The Current Wisdom: The Lack of Recent Warming and the State of Peer Review | Patrick J. Michaels | Cato Institute: Commentary
There are two reasons why we think it is wrong for Kaufmann et al. to attribute a reduced rate of global warming to Chinese sulfates:Summer Warming Out Of Control | Real Science
1) China's cooling sulfates do not readily make their way into the Southern Hemisphere, yet, from 1999-2010, temperatures actually fell there, while they rose in the Northern Hemisphere. This is exactly the opposite of what should have happened if sulfates are exerting a relative cooling primarily in the Northern Hemisphere
2) Chinese coal consumption increased in 2009 and 2010 (in fact, 2010 had the biggest year-over-year increase recorded) — yet, the global temperature rose sharply in 2009 and in 2010. Because Kaufmann's climate model responds instantaneously to sulfates (as opposed to a decades-long lag to adjust to carbon dioxide changes) this is contrary to his hypothesis.
From 1927 to 1936, summer temperatures in the US warmed at a rate of almost 40 degrees per century, even after USHCN chopped a couple of degrees off the 1930s!Quadrant Online - Thank you, President Klaus
Climate is linear, so we can expect summers over the boiling point in several generations.
[Bob Carter] President Klaus is one of very few national leaders with the intellectual command and public courage to have spoken openly in public regarding the dangers to civil liberty of evangelical environmentalism; for this he commands worldwide respect.Quadrant Online - Who are the 500 polluters?
It seems incredible that our parliamentarians are going to vote on a tax on which they haven’t been clearly or officially told as to who the targeted carbon-tax-payers will be. And they haven’t been clearly or officially told, how this tax will filter down to affect an added cost burden upon the entire population.
In a letter to the Shadow Minister for Climate, Greg Hunt, this week, Minister Combet confirmed that the list would remain secret.
I can’t imagine why — can you?
No comments:
Post a Comment