That breaks his previous record of "10°F," set on December 24, 2007. It must be getting harder to get oneself on Fox News.
Do I hear 12°F?
Reminder: Romm's employer refuses to reveal its funding sources. Perhaps one of them manufacture thermometers?
Sunday, May 27, 2012
New Romm Record: 11 F
I believe Joe Romm has hit a new record: 11°F
That breaks his previous record of "10°F," set on December 24, 2007. It must be getting harder to get oneself on Fox News.
Do I hear 12°F?
Reminder: Romm's employer refuses to reveal its funding sources. Perhaps one of them manufacture thermometers?
That breaks his previous record of "10°F," set on December 24, 2007. It must be getting harder to get oneself on Fox News.
Do I hear 12°F?
Reminder: Romm's employer refuses to reveal its funding sources. Perhaps one of them manufacture thermometers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
You're giving Romm credit for somebody else's record:
"When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet," Fatih Birol, IEA's chief economist told Reuters.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/24/co2-iea-idUKL5E8GO6B520120524
Then I fault Romm for passing that figure on without questioning it, because it's absurd to think we are going to have a total of 6 C of warming by 2050.
We've had about 0.8 C so far. So we'd need another 5.2 C in 38 years -- 1.4 C/decade. That's about 9 times the surface warming rate of the last 30 years, as measured by GISS.
How can anyone take that seriously?
By asking Birol maybe? It sounds like the reuters guy got something cross ways. Notice that JR did not himself use the 2050 date, but merely said that there could be a 6C rise.
Well, I will try to do some more looking, but:
1) Romm published a piece on January 4, 2012, citing the 11-degree figure.
2) Romm did not pass along the phrasing "6 degrees Celsius (by 2050)." It does not appear in the article you link to, which simply says "6 degrees Celsius." Nor does it appear in the January 4 article. It's in the Reuters article, but in parentheses as indicated. I'll hazard a guess that it was the reporter's interpretation.
There is a transcript of the session online. Dr. Birol does not mention 2050 in connection with 6 degrees C.
Don't forget to check if they were even talking about the Earth. Maybe they were talking about Uranus
First anon. here. According to this, 6C is well within reach:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/climate-change-1002.html
Of course, one would think that we'll have some sort of policy in the next 88 years. Then again, one would think that we'd have one now.
Post a Comment