Giss and Japan data set says SUPER HOT GLOBALLY FOR OCT!

[CultureCitizen]

Wow.

You got all that out of my post.

You are incredible.

Well, if you have something relevant to say, state it. Otherwise, be content with people just regarding you as a stupid troll.

I kind of gave up trying to educate deniers for a time for several reasons :
1) Oil got incredibly cheap, so it's almost impossible to get to a break even price with solar
2) There is simply not enough data yet to declare an inminent danger ( there are some small hints that warming is becoming exponential and not linear , but it can't be confirmed yet).

If warming is linear we still have plenty of time ( 40 years) before facing a global catastrophe. Meanwhile solar and batteries continue to mature. I hope to see solar kick in once Saudis have ended their oil dumping fiasco.

What makes you think that a one degree rise will lead to a catastrophe? I'm curious. Every scrap of historical fact says that when it has been warmer it has been better. By far. What makes you think there is an impending disaster? I'm curious.

One degree (celsius ) is what we've gotten in the past 35 years.
Another degree might not do too much harm .
On the other hand , if the growth is exponential and we get two degrees instead of one in the next 35 years, humanity will be facing some serious consequences: the drought in California might become permanent.

Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US.
I constantly review the technology . 2016 seems to be the first year in which a combination of solar cells, electric vehicles, batteries and water heaters can get you to break-even prices in 10 years of usage in southern states. Barely good enough to make the switch to solar in a household. Personally I will wait another 5 years before switching .
I can't switch right now anyway: I don't get enough sun in my current apartment I need 200 sq ft of roof to cover all my needs . I am planning to move to a house once I finish paying the mortgage.

Not quite. It's around .7C. So what? The MWP in my region was 2.3 to 2.7 C warmer than the present day, and it was a garden of Eden.

Over the last 1200 years California has endured at least three droughts that lasted for over 200 years. The MAJORITY of time in California over the last 1200 years has been drought stricken. It is NORMAL.

What about the pollution created by the manufacturing process of solar modules? It is significant and I believe far more dangerous than any GW related "pollution".

I think you are too early for your break even levels but I do hope that the technology does indeed get the cost down. I have had solar on my house for over 25 years and they have always been merely for emergency use when the grid failed. They were never able to meet even half the need.

Indeed, solar panels also pollute, and the recycling process is still unclear. Honestly batteries wory me more than panels.
And while some forms of oil are relatively "clean" others like fracking and and tar sands are one of the dirtiest sources of energy.
It is not just the panels, but the vehicles : I've just read of a vehicle, (barely more than a motorcicle with a chasis), which yields 200mpge.
On the other hand , solar heaters have allways been cheap.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Wow.

You got all that out of my post.

You are incredible.

Well, if you have something relevant to say, state it. Otherwise, be content with people just regarding you as a stupid troll.

I kind of gave up trying to educate deniers for a time for several reasons :
1) Oil got incredibly cheap, so it's almost impossible to get to a break even price with solar
2) There is simply not enough data yet to declare an inminent danger ( there are some small hints that warming is becoming exponential and not linear , but it can't be confirmed yet).

If warming is linear we still have plenty of time ( 40 years) before facing a global catastrophe. Meanwhile solar and batteries continue to mature. I hope to see solar kick in once Saudis have ended their oil dumping fiasco.

What makes you think that a one degree rise will lead to a catastrophe? I'm curious. Every scrap of historical fact says that when it has been warmer it has been better. By far. What makes you think there is an impending disaster? I'm curious.

One degree (celsius ) is what we've gotten in the past 35 years.
Another degree might not do too much harm .
On the other hand , if the growth is exponential and we get two degrees instead of one in the next 35 years, humanity will be facing some serious consequences: the drought in California might become permanent.

Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US.
I constantly review the technology . 2016 seems to be the first year in which a combination of solar cells, electric vehicles, batteries and water heaters can get you to break-even prices in 10 years of usage in southern states. Barely good enough to make the switch to solar in a household. Personally I will wait another 5 years before switching .
I can't switch right now anyway: I don't get enough sun in my current apartment I need 200 sq ft of roof to cover all my needs . I am planning to move to a house once I finish paying the mortgage.

So curious, what evidence do you have that an increase in temperature is Armageddon? Do you have some empirical evidence that shows there is a problem? Please please share with the class.

Look , Earth has been both a lot hotter and a lot colder, granted.
That said , not all species survive such events. Two degrees won't be catastrophic, but enough to ruin most of the real estate of costal cities.

 

[jc456]

Well, if you have something relevant to say, state it. Otherwise, be content with people just regarding you as a stupid troll.

I kind of gave up trying to educate deniers for a time for several reasons :
1) Oil got incredibly cheap, so it's almost impossible to get to a break even price with solar
2) There is simply not enough data yet to declare an inminent danger ( there are some small hints that warming is becoming exponential and not linear , but it can't be confirmed yet).

If warming is linear we still have plenty of time ( 40 years) before facing a global catastrophe. Meanwhile solar and batteries continue to mature. I hope to see solar kick in once Saudis have ended their oil dumping fiasco.

What makes you think that a one degree rise will lead to a catastrophe? I'm curious. Every scrap of historical fact says that when it has been warmer it has been better. By far. What makes you think there is an impending disaster? I'm curious.

One degree (celsius ) is what we've gotten in the past 35 years.
Another degree might not do too much harm .
On the other hand , if the growth is exponential and we get two degrees instead of one in the next 35 years, humanity will be facing some serious consequences: the drought in California might become permanent.

Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US.
I constantly review the technology . 2016 seems to be the first year in which a combination of solar cells, electric vehicles, batteries and water heaters can get you to break-even prices in 10 years of usage in southern states. Barely good enough to make the switch to solar in a household. Personally I will wait another 5 years before switching .
I can't switch right now anyway: I don't get enough sun in my current apartment I need 200 sq ft of roof to cover all my needs . I am planning to move to a house once I finish paying the mortgage.

So curious, what evidence do you have that an increase in temperature is Armageddon? Do you have some empirical evidence that shows there is a problem? Please please share with the class.

Look , Earth has been both a lot hotter and a lot colder, granted.
That said , not all species survive such events. Two degrees won't be catastrophic, but enough to ruin most of the real estate of costal cities.

based on what? Again, you're just making a statement to make a statement. There is absolutely no evidence of such a thing at all. you do know the entire Arctic could melt and it would add no more water to the ocean. You know this right?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Wow.

You got all that out of my post.

You are incredible.

Well, if you have something relevant to say, state it. Otherwise, be content with people just regarding you as a stupid troll.

I kind of gave up trying to educate deniers for a time for several reasons :
1) Oil got incredibly cheap, so it's almost impossible to get to a break even price with solar
2) There is simply not enough data yet to declare an inminent danger ( there are some small hints that warming is becoming exponential and not linear , but it can't be confirmed yet).

If warming is linear we still have plenty of time ( 40 years) before facing a global catastrophe. Meanwhile solar and batteries continue to mature. I hope to see solar kick in once Saudis have ended their oil dumping fiasco.

What makes you think that a one degree rise will lead to a catastrophe? I'm curious. Every scrap of historical fact says that when it has been warmer it has been better. By far. What makes you think there is an impending disaster? I'm curious.

One degree (celsius ) is what we've gotten in the past 35 years.
Another degree might not do too much harm .
On the other hand , if the growth is exponential and we get two degrees instead of one in the next 35 years, humanity will be facing some serious consequences: the drought in California might become permanent.

Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US.
I constantly review the technology . 2016 seems to be the first year in which a combination of solar cells, electric vehicles, batteries and water heaters can get you to break-even prices in 10 years of usage in southern states. Barely good enough to make the switch to solar in a household. Personally I will wait another 5 years before switching .
I can't switch right now anyway: I don't get enough sun in my current apartment I need 200 sq ft of roof to cover all my needs . I am planning to move to a house once I finish paying the mortgage.

it's amazing how uneducated some of you warmers are. I would appreciate if you wish to complain about an area of the world, at least do some research on the area and what the make of the area is. For instance you choose to comment on southern California. Did you know that southern California has always been a desert? ALWAYS. So explain to me how any increase in a temperature changes it into a desert? I'm curious, you are making a statement that avoids all logic. Not that it is unexpected, it happens frequently in this forum.

Then you talking about a failed alternative business is even more funny. solar and wind is dying off. Go ask countries in Europe. Again, please do some research.

here some material I researched for you from the Canada Free Press: Click the link to the report and read it. you'll be surprised.

"IER decided to see how they were working.

The first case study focuses on Germany’s energy policies and finds that these policies are driving up energy prices and forcing hundreds of thousands of people into energy poverty. Specifically, the study found:"

To read IER’s recent analysis titled, “Europe Slashing Renewable Subsidies”, click here.

If you read my previous post carefully , you'll notice I don't support subsidies:
"Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US."
...so keep that part of your rant for yourself.
Regarding California , what I mean is the 2014 precipitation average : 5 inches, could be become a permanent situation.

 

[jc456]

Well, if you have something relevant to say, state it. Otherwise, be content with people just regarding you as a stupid troll.

I kind of gave up trying to educate deniers for a time for several reasons :
1) Oil got incredibly cheap, so it's almost impossible to get to a break even price with solar
2) There is simply not enough data yet to declare an inminent danger ( there are some small hints that warming is becoming exponential and not linear , but it can't be confirmed yet).

If warming is linear we still have plenty of time ( 40 years) before facing a global catastrophe. Meanwhile solar and batteries continue to mature. I hope to see solar kick in once Saudis have ended their oil dumping fiasco.

What makes you think that a one degree rise will lead to a catastrophe? I'm curious. Every scrap of historical fact says that when it has been warmer it has been better. By far. What makes you think there is an impending disaster? I'm curious.

One degree (celsius ) is what we've gotten in the past 35 years.
Another degree might not do too much harm .
On the other hand , if the growth is exponential and we get two degrees instead of one in the next 35 years, humanity will be facing some serious consequences: the drought in California might become permanent.

Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US.
I constantly review the technology . 2016 seems to be the first year in which a combination of solar cells, electric vehicles, batteries and water heaters can get you to break-even prices in 10 years of usage in southern states. Barely good enough to make the switch to solar in a household. Personally I will wait another 5 years before switching .
I can't switch right now anyway: I don't get enough sun in my current apartment I need 200 sq ft of roof to cover all my needs . I am planning to move to a house once I finish paying the mortgage.

it's amazing how uneducated some of you warmers are. I would appreciate if you wish to complain about an area of the world, at least do some research on the area and what the make of the area is. For instance you choose to comment on southern California. Did you know that southern California has always been a desert? ALWAYS. So explain to me how any increase in a temperature changes it into a desert? I'm curious, you are making a statement that avoids all logic. Not that it is unexpected, it happens frequently in this forum.

Then you talking about a failed alternative business is even more funny. solar and wind is dying off. Go ask countries in Europe. Again, please do some research.

here some material I researched for you from the Canada Free Press: Click the link to the report and read it. you'll be surprised.

"IER decided to see how they were working.

The first case study focuses on Germany’s energy policies and finds that these policies are driving up energy prices and forcing hundreds of thousands of people into energy poverty. Specifically, the study found:"

To read IER’s recent analysis titled, “Europe Slashing Renewable Subsidies”, click here.

If you read my previous post carefully , you'll notice I don't support subsidies:
"Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US."
...so keep that part of your rant for yourself.
Regarding California , what I mean is the 2014 precipitation average : 5 inches, could be become a permanent situation.

I'm sorry, but you lost me. What was it I was ranting about? You made a point, i countered your point and you come back with nothing but a prayer I guess. Not sure what you're trying to say here.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I kind of gave up trying to educate deniers for a time for several reasons :
1) Oil got incredibly cheap, so it's almost impossible to get to a break even price with solar
2) There is simply not enough data yet to declare an inminent danger ( there are some small hints that warming is becoming exponential and not linear , but it can't be confirmed yet).

If warming is linear we still have plenty of time ( 40 years) before facing a global catastrophe. Meanwhile solar and batteries continue to mature. I hope to see solar kick in once Saudis have ended their oil dumping fiasco.

What makes you think that a one degree rise will lead to a catastrophe? I'm curious. Every scrap of historical fact says that when it has been warmer it has been better. By far. What makes you think there is an impending disaster? I'm curious.

One degree (celsius ) is what we've gotten in the past 35 years.
Another degree might not do too much harm .
On the other hand , if the growth is exponential and we get two degrees instead of one in the next 35 years, humanity will be facing some serious consequences: the drought in California might become permanent.

Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US.
I constantly review the technology . 2016 seems to be the first year in which a combination of solar cells, electric vehicles, batteries and water heaters can get you to break-even prices in 10 years of usage in southern states. Barely good enough to make the switch to solar in a household. Personally I will wait another 5 years before switching .
I can't switch right now anyway: I don't get enough sun in my current apartment I need 200 sq ft of roof to cover all my needs . I am planning to move to a house once I finish paying the mortgage.

it's amazing how uneducated some of you warmers are. I would appreciate if you wish to complain about an area of the world, at least do some research on the area and what the make of the area is. For instance you choose to comment on southern California. Did you know that southern California has always been a desert? ALWAYS. So explain to me how any increase in a temperature changes it into a desert? I'm curious, you are making a statement that avoids all logic. Not that it is unexpected, it happens frequently in this forum.

Then you talking about a failed alternative business is even more funny. solar and wind is dying off. Go ask countries in Europe. Again, please do some research.

here some material I researched for you from the Canada Free Press: Click the link to the report and read it. you'll be surprised.

"IER decided to see how they were working.

The first case study focuses on Germany’s energy policies and finds that these policies are driving up energy prices and forcing hundreds of thousands of people into energy poverty. Specifically, the study found:"

To read IER’s recent analysis titled, “Europe Slashing Renewable Subsidies”, click here.

If you read my previous post carefully , you'll notice I don't support subsidies:
"Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US."
...so keep that part of your rant for yourself.
Regarding California , what I mean is the 2014 precipitation average : 5 inches, could be become a permanent situation.

I'm sorry, but you lost me. What was it I was ranting about? You made a point, i countered your point and you come back with nothing but a prayer I guess. Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Your rant :
"Then you talking about a failed alternative business is even more funny. solar and wind is dying off. Go ask countries in Europe. Again, please do some research.

here some material I researched for you from the Canada Free Press: Click the link to the report and read it. you'll be surprised.

"IER decided to see how they were working.

The first case study focuses on Germany’s energy policies and finds that these policies are driving up energy prices and forcing hundreds of thousands of people into energy poverty. Specifically, the study found:"
"
My point :
No subsidies should be applied to renewables, period. You are preaching to the wrong guy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Really? I was sure that your brain melted a long time ago......whatever...

If it hadn't though, it would be having a meltdown now that your denier cult myths and crackpot fantasies, based on the lies and propaganda you were fed by the fossil fuel industry, are also melting like a snowball on a hot July day.

Last year was the hottest year on record...and now this year is going to be even hotter...much hotter apparently...and climate scientists are saying that next year could be as hot or hotter than this year...

So far this year, every month except two has been a record setting, 'hottest month of that name on record' since at least 1880....and of those two, January was the second hottest January on record and April was the third hottest April on record. This July was THE hottest month on record, hotter than every other month since at least 1880, and almost certainly much, much longer, according to the temperatre proxies. The first ten months of 2015 was the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, according to the scientists at NOAA.

Your denier cult propaganda fantasies about "cooling or the "pause" are officially down the tubes, with all the other crap and lies you've spewed...

Wow.

You got all that out of my post.

You are incredible.

Well, if you have something relevant to say, state it. Otherwise, be content with people just regarding you as a stupid troll.

I kind of gave up trying to educate deniers for a time for several reasons :
1) Oil got incredibly cheap, so it's almost impossible to get to a break even price with solar
2) There is simply not enough data yet to declare an inminent danger ( there are some small hints that warming is becoming exponential and not linear , but it can't be confirmed yet).

If warming is linear we still have plenty of time ( 40 years) before facing a global catastrophe. Meanwhile solar and batteries continue to mature. I hope to see solar kick in once Saudis have ended their oil dumping fiasco.

What makes you think that a one degree rise will lead to a catastrophe? I'm curious. Every scrap of historical fact says that when it has been warmer it has been better. By far. What makes you think there is an impending disaster? I'm curious.

One degree (celsius ) is what we've gotten in the past 35 years.
Another degree might not do too much harm .
On the other hand , if the growth is exponential and we get two degrees instead of one in the next 35 years, humanity will be facing some serious consequences: the drought in California might become permanent.

Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US.
I constantly review the technology . 2016 seems to be the first year in which a combination of solar cells, electric vehicles, batteries and water heaters can get you to break-even prices in 10 years of usage in southern states. Barely good enough to make the switch to solar in a household. Personally I will wait another 5 years before switching .
I can't switch right now anyway: I don't get enough sun in my current apartment I need 200 sq ft of roof to cover all my needs . I am planning to move to a house once I finish paying the mortgage.

Where did you come up with one deg C? The unaltered records show less than 0.22 deg C rise over the last 40 years. Only in the ever upward alarmist adjustment mill is this obtained. Even the Satellite data says your so called rise is pure fantasy.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Wow.

You got all that out of my post.

You are incredible.

Well, if you have something relevant to say, state it. Otherwise, be content with people just regarding you as a stupid troll.

I kind of gave up trying to educate deniers for a time for several reasons :
1) Oil got incredibly cheap, so it's almost impossible to get to a break even price with solar
2) There is simply not enough data yet to declare an inminent danger ( there are some small hints that warming is becoming exponential and not linear , but it can't be confirmed yet).

If warming is linear we still have plenty of time ( 40 years) before facing a global catastrophe. Meanwhile solar and batteries continue to mature. I hope to see solar kick in once Saudis have ended their oil dumping fiasco.

What makes you think that a one degree rise will lead to a catastrophe? I'm curious. Every scrap of historical fact says that when it has been warmer it has been better. By far. What makes you think there is an impending disaster? I'm curious.

One degree (celsius ) is what we've gotten in the past 35 years.
Another degree might not do too much harm .
On the other hand , if the growth is exponential and we get two degrees instead of one in the next 35 years, humanity will be facing some serious consequences: the drought in California might become permanent.

Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US.
I constantly review the technology . 2016 seems to be the first year in which a combination of solar cells, electric vehicles, batteries and water heaters can get you to break-even prices in 10 years of usage in southern states. Barely good enough to make the switch to solar in a household. Personally I will wait another 5 years before switching .
I can't switch right now anyway: I don't get enough sun in my current apartment I need 200 sq ft of roof to cover all my needs . I am planning to move to a house once I finish paying the mortgage.

Where did you come up with one deg C? The unaltered records show less than 0.22 deg C rise over the last 40 years. Only in the ever upward alarmist adjustment mill is this obtained. Even the Satellite data says your so called rise is pure fantasy.

My bad, sory, it is closer to 0.5 in the picture below.
Anyway, my points :
1) renewables can't compete against oil below $65 .
2) We can wait 5 years to see how climate evolves, AND give time for renewables and storage tech to mature.
3) Above $100 oil can't compete with renewables.

 

[westwall]

Well, if you have something relevant to say, state it. Otherwise, be content with people just regarding you as a stupid troll.

I kind of gave up trying to educate deniers for a time for several reasons :
1) Oil got incredibly cheap, so it's almost impossible to get to a break even price with solar
2) There is simply not enough data yet to declare an inminent danger ( there are some small hints that warming is becoming exponential and not linear , but it can't be confirmed yet).

If warming is linear we still have plenty of time ( 40 years) before facing a global catastrophe. Meanwhile solar and batteries continue to mature. I hope to see solar kick in once Saudis have ended their oil dumping fiasco.

What makes you think that a one degree rise will lead to a catastrophe? I'm curious. Every scrap of historical fact says that when it has been warmer it has been better. By far. What makes you think there is an impending disaster? I'm curious.

One degree (celsius ) is what we've gotten in the past 35 years.
Another degree might not do too much harm .
On the other hand , if the growth is exponential and we get two degrees instead of one in the next 35 years, humanity will be facing some serious consequences: the drought in California might become permanent.

Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US.
I constantly review the technology . 2016 seems to be the first year in which a combination of solar cells, electric vehicles, batteries and water heaters can get you to break-even prices in 10 years of usage in southern states. Barely good enough to make the switch to solar in a household. Personally I will wait another 5 years before switching .
I can't switch right now anyway: I don't get enough sun in my current apartment I need 200 sq ft of roof to cover all my needs . I am planning to move to a house once I finish paying the mortgage.

So curious, what evidence do you have that an increase in temperature is Armageddon? Do you have some empirical evidence that shows there is a problem? Please please share with the class.

Look , Earth has been both a lot hotter and a lot colder, granted.
That said , not all species survive such events. Two degrees won't be catastrophic, but enough to ruin most of the real estate of costal cities.

That is far from true. The coastal areas are almost exactly the same now as when the RWP was occurring. The global temp for that period was 2.5-2.7 C warmer than the present day. In fact in all of my time along the coasts there is little evidence of higher sea levels from those times that were warmer.

 

[Old Rocks]

You know, Mr. Westwall, you really should provide sources for your claims. Like from peer reviewed journals, not WUWT crap.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I kind of gave up trying to educate deniers for a time for several reasons :
1) Oil got incredibly cheap, so it's almost impossible to get to a break even price with solar
2) There is simply not enough data yet to declare an inminent danger ( there are some small hints that warming is becoming exponential and not linear , but it can't be confirmed yet).

If warming is linear we still have plenty of time ( 40 years) before facing a global catastrophe. Meanwhile solar and batteries continue to mature. I hope to see solar kick in once Saudis have ended their oil dumping fiasco.

What makes you think that a one degree rise will lead to a catastrophe? I'm curious. Every scrap of historical fact says that when it has been warmer it has been better. By far. What makes you think there is an impending disaster? I'm curious.

One degree (celsius ) is what we've gotten in the past 35 years.
Another degree might not do too much harm .
On the other hand , if the growth is exponential and we get two degrees instead of one in the next 35 years, humanity will be facing some serious consequences: the drought in California might become permanent.

Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US.
I constantly review the technology . 2016 seems to be the first year in which a combination of solar cells, electric vehicles, batteries and water heaters can get you to break-even prices in 10 years of usage in southern states. Barely good enough to make the switch to solar in a household. Personally I will wait another 5 years before switching .
I can't switch right now anyway: I don't get enough sun in my current apartment I need 200 sq ft of roof to cover all my needs . I am planning to move to a house once I finish paying the mortgage.

So curious, what evidence do you have that an increase in temperature is Armageddon? Do you have some empirical evidence that shows there is a problem? Please please share with the class.

Look , Earth has been both a lot hotter and a lot colder, granted.
That said , not all species survive such events. Two degrees won't be catastrophic, but enough to ruin most of the real estate of costal cities.

That is far from true. The coastal areas are almost exactly the same now as when the RWP was occurring. The global temp for that period was 2.5-2.7 C warmer than the present day. In fact in all of my time along the coasts there is little evidence of higher sea levels from those times that were warmer.

In a previous post I corrected my previous figure for 35 years warming ( 1 C ) to the correct one according to a chart : about 0.5 C. In that amount of time sea level has risen about 4 inches, hardly noticeable.
Again, if change is exponential this could be 8 inches; so far I do not have enough data to support this claim ( exponential warming and sea level rise ), so I'll be waiting until 2020 and see how weather glaciers and sea level evolve.

 

[westwall]

You know, Mr. Westwall, you really should provide sources for your claims. Like from peer reviewed journals, not WUWT crap.

I have many, many times.

 

[westwall]

What makes you think that a one degree rise will lead to a catastrophe? I'm curious. Every scrap of historical fact says that when it has been warmer it has been better. By far. What makes you think there is an impending disaster? I'm curious.

One degree (celsius ) is what we've gotten in the past 35 years.
Another degree might not do too much harm .
On the other hand , if the growth is exponential and we get two degrees instead of one in the next 35 years, humanity will be facing some serious consequences: the drought in California might become permanent.

Then again, clean energy has to be economically feasible, even at current prices it's a great option for Hawaii, but not so for the rest of the US.
I constantly review the technology . 2016 seems to be the first year in which a combination of solar cells, electric vehicles, batteries and water heaters can get you to break-even prices in 10 years of usage in southern states. Barely good enough to make the switch to solar in a household. Personally I will wait another 5 years before switching .
I can't switch right now anyway: I don't get enough sun in my current apartment I need 200 sq ft of roof to cover all my needs . I am planning to move to a house once I finish paying the mortgage.

So curious, what evidence do you have that an increase in temperature is Armageddon? Do you have some empirical evidence that shows there is a problem? Please please share with the class.

Look , Earth has been both a lot hotter and a lot colder, granted.
That said , not all species survive such events. Two degrees won't be catastrophic, but enough to ruin most of the real estate of costal cities.

That is far from true. The coastal areas are almost exactly the same now as when the RWP was occurring. The global temp for that period was 2.5-2.7 C warmer than the present day. In fact in all of my time along the coasts there is little evidence of higher sea levels from those times that were warmer.

In a previous post I corrected my previous figure for 35 years warming ( 1 C ) to the correct one according to a chart : about 0.5 C. In that amount of time sea level has risen about 4 inches, hardly noticeable.
Again, if change is exponential this could be 8 inches; so far I do not have enough data to support this claim ( exponential warming and sea level rise ), so I'll be waiting until 2020 and see how weather glaciers and sea level evolve.

Yes, since the end of the LIA (which was much colder than the present day) the sea level has indeed been rising. However since 2002 the rate of increase has significantly dropped. If that trend continues the max sea level rise by 2050 is 2.1 inches. Here's a question for you, have we actually fully recovered from the LIA or do we still have further to go? The history of the Earth shows that for 755 of its existence the global temp has been higher than the present day. And by a lot. Seems to me the lower temps we've been enduring are the anomaly, not the norm.

 

[Old Rocks]

You know, Mr. Westwall, you really should provide sources for your claims. Like from peer reviewed journals, not WUWT crap.

I have many, many times.

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA - LJUNGQVIST - 2010 - Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography - Wiley Online Library

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA

1. FREDRIK CHARPENTIER LJUNGQVIST

Article first published online: 6 SEP 2010



ABSTRACT.


A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N), utilizing many palaeo-temperature proxy records never previously included in any large-scale temperature reconstruction. The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. ad 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. ad 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. ad 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. ad 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.

Sure, Mr. Westwall, sure.

 

[westwall]

You know, Mr. Westwall, you really should provide sources for your claims. Like from peer reviewed journals, not WUWT crap.

I have many, many times.

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA - LJUNGQVIST - 2010 - Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography - Wiley Online Library

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA

1. 
   
   
   • FREDRIK CHARPENTIER LJUNGQVIST

Article first published online: 6 SEP 2010



ABSTRACT.


A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N), utilizing many palaeo-temperature proxy records never previously included in any large-scale temperature reconstruction. The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. ad 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. ad 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. ad 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. ad 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.

Sure, Mr. Westwall, sure.

Sure olfraud, sure. I guess you missed this part that you highlighted.... I colored the relevant part. The authors claim that POSSIBLY it was higher. Theirs is the only study that makes the assertion but leave it to you and yours to glom onto a single study and claim it to be "truth". Typical behavior for the scientific illiterate.

The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher

 

[Crick]

Yes, since the end of the LIA (which was much colder than the present day) the sea level has indeed been rising. However since 2002 the rate of increase has significantly dropped. If that trend continues the max sea level rise by 2050 is 2.1 inches. Here's a question for you, have we actually fully recovered from the LIA or do we still have further to go? The history of the Earth shows that for 755 of its existence the global temp has been higher than the present day. And by a lot. Seems to me the lower temps we've been enduring are the anomaly, not the norm.

These data do not show a drop. They show an acceleration.

 

[Old Rocks]

You know, Mr. Westwall, you really should provide sources for your claims. Like from peer reviewed journals, not WUWT crap.

I have many, many times.

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA - LJUNGQVIST - 2010 - Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography - Wiley Online Library

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA

1. 
   
   
   • FREDRIK CHARPENTIER LJUNGQVIST

Article first published online: 6 SEP 2010



ABSTRACT.


A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N), utilizing many palaeo-temperature proxy records never previously included in any large-scale temperature reconstruction. The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. ad 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. ad 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. ad 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. ad 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.

Sure, Mr. Westwall, sure.

Sure olfraud, sure. I guess you missed this part that you highlighted.... I colored the relevant part. The authors claim that POSSIBLY it was higher. Theirs is the only study that makes the assertion but leave it to you and yours to glom onto a single study and claim it to be "truth". Typical behavior for the scientific illiterate.

The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher

When a scientist states in a formal paper that something is possibly higher, that means that he is pretty sure that it is higher. If you were a scientist, you would know that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You know, Mr. Westwall, you really should provide sources for your claims. Like from peer reviewed journals, not WUWT crap.

WUWT is far more precise than your appeals to authority and their door kept journals...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, since the end of the LIA (which was much colder than the present day) the sea level has indeed been rising. However since 2002 the rate of increase has significantly dropped. If that trend continues the max sea level rise by 2050 is 2.1 inches. Here's a question for you, have we actually fully recovered from the LIA or do we still have further to go? The history of the Earth shows that for 755 of its existence the global temp has been higher than the present day. And by a lot. Seems to me the lower temps we've been enduring are the anomaly, not the norm.

These data do not show a drop. They show an acceleration.

Karl Et Al fabricated bull shit.... right after NASA adds 2-3mm/year to "meet expectations"... You guys and your modeled, adjusted and homogenized crap that "meets expectations". What, the empirical evidence didn't support your agenda and didn't meet your expectations? SO your answer is to ADJUST THE DATA TO MEET IT?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You know, Mr. Westwall, you really should provide sources for your claims. Like from peer reviewed journals, not WUWT crap.

I have many, many times.

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA - LJUNGQVIST - 2010 - Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography - Wiley Online Library

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA

1. 
   
   
   • FREDRIK CHARPENTIER LJUNGQVIST

Article first published online: 6 SEP 2010



ABSTRACT.


A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N), utilizing many palaeo-temperature proxy records never previously included in any large-scale temperature reconstruction. The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. ad 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. ad 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. ad 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. ad 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.

Sure, Mr. Westwall, sure.

You missed the words "Possibly" or did you miss the confidence factor of less than 22%? For someone calming to be a scientist you sure miss the relevant information A LOT! How about all those other papers showing you beloved LJUNGQVIST wrong?