A patently false statement. The rate of absorption varies logarithmically with CO2 concentration, not linearly. A doubling of CO2 would only result in 20% more absorption. The "greenhouse" effect of CO2 is nearly saturated.
Posted on 03/29/2013 11:16:30 PM PDT by neverdem
Emily Litella was the Saturday Night Live character who would spin out lengthy theories based on her misunderstanding of a word or phrase and, when her error was pointed out, would respond crisply, “Never mind.”
The Economist, which I read and revere and for which I have on occasion written (they assign reviews of books by Economist writers to outsiders), has long been convinced that we on earth face a crisis caused by man-made global warming. Now the newspaper (as it refers to itself) seems to have reached an Emily Litella moment.
“Global warming slows down,” reads a line on the cover. It references a long story in the science and technology section headlined, “A sensitive matter.”
The writer begins by noting something global warming “skeptics” and “deniers” have been pointing to for some time: “Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.”
In other words, the regnant global warming alarmist theory has not accurately predicted the last 15 years of climate.
The Economist thinks that there is still reason to be worried about global warming, but a whole lot less worried than it used to think. I have been arguing that we just don’t know nearly as much as we need to know to have the confidence in predictions justifying measures that drastically reduce economic growth – and that a lot of people in the global warming industry have been hyping the dangers.
In its penultimate sentence the Economist writer seems to agree with the first of these propositions: “Despite all the work on climate sensitivity, no one really knows how the climate would react if temperatures rose by as much as 4 degrees Celsius.”
That’s at least reminiscent of Emily Litella.
(( ping ))
“Despite all the work on climate sensitivity, no one really knows how the climate would react if temperatures rose by as much as 4 degrees Celsius.”
Good, go AWAY, and STFU
What evidence is there that current global temperatures are optimum? Optimum for whom?
The “global warming” scammers are getting more shrill and desperate every day because they are losing.
People have turned them off.
Always remember, it’s about the money. The “scientists” are merely willing, grant-lusting dupes and frauds. “Energy taxes” and “carbon credit” schemes were going to suck literally $trillions$ from Americans while mightily enriching a few well-connected political string-pullers, and it’s all fallen apart. Naturally, it is imperative that we remain vigilant. That’s a lot of moolah, and the scammers won’t stop until a stake is driven through their hearts.
Optimum for the organisms living these days.
What evidence do you have for that?
Evolution lags by about a million years, climate changes in a few millennia. Humans migrated out of Africa, to the colder climes of Europe and survived by wearing animal hides.
L
Creatures who are living today are obviously suited to our current living conditions or they wouldn’t be here. And of course we have many different living conditions, wet, dry, hot cold, etc.
Need to know why they moved and let’s not forget the breeding with neanderthals question. Crop production is the best measure to me.
Hooking kids on sex: Start “saturation process” in kindergarten
The GOP's $10M Could Fund Long-Suffering Under-Funded Black Conservative Outreaches
Plan to hand out free shotguns in Tucson stirs debate
Post–Iraq War Lessons for the GOP
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Just review the last several hundred years of history.
When it warmed man flourished and food was plentiful.
When it cooled man lived shorter and food was scarce.
Look up the climate in the dark ages. It was bitterly cold.
The black plague was likely caused by cooling:
http://earthsciencesus.blogspot.com/2008/01/black-death-and-climate-change.html
Throughout known history there is a consistent pattern.
The Climate Change Gravy Train is the welfare program for scientists who live off of fat government grants. They abuse taxpayers who live on far, far less than the scientist fat cats at universities all over the world.
Every winter, people turn them off, then every summer, AGW is back in style.
The climate change gravy train is a symbiotic, parasitic program for scientists who live off grants provided they buttress an excuse for government to tax energy use by taxpayers. (There, I fixed it.)
I will point out that if illegitimate taxation schemes don’t pan out as hoped the governments will just take the money from your savings outright.
“Optimum for the organisms living these days.”
I don’t know about you, but this “organism” is looking forward to a bit of Global Warming (Spring & Summer). I don’t like getting cold while working outside on projects too big to fit into the workshop!
Ping for later reference.
The recognition of the truth can be taken to mean that the Economist, a commentary on economics, believes all the money that can be wrung from the hoax has been wrung
While sitting in a saloon one day contemplating the universe, this guy starts spewing global warming crap, blaming Republicans and right wingers. When asked what percentage of the atmosphere is made up of CO2, he says 40%.
After he was corrected and shown that he was off by a magnitude of 10, he started screaming BUSH SUCKS!
We’re dealing with emotionally arrested neanderthals who get frustrated when square pegs don’t fit into round holes, and they don’t understand why.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.