"Researchers estimate that the percentage of pteropods in this region with dissolving shells due to ocean acidification has doubled in the nearshore habitat since the pre-industrial era and is on track to triple by 2050 when coastal waters become 70 percent more corrosive than in the pre-industrial era due to human-caused ocean acidification." Source.
News: Stanford to divest from coal companies "Acting on a recommendation of Stanford's Advisory Panel on Investment Responsibility and Licensing, the Board of Trustees announced that Stanford will not make direct investments in coal mining companies. The move reflects the availability of alternate energy sources with lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal." Source.
Survey: Financial Professionals Offering Fossil-Free Portfolios Up 50 Percent from 2013 to 2014 “In my view, the growing drumbeat of responsible investors seeking investment strategies with little or no exposure to coal, oil, and gas extraction companies will only increase as more evidence of the negative effects of climate disruption reverberate from the recent IPCC and National Climate Assessment reports, and as more analysts and investors understand the stranded asset risk equation.” Source.
Even super warmist arm waver Andy Revkin had to call bullshit on the latest absurd warmist scare story, this time about alleged west Antarctic glacier "collapse".
Review: "IRENA estimates that renewable energy jobs reached 6.5 million in 2013. In decreasing order, the largest employers were China, Brazil, the United States, India, Germany, Spain and Bangladesh."
NOAA: "The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for April 2010 was the warmest on record at 14.5°C (58.1°F), which is 0.76°C (1.37°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F). This was also the 34th consecutive April with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20th century average."
"For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 13.3°C (56.0°F) was the warmest January-April period. This value is 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average."
Originally posted by fierobear: The Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg jumps the shark again – gets called out by NYT
Headline should read: Denier blog tries to distract from the fact warmer oceans, caused by anthropogenic global warming, are melting Antarctic glaciers by focusing on the media's poor coverage.
Ironic you would post such a thing in a thread you personally titled "The evidence against anthropogenic global warming" since the substance of the article outright disagrees with your own thread title.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 05-16-2014).]
Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.
In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.
Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.
Originally posted by Formula88: How can you argue with science?
The data plots that were just displayed are apparent correlations in the trending between two variables that would seem to have absolutely no logical explanation; no reasonable theory of how one variable could be a cause or contributor to the other variable.
Much different story with anthropogenic global warming. The chemical bonds that connect the atoms in airborne CO2 molecules and other so-called "greenhouse gas" molecules are known to trap and retain heat in the form of IR (infrared) radiation that is emitted from all planetary surfaces. This is heat energy that would otherwise be radiated all the way upwards through the upper boundary of the atmosphere and into outer space. You could think of these greenhouse gas molecules as NFL linebackers, tackling the heat carrier (IR radiation) before it gets... oh, never mind. I was just joking.
The IR absorption spectra of these greenhouse gas molecules (starting with CO2) has been measured in the laboratory. It is known to be many times more significant than the IR reactivity of the bonds in the less complex molecules that comprise over 95 percent of the atmosphere: N2 and O2 (nitrogen and oxygen molecules). This is why the entire planet would be an inhospitable deep freezer if there were not just enough CO2 present in the atmosphere. But we are already well above that necessary minimum level of CO2. The mechanism behind this at the subatomic level has been discerned and quantified. It has to do with the magnetic dipoles that are produced by these chemical bonds.
The Swedish scientist Svante August ("just call me Svante") Arhenius knew about this even before the year 1900. He measured the heat-trapping property of CO2 molecules in his lab. He was also aware that atmospheric CO2 levels were certain to increase as the everyday burning of coal and petrol-derived fuels for many human needs was already well underway in the first countries to industrialize, and clearly would be expanding worldwide. He predicted global warming and even calculated it, and his primitive, pencil and paper calculations are considered not far off the mark, compared to the large, software-programmed climate system calculations that are used today.
So that's anthropogenic global warming. It's like those tongue-in-cheek public service messages that you may have seen, with the standup comedian, on the importance of getting a stroke victim to a hospital ASAP: "Anthropogenic Global Warming is No Joke." If only that rhymed, as in "Stroke is No Joke". But it doesn't.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-17-2014).]
Review: "IRENA estimates that renewable energy jobs reached 6.5 million in 2013. In decreasing order, the largest employers were China, Brazil, the United States, India, Germany, Spain and Bangladesh."
I believe all of it except for China. China has been known to constantly falsify information. At the very best, I would make the assumption that China probably just blindly re-classified several million jobs as renewable energy jobs with very little correlation to what work they actually do.
Brazil, totally can believe it.. they are one of the major exporters of ethanol.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
This is amazing, and great news!!! The more cheese we eat, the less likely we are to be strangled by our bed-sheets!
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 05-18-2014).]
Originally posted by avengador1: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view www.thetimes.co.uk
Another example of manufactured conspiracy theories parroted by fierobear and avengador1. This story was completely debunked just hours after it started making rounds at trashy media outlets and conservative blogs. Of course neither of the two forum members who posted it bothered to follow up on the story and set the record straight when the truth came to light. Allow me.
The author of the study is distancing himself from the Times article: "I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact." Source.
I find it odd he is worried about science being influenced by political views when he joined GWPF.
How important are political ideologies in understanding the rejection of climate science?
I can ask people four questions about the free market and I have roughly 67% “confidence” (that is, variance) in their attitudes towards climate change.
As a conservative, I find myself in the frustrating position of being one of the few among my inner circle who is not a dogmatic climate change sceptic. It’s happening and humanity is contributing in a major way. Something that does frustrate me, however, is misinformation about exactly what steps would need to be taken to seriously combat global warming effects. What are your thoughts on this?
Recycling is largely a farce. Yes, it is better to recycle that soda bottle than to throw it out. But what is far better is to reuse it or not use it in the first place. But there’s no political will to move the needle on the economic to support such a system. (I do try to recycle anyway, by the way. I just don’t pretend that it makes any significant difference.)
Gasoline use is even worse. The fact is that, without abundant sources of non-fossil-fuel power, we are going to burn every last bit of carbon we can pull out of the earth’s crust. Me driving an electric vehicle (which I don’t, by the way) just makes it that much easier for someone on the other side of the world to fill up their gas tank.
I think there is, however, some utility in the example that it sets. If my vegan friends make a dinner that is fantastic and satisfying, maybe their decreased resource consumption gives me some ideas how to reduce my consumption of meat. My neighbour’s electric vehicle might convince me that I don’t need to drive a gas-guzzling SUV, and might help incrementally advance the technology to make a wholesale change in power for transportation possible.
Overall, the micro-level stuff is small potatoes, and won’t make a difference without the macro stuff. But I think the micro stuff can help sell the macro stuff, and that’s the reason it matters.
Scientists have been accused of confusing their role as impartial observers with green activism after a paper challenging predictions about the speed of global warming was apparently "suppressed" because it was seen as “less than helpful.”
One of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer denounced it as “harmful”.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that an intolerance toward climate change scepticism was preventing his paper from being published.
“The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist,” he told the Times.
Bengtsson has claimed he has been subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics because of his views and resigned from the advisory board of Lord Lawson of Blaby’s climate sceptic think-tank this week.
In his resignation letter he described “enormous group pressure” which had become “unbearable.”
Bengtsson’s paper suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its landmark report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out “to reduce the underlying uncertainty”.
But a scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote concluded: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”
A spokesman for the journal said the research was rejected for publication because two independent reviewers found errors in the paper and that the work did not represent a “significant advancement” in the field.
He said: "As a consequence the independent reviewers recommended that the paper should not be published in the journal which led to the final editorial decision to reject the paper."
Lord Nigel Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor and a high-profile opponent of climate change mitigation action has agreed that Professor Bengtsson’s reference to McCarthyism were “fully warranted.”
Contrastingly, the IPCC report starkly warned that climate change is fuelling war, hastening natural disasters, causing the extinction of species and threatens to drag societies back into poverty.
The report claimed that no one is immune to the impact of climate change and said "now, ignorance is no longer a good excuse" for inaction to tackle the threat.
Putting this here to see it after work.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-20-2014).]
Originally posted by avengador1: As for my previous post. Climate Change Conspiracy? Scientists Accused Of Turning Into 'Activists' Over Global Warming
Completely debunked.
This article cites the original and erroneous Times article as the source for its content. This article was also posted the same day as the Times article. It has been discredited.
The scientist in question, Lennart Bengtsson, has directly debunked the Times article and this Huff Post article. Source.
Even the publisher has released a statement discrediting the invented claims made by the Times and other media outlets: "Dr. Nicola Gulley, Editorial Director at IOP Publishing, says, “The draft journal paper by Lennart Bengtsson that Environmental Research Letters declined to publish, which was the subject of this morning’s front page story of The Times, contained errors, in our view did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore could not be published in the journal.”" Source.
Typical denier tactics, when they can't prove their position with evidence, they start inventing conspiracies.
Neil deGrasse Tyson on the last episode of Cosmos, The Immortals: "In one respect, we're ahead of the people of ancient Mesopotamia. Unlike them, we understand what's happening to our world. For example, we're pumping greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, at a rate not seen on Earth for a million years. And there's scientific consensus that we're destabilizing our climate. Yet, our civilization seems to be in the grip of denial, a kind of paralysis. There's a disconnect between what we know, and what we do." Source.< Full episodes of Cosmos
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 05-20-2014).]
A group of 15 scientists and meteorologists have put forward a scathing rebuttal to the Obama administration’s recent climate report which said the U.S. is already being harmed by global warming.
Scientists skeptical that mankind is causing the Earth’s climate to change say that such claims are based on false theories and flawed models. The White House report is a “masterpiece of marketing” that is trying to scare people into action, scientists said.
“As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of ‘Climate Change,’ however scary, is not proof of anything,” wrote the 15 scientists and meteorologists,including Dr. Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University and Dr. George Wolff, who formerly chaired the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
“Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of ‘Global Warming,’ ‘Climate Change,’ ‘Climate Disruption,’ or whatever their marketing specialists call it today,” they continued.
The White House’s “National Climate Assessment” (NCA), released last week, claimed that the U.S. was already being affected by global warming though warmer temperatures and increasing extreme weather events.
But the 15 skeptical scientists said the White House is trying to lay the blame for global warming at the feet of the fossil fuels industry when there is little evidence to back up that claim. The Earth’s climate is very cyclical and has gone through many changes in the past, the scientists said, without humans emitting carbon dioxide.
“This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes,” the skeptics wrote. “As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.”
“We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels,” they added. “The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true.”
As an engineer with a background in science and math, I’ve followed the global warming debate for decades. I found a new twist recently.
Iowa State University Meteorology Professor William J. Gutowski Jr. sent me an Internet page that provided an interesting comment from a climate change activist. The conclusion admits the lack of science behind the issue and proof of its actual nature.
“Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. …. ” (see http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337, Dr. Richard Alley, Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences, Wisconsin-Madison,
The author admits that science is irrelevant in his argument. Further admitting that the science and data shows that the Earth may actually be trending toward global cooling. The author has distilled the argument into what we already knew: It’s not about good science, it’s about their “good intentions.” State Sen. Rob Hogg confirmed to me that is his motivation.
There are several reasons we should be cautious about regarding this theory.
First, the global warming advocates use the inflammatory statement — “the hottest on record” — to try and justify their position. Science isn’t about a flat Earth mentality. The Earth’s long geological and climate history is millions of years old. It includes seven ice ages in 700,00 years. Using 150 years (of records kept) is an unscientific comparison that is statistically insignificant. The probability of a theory being right based on 150 years of data is essentially zero.
Second, every extreme weather event they point to has happened before. After Hurricane Katrina, they harangued about large storms — what happened, fewer storms. They predicted the Arctic ice sheet would melt, it has gotten bigger and now the Great Lakes are freezing over. It takes 500 years to reveal a 500-year flood, not 150 years.
Third, their computer models are unable to simulate and predict what is happening. They predict global atmospheric temperatures rising but in the last 15 years, global atmospheric temperatures are level. The reason they are wrong is that they don’t have command of all the environmental variables. Professor Gutkowski has confirmed that they cannot make decade-by-decade predictions. This winter is an example of natural and normal climate change, temperatures go up and they go down, sometimes to extremes.
Fourth, we know that some of the people leading these arguments have cooked the books. There exist emails proving that they manipulated climate data. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a “consensus” report in name only; they do not publish sound science that challenges their political opinions.
Fifth, they don’t believe in their own solutions. Activists admit that the changes they propose will not appreciably reduce the trend they forecast. The only solution to their claims is for the entire world to stop using fossil fuels. Can you imagine what that would be like?
Good intentions is not a reason to wipe out our entire economy. Good public policy says we need to gather much more information and create real, sound science based on data that can be confirmed to make accurate predictions.
In the meantime, we should be good stewards of the environment. We can continue working on clean air, water and soil without sacrificing our economy and freedom to a hysterical myth.
You cannot rely on these supposed reports. Look out your window. We've had an extreme winter followed by a cool wet spring. There is demonstrably no net gain in global warmth in the past 17 years. You cannot deny this to be true while accusing others of being deniers.
When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”
Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”
Originally posted by Arns85GT: And you rebut Scafetta and Shaviv how?
I haven't got to rebut anything, reality has already done it. Both support completely debunked theories.
Study: Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate "Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century."
Denier tactic: Blame the sun. Claim its not bad. Claim there's no consensus. Blame corrupt models. Blame corrupt scientists. Claim the warming stopped. Claim Al Gore made it all up. Fluff up local cold weather. When all that is debunked, start at the beginning.
This is the denier tactic that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Some people started using it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue using it forever just because...
''this summer. El Niño causes stronger wind shear, which reduces the number and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes. El Niño can also strengthen the trade winds and increase the atmospheric stability across the tropical Atlantic, making it more difficult for cloud systems coming off of Africa to intensify into tropical storms. ''
OR NORMAL YEARLY VARIATION IN THE EL NINO/NINA CYCLE EFFECTS AND NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD
Maybe not hurricanes in particular, but other kinds of disasters, they might as well have thrown in the kitchen sink. http://www.nytimes.com/2014...on-climate.html?_r=0 A sweeping National Climate Assessment report that was released this week lays out the impact of climate change across the United States, like increased flooding in Miami and devastating drought in Arizona. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report You can check out the hurricane reports here. http://nca2014.globalchange..._fulltext=hurricanes http://nca2014.globalchange...eather#graphic-20988 "By late this century, models, on average, project an increase in the number of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes. Models also project greater rainfall rates in hurricanes in a warmer climate, with increases of about 20% averaged near the center of hurricanes. " I guess they meant late in this century. Too bad/good(?) none of us will be alive to see if this is true.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-24-2014).]
Even though President Obama continues to lie about “climate change” and employs the many elements of the federal government to repeat those lies, this huge hoax is dying.
Obama is on record saying that climate change “once considered an issue for the distant future, has moved firmly into the present” and is “affecting Americans right now.” Climate change as studied by climatologists is measured in terms of centuries whereas the weather is what is happening today. It has been happening before and since the rise of civilization. Obama’s claim that “climate-related changes are outside of recent experience” and “have become more frequent and/or intense” is a lie from start to finish.
The White House recently released its latest “National Climate Assessment.” It is 841 pages of outlandish claims that reflect the lies generated by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. When you consider that the federal government spends an estimated $2.6 billion annually in grants for climate research, about the only beneficiaries are those “scientists” employed to further the hoax.
The UN’s IPCC was created in 1983 and has issued a series of reports whose sole intention has been to frighten people around the world with claims of global warming that are scientifically baseless.
The Heartland Institute, a non-profit market-based think tank, responded by creating the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and by sponsoring a series of international conferences. The 9th conference will be July 7-9 in Las Vegas. That effort began in 2003 in cooperation with the Science & Environmental Project led by Dr. S. Fred Singer and was joined by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
I am an advisor to the Institute, having written about environmental and energy issues for several decades at this point.
Calling on thousands of scientists around the world, in 2013 the NIPCC published the first of a three-volume response to the IPCC’s fifth assessment. This year, it has published a volume of Climate Change Reconsidered devoted to biological impacts, a 1,062 page opus. The NIPCC is an international panel of scientists and scholars with no government affiliation or sponsorship, and it receives no corporate funding.
Writing in the Financial Post in October 2013, Lawrence Solomon, the executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental group, noted that “solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.” The Earth’s climate is primarily a reflection of solar radiation or the lack of it. From 1300 to 1850, the Earth was subject to a mini-ice age. While the global warming hoax began in the late 1980s, Solomon noted that, in the 1960s and 1970s, the scientific consensus was that the Earth “was entering a period of global cooling. The media in those years was filled with stories about a pending new ice age.
It was only the intervention of the UN’s IPCC that changed the “consensus” to one of global warming. A cooling cycle that began around fourteen years ago could lead to another mini-ice age or the planet could be on the cusp of a full-fledged one. On average, the interglacial periods of the Earth have lasted about 11,500 years and we are at the end of such a period.
Climate Change Reconsidered II devoted to biological impact features scientific studies that conclude:
# “Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.” Considering that all vegetation on Earth depends on it, it is not surprising that another conclusion was that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content is causing a great greening of the Earth.
# As a result, “there is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels and that terrestrial ecosystems have thrived throughout the world as a result of warming temperatures and rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Multiple lines of evidence indicate animal species are adapting, and in some cases, evolving, to cope with climate change of the modern era.”
# In addition, “rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels to no pose a significant threat to aquatic life and that a modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperate-related events.”
The irony of the latest NIPCC report, of course, is that it responds to the claims of global warming and carbon dioxide’s role at a time when the Earth is cooling. It makes one wish that all the talk about “greenhouse gases” is true enough to help us escape from the present cooling.
One thing we do know for sure is that the Greens talk of climate change has lost its grip on the public imagination and attention. As the cooling cycle continues, people around the world will be far more focused on increased evidence of massive ice sheets at both poles, on frozen lakes and rivers, on shortened growing seasons, and on the desperate need for more fossil fuels to warm our homes and workplaces.
The NIPCC report draws on the experts who are associated with the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which has no website (that I have been able to find) and the Science and Environmental Policy Project or SEPP.
Take a look at the long and impressive list of scientific reports at SEPP for 2014:
The years 2012 and 2013 also appear to be "Missing In Action".
The SEPP research cupboard looks a little "bare", doesn't it..? Or is it just me..?
The UN’s IPCC was created in 1983 and has issued a series of reports whose sole intention has been to frighten people around the world with claims of global warming that are scientifically baseless.
Scientifically baseless? I guess that means 97% of scientists are also scientifically baseless! That's a scary thought.
quote
... The Heartland Institute, a non-profit market-based think tank, responded by creating the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and by sponsoring a series of international conferences.
The Heartland Institute is not a "non-profit market-based think tank", it's a shameless outlet for fossil fuel advocates that has no scientific rigor.
Perfect proof of this is their newly created "NIPCC" that feigns credibility by sounding like the IPCC. Seriously, these guys are pathetic.
Study: Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium Abstract - "We find that neither a high magnitude of solar forcing nor a strong climate effect of that forcing agree with the temperature reconstructions. We instead conclude that solar forcing probably had a minor effect on Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, while, volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations seem to be the most important influence over this period."
