Mr Krugman obviously didn’t look at the projected miniscule change in temps attributable to full compliance with the Paris accord. Perhaps 0.1 degree C…. if all nations participated fully. So, I guess he’s irate about the loss of that impotent 0.1 degree? Or, maybe the loss of so much free money. Log in to Reply
Mr Krugman obviously didn’t look at the projected miniscule change in temps attributable to full compliance with the Paris accord. Perhaps 0.1 degree C…. if all nations participated fully.
So, I guess he’s irate about the loss of that impotent 0.1 degree?
Or, maybe the loss of so much free money.
Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj67d:
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash66DigitalSoftGetPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj67d:….,….
This is SPAM and should be deleted.
How is it possible there are people so stupid they would eagerly believe a company when it says their product isn’t dangerous?
how do idiots like Krugman ever get to their positions? Obviously, even if you believe in significant AGW, the opposite affect would occur from Trump’s policies. More production would take place in the cleaner factories of the US than in the heavy coal burning areas in China and the rest of Asia, and Mexico. Which would result in a slower increase in CO2 emissions, not faster as Krugmen says
And what makes a Nobel prize winner in Economics qualified to discuss climate science? I bet he can’t even spell thermometer much less know how to predict what’s going to happen 20 years from now! But then again, according to what I’ve read none of the 97% can do that with any accuracy either!
Krugman who??? Oh, you mean that Nobel prize winning M0R0N who said that Trump would lose this election? Yeah, like he has any credibility left after that one?? [/rolleyes]
The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is plenty of scientific rational behind the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. The AGW conjecture is just too full of holes to support. There is no radiant greenhouse effect either on Earth nor anywhere in the solar system. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping action of socalled greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass retards cooling by convection. So to on Earth. As derived from first principals, the Earth’s surface is 33 degrees C warmer because of the atmosphere because gravity retards cooling by convection. This derived amount is exactly what has been observed. There is no additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect either on Earth nor anywhere in the solar system, even Venus. Without the radiant greenhouse effect the AGW conjecture falls appart. If CO2 did affect cliamte then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not been observed. There may be many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. It is all a matter of science.
Your statements above are not believable. Co2 is a GHG and that’s a fact, despite the unfortunate choice of the word “greenhouse.” The radiant forcing of CO2 has nothing to do with suppressing convection (what a greenhouse does) but rather with raising the effective emission temperature of the atmosphere. As the termperature profile of the troposphere is “colder with altitude” and as energy release to outer space is proportional temperature according to Stephan-Boltzmann, and as the CO2 IR radiated to outer space must actual match the IR produced, the earth lower atmosphere heats up to compensate for a higher effective emission altitude.
A more defensible (because true) position is that radiative forcing of C2 amounts to about 1.1C of warming per 2x Co2 and in the absence of any net feedbacks IN MEASURED REALITY therefore 1.1C is the climate sensitivity (the response to 2X Co2)…… substantially below the IPCC’s 3C claim. This assumes that CO2 is ~50% responsible for observed warming to date post LIA. The other 50% is from all the other GHGs, changes in ocean heat, solar insolation variation, land use changes, whatever.
The ERL is at the mass vs altitude midpoint in the atmosphere and is not a function of greenhouse gasses. In their first report the IPCC publiahed a very range of guesses at what the climate sensivity of CO2 actually is. In their last report they published the exact same range of guesses signifying that after more than two decades of work they have learned nothing new that would alow them narrow their range of guesses one iota. If they knew how CO2 actually affected the ERL they would be able to calculate the climate sensivity of CO2 exactly but they don’t.
The Plank effect climate sensivity that you speak has been found to be too great by a factor of more than 20 because those that made the calculation assumed that the dry lapse rate in the tropospere would not change but in reality doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will slightly lower the dry lapse rate which is a cooling effect which offsets most of the radiative warming effect. Then there is the issue of H2O climate feedback. Yes, H2O is the primary so called greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmoshere but it is also a major coolant moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface which is mostly some form of water to where clouds form via the heat of vaporation. According to some models more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. Adding more H2O to the atmosphere has a net cooling effect as evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is considerably less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. The H2O feedback also has to be negative for the climate to have been stable enough over more than the last 500 million years for life to evolve because we are here.
What is ERL? (effective emission altitude?).
How do you explain the ~1C of warming since the mid-1800s?
Are you claiming that more CO2 concentration will cool the surface temperature?
You seem to be saying there is a radiative forcing of CO2 but it is unknown (as to value) and [for some reason] more CO2 radiative forcing is offset by a change/lowering in the adiabatic lapse rate.
Then you say there is not positive water vapor feedback.
Presumably this logic applies to all GHGs, so what then explains the warming of the past century and a half?
ERL is Effective Radaition Level
Our current climate change is caused by the sun and the oceans. That is what modeling efforts have concluded.
In the troposphere the lapse rate is a function of gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a decrease in the lapse rte which is a cooling effect. This cooling effect offsets any warming that could result from radiation. One must also remember that a good absorber is also a good radiator. The combination does not result in an insulation effect. CO2 has never been used as an insulating material because it isn’t. One must also remember that in the troposphere, heat energy transport via LWIR absorption band radiation is trivial when compared to heat energy transport via conduction and convection.
Negative feedback systems are inharently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years so the feedback has to have been negative. More H2O in the atmosphere very significantly lowers the lapse rate which is a cooling effect.
Yes the logic applies to all so called greenhouse gases. The climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans.
I believe you are wrong about the lapse rate. CO2 won’t lower the lapse rate, but actual warming will (and thus warming caused by Co2 warming will lower the lapse rate). This serves as a negative feedback to say human CO2 induced warming.
The lapse rate is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and gravity. adding either CO2 or H2O to the atmosphere will change the heat capacity which will lower the lapse rate. Lowering the lapse rate allows more heat energy to rise higher up in the Earth’s atmosphere which is a cooling effect. The higher the lapse rate the more insulating is the atmosphere thus decreaseing the lapse rate decreases the the insulating effects of the atmosphere.
I guessed correctly on ERL, then.
To be honest I don’t totally comprehend your position. Moreover I intuit you believe that CO2 has NO ROLE (or a negative role) in Global Warming.
Since I don’t understand, I can’t challenge. However I can’t support it either. I’m a luke-warmer which means there’s been some AGW but so what. I think that’s all that’s necessary to dismiss AGW as a hype, if not a hoax.
My belief is that Mankind’s burning up the Earth’s very finite supply of fossil fuels just as quickly as possible is not such a good idea. I would like to add global warming as an additional reason to conserve but the AGW conjecture is just too full of holes to defend. It is all a matter of science. I do not regard the AGW conjecture as a hoax per se but rather as a conjecture that I cannot defend. To me having to site consensus as a reason to believe signals to me that something must be wrong. In all the sceince math, and technology classes I have taken and taught, consensus has never been sited as a reason to believe. What is of interest about the AGW conjecture as objections to are made it just changes only to encounter new objections. There may actaully be some effect but it must be very small according to paleoclimate data and scientific rational. Unfortunately climate science does not allow definitive global climate change experiments to be conducted. There are just too many uncontrolable variables involved. Rather than waisting our time and money trying to control climate change we should be concentrating on problems that we can solve such as Man’s out of control population.
Thank you. On your above, I am in total agreement.
Wait…he said “may well be”…is that an out? You’re not sure? Not settled science? Go back to sucking your thumb, Krugman.
Paul Krugman is a nutty leftist moron who can’t even dress himself. His opinion on anything is pretty much worthless.
Krugman knows not of what he speaks. He has just disqualified himself from the discussion
and again shows why his Nobel prize was a gross mistake by the committee.