them as alarmist.
I invite him to read the BEST analysis and revisit his claims.
Its far from a certainty, but it looks like this El Nino will come and it will be on the moderate to strong side. This year is already very very warm Its sixth all time so far, but April was tied with 2010 as the hottest ever. There's a really good chance that with a moderate to strong El Nino either this year or 2015 will set the record. They may both set it.
As I said, its not certain, but with all the heat in the ocean an El Nino will probably make it happen.
you. A cold front came through Texas just a week ago. . .
I wish periodicity was more intuitive in general and that America's trig teachers were better at teaching intuition regarding cycles specifically.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
