Find solution
Why is it good to be an Agricultural Economist?

Why are Wattsup and his dupes here ignoring Economist's conclusions about recent global temperature data?

  • Economist's conclusions: "Good news we must use...[for]...putting a price on carbon and ensuring that, slowly but surely, it gets ratcheted up for decades to come." ...show more

  • Answer:

    Even though the Economist has bought into the bad assumption that the Earth's temperature is not going up, it has noticed that the carbon dioxide concentration has continued to rise and that we will eventually have to address the issue. Anthony Watts is ignoring that as he receives money from the Heartland Foundation and other sources that profit from ignoring the problem. Those who believe Anthony Watts rather than the scientific research do so for religious reasons, because they hate scientists being smarter than they are, or as Lewandowsky showed, they like conspiracy theories. The first reference below shows that if natural factors are accounted for, the Earth's temperature has been rising at a steady 0.15°C per decade for the last 30 years. The second reference is to the Lewandowsky Survey.

32PTYBEB7FRVCHRL4J7P4C4XLM at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Zippi: The saturation argument has been brought up time and time again. It's a false argument. The band CO2 absorbs at is saturated at the center of the band, at 667 cycles per centimeter, in the first 10ppm. After this the band gets wider not deeper. Current measurements within the atmospheric window show that the edge of the band is indeed getting wider. https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/physics/Public/spat/John/Increase%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from%20the%20outgoing%20longwave%20radiation%20spectra%20of%20the%20Earth%20in%201970%20and%201997.pdf http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4204.1 http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/Radiance/Anderson_Arr01.pdf And the rise for the first part of the 1900s was partly due to solar output. http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html

Jeff M

I'm pretty new here and I'm not a climate scientist, but there is one consideration that I don't hear (read) people talk about much. I came across it in one of the answers here. We all know that CO2 and temperatures aren't exactly linear. I've seen ice core graphs that show that CO2 lags temperature by several hundred years, but nothing that actually shows CO2 is driving temperatures constantly up. Consider this: It has to do with the wavelengths that CO2 receives infrared radiation and that it is currently saturated to a point that CO2 can not cause much more warming and as CO2 goes up it has less and less effective warming. in other words the infrared rays at the specific wavelengths are fairly constant and have already saturated the CO2. Is there anything or anyone that refutes this? To me this explains why there isn't any "runaway warming" and never has been any due to this limited ability. Jesse - I've seen what you are talking about when you say that the planet has been warming at a 0.15 C pace per decade for the last 30 years, but you have to consider the rise wasn't much lower than that for the first part of the 1900s and yet CO2 wasn't nearly as high as what it has been recently.

Zippi62

Probably for a similar reason that alarmist dupes deny the recent halt to warming. Being puzzled is a bad thing for those with cognitive dissonance.

Ottawa Mike

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.