I've had the same problem with mi. Apparently his mind is too simple to parse out the comparison in a single link and he rigidly requires responses be presented only in the format he wants.
In response to your post temperatures are still within the uncertainty range on the model projections so it's impossible to say they are wrong.
Have you ever visited a coal mining town that doesn't mine coal anymore? The end result is almost always a severely depressed area, rampant poverty, high unemployment and underemployment, high drug use and abuse, prostitution, etc.
The same thing has happened in a lot of timber towns in Oregon. But in the end things change, the world moves on and people have to accept reality and move on with it rather than clinging to a lifestyle that is no longer viable. Yes, we should assist them with the transition but they need to help themselves as well.
Why is this necessarily so? In many cases, we get the politicians who's team has the most money.
It's not only the politicians but the main stream media that is owned by powerful financial interests. The media is more interested in reporting the horse race and clashes between politicians than they are in substantial reporting on the issues. Media news reporting has largely become infotainment because that's what draws the eyes of much of the American public.
The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?
As far as I can see he's always had a run for the presidency in mind, at least since I first heard about him.
I wouldn't say the RWP, MWP or LIA overrode Milankovitch Cycles but were the noise of natural variability on top of them. It's unlikely that the RWP or MWP were warmer than it is now and the increase in temperature leading into them was much slower than the current warming rate.
No one (with any sense) is talking about de-industrializing the West. Instead of spending money on building new fossil fuel power plants we spend it on renewable energy. They may cost a little more to build but they don't have ongoing fuel costs like FF energy. Solar PV is already inexpensive enough and continuing to get cheaper that at least one coal plant has been cancelled because they didn't think they could compete with PV once it was completed. I get called an alarmist but people saying responding to anthropogenic global warming will destroy economies and plunge millions into poverty are also alarmists.
The supposed pause in warming in undetectable when you rigorously analyze it statistically as Grant Foster, a professional statistician, did here. The warming has continued pretty much as expected and temperatures are still within the uncertainty range of IPCC projections.
I think there is plenty of existing evidence to take action right now. If we wait until it's slap you in the face obvious the damages will cost us a lot more than doing something about it.
Most all "carbon dating" is absolute fiction. You cannot carbon date something that was never alive. They just pull most of these numbers out of their butts. It is completely unknowable.
That's why they use other forms of radiometric dating to date things that are too old for carbon dating.
My understanding is that we are in an Interglacial Period and we would expect things to warm naturally.
The warmth of the current interglacial period hit a peak 6,000-8,000 years ago and has been declining ever since (until recently). The decline in temperatures is what you'd expect to see given the current state of the cycles of the various components of Milankovitch Cycles. Something has overridden the Milankovitch Cycles.
James Taylor is an idiot and the story is bullshit. The time to gauge how Arctic sea ice is doing is in September at the sea ice minimum. Arctic sea ice doesn't vary a whole lot in the winter and spring because it's constrained by the surrounding continents. Nevertheless since February it's been setting records for minimum extent for that date.
You could probably say that both sides want your money, just in different ways. But if you're concern about money colors your attitude about the science you're doing it backwards. You can't change the scientific reality and if scientists are even in the ballpark about the effects the reality of anthropogenic global warming is going to cost you a whole lot more than doing something to avoid it.
As far as the cost to the average person it's maybe slightly more than they would spend on old existing technology but most of it would be money that's going to be spent anyway in building new power plants or maintenance of existing ones or fuel costs. The increment in spending isn't that great and things like solar and wind don't have ongoing fuel costs.
BTW, that should be "1000 PPM CO2". With business as usual we won't hit 1000 ppm this century but could well do it before 2200.
Carbon 14 is not the isotope in the atmosphere that shows the increase is from burning fossil fuels. It's the ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 13 that does that. Both C12 & C13 are stable isotopes of carbon. In fossil fuels there is more C12 relative to C13 compared to the atmosphere because being lighter C12 is preferred by photosynthesis. The ratio of C12 to C13 in the atmosphere has been increasing which supports the idea that the increase in CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels. Also the level of oxygen in the atmosphere has been dropping at a rate consistent with the uptake of oxygen due to the burning of fossil fuels.
That's pretty funny. Do you understand all the calculations and adjustments they have to make to get the satellite temperature records? They're implying the temperature for an amorphous region of the atmosphere that doesn't go down to ground level from the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules. They have to make adjustments for orbital variations, sensor decay, water vapor and clouds and high altitude land. It's much more involved than what they do for surface temperatures.
The satellite temperatures are useful information but to imply they're more accurate than surface temperatures is absurd. Even one of the scientists, Carl Mears from RSS says he thinks the surface measurements are better.
As I said the models are merely tools to test our understanding and the major GCM's are doing pretty well. I see people make claims like like yours all the time but I've never seen any scientifically rigorous debunking of them.
And as I also said the real evidence is in the real world observations. Why don't you address that?
(BTW, don't expect a reply soon, I'm leaving for a 5 day whitewater rafting vacation in 20 minutes.)
why the Sun is such a lightweight in this regard but it's a good thing because otherwise we wouldn't be here.
Good luck. I think if you're young enough you'll find out how badly wrong you are.
So you don't care if it's going to cost you a lot more to let it happen as to do something about it?
In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.
