Open Thread, 25 March 2011 Ken Houghton | March 25, 2011 5:10 pm Comments (57) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
“Sixty-four senators, … have signed a letter urging President Barack Obama to become more engaged in reducing deficit spending. Because they are a strong, bipartisan coalition of senators, that should send a message to the president.
Thirty-two Democrats and 32 Republicans put their signatures on the document.
The letter sent to Obama last week is important for two reasons.
First, it puts all the signatories on record in supporting “a broad approach to solving our current budget problems.”
And, of course, the letter is significant because of the 32 Democrats’ names on it. Clearly, Obama and liberal Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are losing support among lawmakers in their own party.
Behind the scenes, Senate leaders of both parties have been conducting talks over the budget – apparently without White House involvement. That may not be a bad thing.
If Obama will not lead, follow or even get out of the way on eliminating the deficit, senators of both parties should join the House of Representatives in proceeding on their own, without interference from the administration.’
From here: http://www.advertiser-tribune.com/page/content.detail/id/535695/Senators-should-join-effort-to-reduce-spending.html?nav=5006
And, now for something completely real. NancyO
How long will it be before someone says our corporate tax rate is too high and we should be paying GE to do business here?
Think stuff of that sort already happened. Let me look. If I find the piece I saw earlier today I’ll post a link. NancyO
Here you go. Shows how GE gets its preferred tax bill. If we could merely extract a 10% rate from them (Not gonna happen!) we could work on reducing the debt. But, nooooo.
The 20% of outlays for war in 2010 is too much. The Germans spend less than 4%, the UK less than 7% and both are cutting their war spending in the name of austerity.
Please link to: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12085/03-10-ReducingTheDeficit.pdf
Pg 130 in print (146 in .pdf counter): US total in 2010
Incomes tax revenues: 42%
SS and Medicare receipts: 40%
Corporate Taxes 9%
Other receipts 10%.
I think SS and medicare taxes are sending in too much and the money is not used well.
Other interesting charts are at pg 9, 12, 70 (print).
For a 124 pages of how Missile Defense activities waste $10B plus a year go to: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11372.pdf
It does not mention that the US Navy is now posting Aegis cruisers to provide the common missile defense for the ‘states’ in the Mediterranean, even though the GAO says no tests. Or the third MDA site in central Europe to provide for those states’ defense.
Dan, Boehner never made the statement in the title: “
Boehner Says: Strengthen the Recovery by Boosting Unemployment!”
When we read the article it appears to be just another attack on a political view point (cutting the deficit) with which they disagree. No evidence! Just opinion, and weakly supported, at that.
US Energy ?Policy? fails to match reality. This article http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6933/US-Has-Earths-Largest-Energy-Resources
shows us that: “U.S. Has Earth’s Largest Energy Resources.
That energy reserves chart may be spot on. So what? Don’t you understand that if there is a finite amount of a commodity the first thing to do is to buy (preferably at a cheap price) the other guy’s commodity. Then when they’re out of stuff you begin to use your own, at what ever price you want to set.
Also, having the most “reserves” says little about how easy, safe or not it is to get at those reserves. There’s fracking goping on in Pa and the tap water is aflame. Then there is the deep sea stuff that breaks loose once in a while, but not to worry the new safety systems are in place. Unfortunately they’re the safe drilling plans dated 2009.
Nancy O, perhaps you might like to visit the peregrinefund.org, based in Boise, Idaho. They are something else. I’ve been there and what the do is to me, extroidinary. Norman
If the planet is actually warming, and nearing an out of control status, where is that warming being stored? You know, it has to show up some where, and the logical place is in the oceans/seas. Since 2003 we have over 2,000 free floating buoys that measure ocean temps along with several other data. They actually sink to predetermined depths and then return to the surface to transmit its data. Below we can see a comparison of the actual Argo Buoy data and the AGW model (extrapolated) projections. Scared? Yet?
“Sixty-four senators, … have signed a letter urging President Barack Obama to become more engaged in reducing deficit spending. Because they are a strong, bipartisan coalition of senators, that should send a message to the president. “
First of all, when did any group of elected reps ever set the bar for critical thinking and balanced public policy. Given that they’re all funded by the Plutocratic Party. When the group starts talking tax revenue and military spending, and not just in Lybia, I’ll listen to them a little more intently. otherwise, they’re just looking for an excuse to not support worthwhile social spending. You know, the stuff that once made America stand out scientifically and artistically and more desirable as a place to bring up the kids.
Anything sound familiar? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=player_embedded
It was from here: http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2011/03/sigh-and-they-vote.html
If you go to Sal’s site to comment, and support this attitude shown by the woman in the video, expect push back. But, it’s a conservative military site, so you won’t be banned nor moderated. At least not without being warned.
The ice under the water will be Japan’s new demand. They are understandably reluctant to restart some of their reactors that were down for maintenance.
Our reserves may not mean much in the face of significantly higher demand from another participant. One with a lot of TBill reserves.
Will do, Norman, sir. That bird in her stoop was amazing. Somehow I think the world would do just fine without us humans. Agreed? NancyO
Of course, the figures on small business include companies like Bechtal at 31 billion dollar s. Big companies, irs designation is different than small business admin…..very different and not really ‘accurate’ as perceived by voters of a small business, and less than useful it seems to me.
And then Kash at SL http://streetlightblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/effectiveness-of-austerity-in-uk.html also recommended reading at The Economist in the same list as Rebecca is useful.
Hmm. It has apparently been known for awhile that the buoy data are suspect, CoRev:
Of course, someone who cared about the evidence, rather than propaganda, would note the shrinking Arctic ice, glacial retreats world-wide, surface temperature increases, migration of temperate plant and animal species to higher latitudes in Europe and North America, expansions of deserts–a wide variety of disparate data–all point to global warming. To carp about one outlying dataset, collected through a suspect mechanism, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary clearly shows you are unserious, CoRev.
JOEL, SUSPECT?? Not really! Like all raw data they have some level of errors that may require corrective (data processing) action as those errors are identified. Your own referenced article makes the point those data bias errors should be corrected by last year’s end. Hope you realize that data corrections is the heart of the arguments surrounding the global temperature datasets.
Your examples are representative of climate change, and they mean???
Finally, did you notice the point was the the real data did not match the AGW modelers projections?
Dan, this is how your refene ended: “NOTE: In recent weeks, some of America’s top economic leaders, including Stanford University economics professor John B. Taylor and former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, have released analyses indicating that excessive government intervention in the economy has been contributing to sluggish job creation. Last month, Speaker Boehner released a statement signed by 150 American economists urging President Obama and his economic team to abandon their emphasis on “stimulus” spending policies and work in a bipartisan fashion to make immediate and substantial cuts in government spending to help reduce uncertainty for private-sector job creators.”
I find that interesting.
Nancy O, goodness, I thought that perhaps I was the only one here that thought that way. But I should have realized that you do too, as I recall a post you did telling of the end of the day in your neck of the woods. How fortunate you are to live there, while I get to stare out the kitchen window at the freeway below, but a pretty good shot of the sun setting over the bay in the west. At least we take the time to drink in our surroundings in appreciation of Mother Nature.
CoRev, Now tell me, which side do you support? It’s the woman’s? Gosh, I sure didn’t peg you for that one.
Norman–In the 80’s, I used to work in downtown SFO. Had views of the Golden Gate from the window by my desk. Every once in while, I’d look out and a hawk would glide by. Couldn’t distinguish species–too far away and too fast. But, now there are several pairs of peregrines nesting successfully in the city. Of course, lots more over in Marin at the Point Reyes Bird Observatory. Once got to observe a night time owl netting session. Unforgettable to feel how soft their feathers are. Until they hit the net, you can’t hear ’em–then, they’ve got plenty to say! Great experience. Hope you get to get out to SFO/Pt. Reyes some time. There’s a Sunday morning diary on DKos every week called Dawn Chorus. Take a look–terrific photos and lots of birders commenting from all over the country. TTFN. NancyO
“Finally, did you notice the point was the the real data did not match the AGW modelers projections?”
Ah, CoRev. In your politically tormented mind, I assume it means the modeler’s projections are proven wrong. To an experienced research scientist, it means the jury is out on this method of measuring global warming. But I understand that, since this is a rare exception to the large mass of independent data pointing to global warming, you’ll need to cling to it.
“Your own referenced article makes the point those data bias errors should be corrected by last year’s end. “
And have they, CoRev? Do you know? Can you give a cite to data that you know for a fact have been subject to the correction?
“Your examples are representative of climate change . . . “
” . . . and they mean???”
They mean the planet is experiencing significant warming overall.
Hope that helps.
According to wikipedia, John Taylor was a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers during the George H. W. Bush administration and Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during the Ford Administration.
Now there’s an objective source.
“and former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, have released analyses indicating that excessive government intervention in the economy has been contributing to sluggish job creation.“
LOL! In other news, the sun rose in the East this morning.
And Boehner was able to find 150 Republican economists. Quelle surprise.
I find that boring and predictable. Just as I find your sourcing of GOP talking points (“reduce uncertainty”) boring and predictable.
Hot off the presses! The IMF speaks.
“Growth in most Latin American economies is now back at potential or above — and in many of them there are worrisome signs of overheating,” IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said in a blog that coincided with his visit to Calgary in Canada, where policymakers from the Americas were meeting during the weekend.
“Financial deepening (in Latin America), though welcome, can bring its own challenges, for example, the risk of credit bubbles,” Strauss-Kahn said.”
A couple of things struck me about that story. First, Latin America has managed a good recovery from the global financial crisis. Growth has returned. Second, it’s so good that the pendulum may be swinging the other way, creating a risk of bubbles. Third, the IMF Director displayed incredible paternalism towards Latin America. While his cautionary words are well taken, he could have also said something like this:
China has recovered, Australia has recovered, Latin America has recovered. What the hell is the matter with Europe and America?
32 Reps and 32 Dems. We’re talking veto override.
Guess the Reps win in 2012.
If the economy tanks, the Dems cannot blame the Reps, but the Reps can blame Obama. (He will not risk a veto override.)
Anyone who listens to John Taylor or Alan Greenspan on the economy really needs to see someone.
Didn’t Alan Greenspan just win the Dynamite Prize not long ago? Hint: That’s NOT a prize you want to win.
Bruce Bartlett and I were discussing this “list”, and we both agreed that it seems to be nothing more than the usual suspects.
Significant? Maybe, but not exceptional, and if you believe the ARGO data is suspect then the rest of the data is much worse, with the exception of the satellite data.
Warming? Probably, and that means???? Well, it means its warming, and historical references give us the empirical experience that humankind progressed more during such periods.
What is in serious question is all the catastrophic predictions we are forever hearing.
Joel, I know of few who does not agree that this ole planet is warming, for now. There are even less who don’t expect us to go into another ice age. Those cold periods far exceed the warm, and actually appear to be the natural state of this ole planet in this epoch.
Good catch, Min. Dunno if it really means that, but if they do go off and negotiate on their own, it could.
“Largest Energy Resources”
We’re talking coal, aren’t we? 🙁
ilsm – “The 20% of outlays for war in 2010 is too much. The Germans spend less than 4%, the UK less than 7% and both are cutting their war spending in the name of austerity.”
Germany budgeted 10.5% of its 2011 budget outlays for defense spending. Germany spent 10.47% of its budget on defense in 2010. This information is from the government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
FRG Budget1 FRG Budget2 FRG Budget3
“if you believe the ARGO data is suspect then the rest of the data is much worse,”
LOL! You’re just making stuff up, CoRev. Do you think that calling the rest of climate change data “much worse” makes it so? On what evidence? Because a climate scientist used the word “trick” once in an email?
“and historical references give us the empirical experience that humankind progressed more during such periods. “
There are no historical references that give emirical evidence for the previous episodes of warming at the rate of the current one. Nor were humans distributed so extensively on this planet or so dependent on resources at so many vulnerable places without possibility for migration.
It is both trivial and irrelevant that there have been episodes of warmer climate in earth’s history–there is no evidence that the current warming is an example of one of those. It is also trivial and irrelevant that there might, at some future time, be a cooling period. We are not in one now, and it is far from clear what state the human species will be in when the next one arrives.
Nancy O, Thank you again for sharing, this is what makes for a wonderful day. I shall visit, another pearl to add to the string. Norman
Min, coal, oil, AND gas.
Joel, the only one making stuff up is you. There are now two independent effort to recreate the average global temperature. They are underway because there is so much controversy over the way the raw thermometer date has been handled.
The “hide the decline trick” was used to remove tree ring proxy data with that thermometer data because the bottom was dropping out of the proxy data. Huge divergence from the man measured stuff. That showed either the proxy data and their processes were wrong or the man collected data were. Since their careers were spent analyzing the tree ring proxies, they chose to keep it even though they were diverging from measured temps, so the trick was they just replaced the bad tree ring data with measured temp data
Now we find even another trick. The early proxy data also diverged from the model predictions so the just threw out that early tree ring data. Robust and skillful? No!
You really should do better research if you are going to make unsupported claims.
I will vette my sources. http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/11/19/comparing-national-spending-on-health-education-and-the-military/
German defence spending is 7% of US war spending. (48/663)
US 2009 Defense Spending $663B (2008 Dollars) see link below.
Germany in 2008 $48B (Euro converted to 2008 USD, link below). German military procurement about $14B converted in 2010. From your links. Baseline FRG budget you sent are 309B Euro.
Your source shows a 4% decline between 2010 and 11 in “defence”.
German investment in military procurement is about what GAO said in my link in the comment Star Wars grossly mismanages per year every year, with no acquisition program baselines, and no tests to prove it can intercept anything.
So much for sociology.
Yes, has already happened, and not simply one or two years but, for the largest firms, moreless general since the 1981 Tax Act.
By 1983, as studies by Citizens for
Tax Justice found, half of the largest and most profitable companies in the
nation had paid no federal income tax at all in at least one of the years the
depreciation changes had been in effect. More than a quarter of the 250
well-known companies surveyed paid nothing at all over the entire threeyear
period, despite $50 billion in pretax U.S. profits. General Electric, for
example, reported $6.5 billion in pretax profits and $283 million in tax
. Boeing made $1.5 billion before tax and got $267 million in tax
rebates. Dupont’s pretax profits were $2.6 billion; after tax it made $132
million more! CTJ studies found similar outrages in 1984, 1985 and 1986. http://www.itepnet.org/pdf/hident.pdf
The millions who do not dream of chanting socialist slogans on TUC demos but of more money in their pockets and a decent future for their children are hurting. The longer they hurt the more willing they will be to believe that a naive government has made a crashing blunder.
As I watched the marchers pass through the old imperial centre of London, by Parliament, the Treasury, Downing Street and into Pall Mall’s clubland, I confess I caught a whiff of failure, a smell that could grow into a stink that may afflict the nostrils of the whole country. And it did not come from the demonstrators.
ilsm – “Your source shows a 4% decline between 2010 and 11 in “defence”.”
The German government’s financial data does not indicate a 4% decline in budgetary authority for the defense budget. The figure that you are citing is comparison of Jan-Feb 2011 to Jan-Feb 2010 defense actual expenditures provided by the German government in the financial presentation.
The German government authorized a 1.39% increase in the defense budget from 2010 to 2011, increasing the defense budget authority to EU32147.
The source that I cited is the national government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the budget financial data is current as of March 2011.
Germany budgeted 10.5% of its 2011 budget outlays for defense spending. Germany spent 10.47% of its budget on defense in 2010. These figures are accurate.
The German government intends to reduce defense spending by EU9 billion over three years as part of a EU80 billion overall budget reduction effort. By 2016, the German government will have gutted its defense budget and military forces strength. The German defense reductions are in the hands of Frank-Jürgen Weise, who heads a special commission tasked with restructuring Germany’s defense and military forces.
Your attempts to compare the defense budget of Germany and the UK to that of the United States of America are meaningless exercises in my judgment. You provide no such comparison for all of Europe to the USA or to the USA and Canada. Moreover, treaty obligation responsibilities and other global missions undertaken by the nations concerned is more to the point.
One way “treaty obligation responsibilities”.
“Moreover, treaty obligation responsibilities and other global missions undertaken by the nations concerned is more to the point.”
Germany spends 7% what the US does.
A little ditty about Libya (treaty obligation responsibilities):
empire needs to collect rent
US GDP in NATO is 40%
US HW in NATO is 95%
no cash no lease
empire should cease
Seems only US has “treaty obligation responsibilities and other global missions” to actually do anything.
Do read the GAO report on Star Wars.
Joel, since we are talking about the “trick(s)” used to create the “Hockey Stick”, below is a graph of the various uses of the tree ring proxy data. Please, please note the magenta line as that is the real tree ring data. Also not how it is dropped when it’s directions are inconvenient.
The second chart is from another proxy, the Antarctic Ice Core data. Note here we are looking at a much longer time frame ~500K years. Notice the extremes? Notice how we are in no way exceptional temperature conditions. You might also note the tight correlation between temperature and CO2, but which is the leading and lagging factor? Some graphs show CO2 to be a laggard, this does not. Is it a graphing artifact?
CO2 got you scared yet?
Uh, CoRev, the “Climategate” propaganda has been debunked over and over. I’m sorry you’re one of the few who were not only duped by the faux scandal, but who still continue to believe that questions about tree ring data refutes the climate change evidence.
“You really should do better research if you are going to make unsupported claims.”
Heh. Doesn’t seem to stop you, CoRev.
“The second chart is from another proxy, the Antartctic Ice Core data. Note here we are looking at a much longer time frame ~500K years. Notice the extremes? “
If you actually look at the CO data you posted, you will note that the historical highs are at 330 ppm, but that the current measurement is at a historically unprecidented 380 ppm. Note the extreme?
If you actually look at the CO data you posted, you will see that the most rapid historical fluctuation between low and high, prior to our current *unprecidented* high, was a change of 180 ppm to 330 ppm that took place over the space of 10,000 years (0.015 ppm/yr). Recent atmospheric CO measurements show that a change of 320 ppm to 390 ppm took place in the space of the last 50 years (1.4 ppm/yr).
If you’re going to post on scientific topics, CoRev, it would help if you would first familiarize yourself with the science, m’kay?
Joel, you are missing the obvious, again! If there is a strong correlation between CO2 and rising temps why are we not seeing it in current time frame depicted in the Antarctic chart? Furthermore, why aren’t we seeing it in the SST chart, the first chart that started this discussion.
I have asked what does rising temps mean? Do the failing predictions of catastrophic affects have meaning to many? Yup, but not the believers. Does cutting CO2 100% in any country or region (US, Oz, EU, etc) significantly lower the temps? Nope!!!! The best they can do is a small fraction of a single degree C. but, still the believers persist in thinking they are saving the planet, but not mankind.
“Do the failing predictions of catastrophic affects have meaning to many?”
LOL! Since predictions of catastrophic effects concern the future, please cite future data that show the present predictions of catastrophic effects have failed.
“I have asked what does rising temps mean? “
Increasing desertification. Loss of ice cover in greenland with increasing albedo. Loss of permafrost in Siberia, with the release of methane, another potent greenhouse gas.
“Does cutting CO2 100% in any country or region (US, Oz, EU, etc) significantly lower the temps? Nope!!!! “
Do please link to the data showing that any country has cut CO by 100%.
You are posting nonsense, CoRev. If you’re going to post on scientific topics, it would help if you would first familiarize yourself with the science, m’kay?
Joel asks several questions in attempting to shift the point, but provide no real research in response. You seem to argue around the points, but have failed to describe what it means. So what does it mean to you?
As to the predictions, there are many with short term time frames that are or about to fail. Do the research instead of arguing through assertions. Here’s some hints: Kilimanjaro, ice free, run away heating, snow becoming a memory, etc.
My favorite assertion by the “believer” community is the failure to do the basic arithmetic to determine what would be the impact on temperatures of a 100% cut in ACO2 in the many or even all the above listed locales. If a researcher has actually done that, then understanding the fundamentals of the AGW/ACO2 mitigation arguments, then we are not left with the obvious absurdity of comments like: “Do please link to the data showing that any country has cut CO by 100%.”.
PLEASE, JUST DO THE BASIC RESEARCH IN THIS CASE MATH. Oh, and tell us what it means. You have yet to refute any point of mine, and seem to think adding issues for which there is nearly universal agreement (its warming, CO2 levels are rising, raw data can have issues) that it makes some point. Nope!
So what is the significance of having a woman present the Obama is OK in Lybia side of an argument and a male supporting the Bush is OK in Iraq? It would seem to me that both Bush and Obama are a couple of war mongering asses, to say nothing of the incredible waste of money involved. Argue if yu like over the actions of one being more humane than the other. It sounds hollow on both sides of the argument. I wold like to know, however, why a female cartoon lends any weight to the suggestion of the title, “and they vote”? Certainly men have played the greater role in the activities in both Lybia and Iraq and the entire middle east for that matter. Hilary is little more than a figure head. lord only knows who it is that is making the final decisions.
Why not start a right of center blog that focuses on what the bulk of conservative e America is about to lose when the Plutocratic Party’s two sub divisions get done arguing over the deficit. Looks like a certainty that the Trust Fund is going to take a hit. Medicare is probably in for a significant hit and Medicaid is likely to die via strangulation of services. Likely some revision of the tax codes will emerge and be heavily weighted to the lower 90% of the income distribution. Why not take the conservative point of view and discuss the coming income loses to low wage taxation and emasculation of Medicare and the SS Trust Fund. I think the masses need to be reminded that they are about to take it in their asses.
Something along the lines of “I support fiscal restraint. Stop taking my money.” And, “I work hard for my pay check. Stop reducing my benefits.” Or, “My paycheck is shrinking so I can’t afford private school. Stop screwing with the public education system.” “My kids deserve smaller class sizes.” “Why doesn’t my kid have a science teacher that studied science in graduate school?” Etc, etc.
“I don’t care. Obama is awesome.”
The video was hilarious. Thanks.
“You have yet to refute any point of mine”
You haven’t made any points, CoRev. You’ve made some assertions, and the burden of proof is on the one making the assertions. You’ve posted some graphs, but you don’t seem to understand them yourself.
You say, for instance “Notice how we are in no way exceptional temperature conditions.” Nobody is claiming that way exceptional temperature conditions on the basis of the past 500,000 years. What many are pointing out is that we are in a period of exceptionally hot temperatures for the history of recorded weather measurements. What many are pointing out is that CO has been tracking termperature for millennia, and CO levels are at an exceptional high compared to the past 500,000 years. What many are pointing out is that the current period of warming hasn’t ended, and the past 50 years have seen a rate of increase in global temperatures that has no precident in recorded history.
And posting twaddle like “Does cutting CO2 100% in any country or region (US, Oz, EU, etc) significantly lower the temps?”, followed by some bafflegab about failing to do “basic arithmetic” on a counterfactual does nothing to make your point.
You might also note the tight correlation between temperature and CO2, but which is the leading and lagging factor? “
You might also note that this has been recognized and discussed, at least as far back as 2004:
If you tried researching your topic instead of reposting climate change denial propaganda, you might learn something.
If you honestly desire to understand the relationship between the CO record and the global temperature record, you should read Caillon et al. (2003) Science 299:1728-1731.
From the final paragraph:
“Finally, the situation at Termination III differs
from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase.
As recently noted by Kump (38), we
should distinguish between internal influences
(such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external
influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2
increase) on the climate system. Although the
recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed
first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it
naturally takes, at Termination III, some time
for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts
to react to a climate change that is first felt in the
atmosphere. The sequence of events during this
Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating
in the latter ~4200 years of the warming.
The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve
as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is
then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks
(39) that are also at work for the presentday
and future climate.”
Joel, all I can do is repeat: “PLEASE, JUST DO THE BASIC RESEARCH IN THIS CASE MATH. Oh, and tell us what it means. You have yet to refute any point of mine, and seem to think adding issues for which there is nearly universal agreement (its warming, CO2 levels are rising, raw data can have issues) that it makes some point. Nope!”
As an example your reference closed with: “The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve
as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is
then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks
(39) that are also at work for the presentday
and future climate.” JUST WHAT POINT DID YOU THINK YOU WERE MAKING?
As a research scientist, you do not seem to understand the meaning of a non-falsifiable hypothesis, as is shown with your reference. Furthermore, your arguments appear to be illogical and based upon throwing some newly found (by you) paper against the wall in hopes it sticks.
As an example of your logic in one comment you claim: “Nobody is claiming that way exceptional temperature conditions on the basis of the past 500,000 years. What many are pointing out is that we are in a period of exceptionally hot temperatures for the history of recorded weather measurements.” And then you give us a reference that studies the past 500K years picking “Termination III” which is ~240K years from present. I hope you realize you confirmed one of my earlier points re: which lags temps/CO2.
Joel, that kind of muddled thinking concerns me, if you truly are a research scientist.
“You have yet to refute any point of mine”
You haven’t made any points, CoRev. You’ve made some unsubstantiated assertions. The burden of proof is not on me to refute your unsubstantiated assertions. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your assertions. Typing in all capital letters, or in boldface, is not a proof, CoRev.
“JUST WHAT POINT DID YOU THINK YOU WERE MAKING?”
Check your caps lock key, CoRev. It appears to be stuck.
I can’t teach you a course in climate science, CoRev. If you don’t understand the Science paper, I’m guessing you don’t understand climate science. It is the paper from which the data for graph on CO levels you posted came from. I assumed you knew.
“Furthermore, your arguments appear to be illogical and based upon throwing some newly found (by you) paper against the wall in hopes it sticks.”
LOL! it is the paper that forms the foundation for your arguments above. Hoist on your own petard much, CoRev?
“ I hope you realize you confirmed one of my earlier points re: which lags temps/CO2.”
So you didn’t read the paper I cited, did you, CoRev? Or was it just over your head? Tant pis.
“. . . that kind of muddled thinking concerns me, if you truly are a research scientist.”
Heh. That “muddled thinking” has gotten me to the highest academic rank with over 70 published scientific articles that have been cited collectively thousands of times.
Who are you? What are your scientific credentials, CoRev? Why should I believe your unsubstantiated assertions over the large scientific literature? What special expertise do you have that we should believe your appeals to authority over data?
Joel, as I said your analytical abilities are suspect. You said: “LOL! it is the paper that forms the foundation for your arguments above. Hoist on your own petard much, CoRev?” Now my assertions are arguments, and this is a foundational paper for them? Which point might that be? Remember, I‘m not making any, as you already claimed. You’ve put a lot of energy into trying to disprove my non-points.