I would agree to that. I linked to a part that included Clinton era regulation for items like Spotted Owl Habitat that added to the complication.That, however, would suggest both the Feds and CA share the blame for poor forest management, if that is the issue. That's a bit outside the scope of my knowledge to say the least.
As I conceded above - the president has some power in that manner. But like I asked Gordon - is that something we want him to do?Also regarding, Congress setting the forest management policies, Congress delegated authority to the executive branch to manage the forests and gave it wide discretion on how to do so. So this would be something the Trump admin could take on immediately in coordination with CA to solve the issues.
_________________________________________
How it CAN work. To a point.... as you saidthat literally exactly how it works.
But that isn't my question, I already conceded that. I asked is that how YOU want it to work?(within the law as interpreted by the courts).
How do you want it to work Gordon? The State and Feds working together, though that has resulted in this flaw, or the president telling the state to go eff off and do it his way whenever the guy has a whim? To micro manage every little part of this? That has been your consistent commentary. Trump can fix it!
Wow. Might be more MAGA than I am.
________________________________________
These is some much to deconstruct there, and I would love to. In fact, I just erased a large portion of just that. In the next 10 years we will see if the sun does change it's output lower, and if that affects climate. One of us buys the other a beer.it is since josh's argument is that the sun is driving climate change.
if the sun has not changed output in 50 years, the sun isn't driving climate change.
and the suns output hasn't changed. we know this, because we measure it. in fact, there is a case that to be made that the suns output has slightly decreased over this time period. its pretty marginal, so im fine saying the suns output has been flat.
its quite clear that the sun isn't driving climate change. the earth changing is the reason. and the thing changing on the earth is its ability to re-radiate heat into space. and the reason for that is mid 1840's chemistry .... and increase in carbon gasses in the atmosphere causing it to absorb more long wave radiation.
Mind you 1840's chemistry talked about carbonic acids in the air. You should read the document. Both translations (unless you know German.) Then realize that skeptics don't say CO2 doesn't cause warming. That is basically a lie. They say it doesn't cause the catastrophic warming that the models say for exactly the reason Ryan said.
__________________________________________________ _________________________
It is not impossible - it is something we will figure out, I just don't feel confident we have that figured out now.That's not really fair - it's impossible to mechanistically account for the historical record of warming through TSI. The IPCC and Santer specifically have dedicated a lot of time to bracketing the TSI forcing to <0.2C within reason.
Gordon's just needling you anyway by putting "TSI" in every post. The Santer paper you like says at least that the models are well tuned for the physics they incorporate (which includes TSI) based on historical backtesting, but need some additional external negative forcings to explain the underwarming trend (compared to model) of the last few years. If there's a real stabilizing mechanism that would be great, but if it's random and we haven't seen the "true warming in the pipeline" then the next 5-10 years will be rough.
So there's certainly a degree of wait and see (obvious statement is obvious) but I don't think TSI is the right tree to bark up.
I agree there is a good bit of Wait and See. Which is what the IPCC said in 1990. And were going to say in 1995. They figured we wouldn't be able to see if there was an effect for 20 or 30 years. But in 1995 Santer himself said "yes, I can prove it!" and changed the direction of the IPCC. They go hand in hand. There is one person who through a huge effort changed the IPCC's "Lets do more research" to "Be can see the result now" it is Santer.
If you were more familiar with Santer's work in the past you would realize a good chunk of that paper is based on him covering his ass, and countering the same thing he said in 1995 was the footprint we are supposed to see. Using the Hess method is how they set it up, the <0.2C is designed around that. He can claim it fits all he wants, but most reviews of his papers shows he holds items like Solar Output low and then adjusts items like aerosols, dust and water vapor to achieve a historical fit. The models, like you have acknowledged in the past, have shown far more warming than reality. They still are flawed, and they still are based on his original premises. He just reduced water vapor and changed other methods. I am repeating things from some of my first posts here. And that paper is small compared to the hundreds of papers every year that show a connection between TSI and temperature.
On that note, here is an interesting bit from a Solar Physicist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NI1bQe8I4A
Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018.
Principal component analysis (PCA) of the solar background magnetic field observed from the Earth, revealed four pairs of dynamo waves, the pair with the highest eigen values are called principal components (PCs).
PCs are shown to be produced by magnetic dipoles in inner and outer layers of the Sun, while the second pair of waves is assumed produced by quadruple magnetic sources and so on. The PC waves produced by a magnetic dipole and their summary curve were described analytically and shown to be closely related to the average sunspot number index used for description of solar activity. Based on this correlation, the summary curve was used for the prediction of long-term solar activity on a millennial timescale. This prediction revealed the presence of a grand cycle of 350-400 years, with a remarkable resemblance to the sunspot and terrestrial activity features reported in the past millennia: Maunder (grand) Minimum (1645-1715), Wolf (grand) minimum (1200), Oort (grand) minimum (1010-1050), Homer (grand) minimum (800-900 BC); the medieval (900-1200) warm period, Roman (400-10BC) and other warm periods.
This approach also predicts the modern grand minimum upcoming in 2020-2055. By utilising the two principal components of solar magnetic field oscillations and their summary curve, we extrapolate the solar activity backwards one hundred millennia and derive weaker oscillations with a period of 2000-2100years (a super-grand cycle) reflecting variations of magnetic field magnitude. The last super-grand minimum occurred during Maunder Minimum with magnetic field growing for 500 years (until ~2150) and decreasing for another 500 years. The most likely nature of this interaction will be discussed and used to explain long-term variations of solar magnetic field and irradiance observed from the Earth.Now, one doctor or physicist or paper doesn't make or break a reality. I might be wrong. She might be wrong. I hope I am wrong. I hope we do not return to the cooling we had in the 1850s and the 1660s.Lee Wheelbarger sums it up: even if the IPCC?s worst case scenarios are seen, that?s only a 1.5 watts per square meter increase. Zharkova?s analysis shows a 8 watts per square meter decrease in TSI to the planet.