Study: Increased ice losses from Antarctica detected by CryoSat-2 Abstract - "Between 2010 and 2013, West Antarctica, East Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by −134 ± 27, −3 ± 36, and −23 ± 18 Gt yr−1 respectively. In West Antarctica, signals of imbalance are present in areas that were poorly surveyed by past missions, contributing additional losses that bring altimeter observations closer to estimates based on other geodetic techniques. However, the average rate of ice thinning in West Antarctica has also continued to rise, and mass losses from this sector are now 31% greater than over the period 2005–2011."
Study: Public interest in climate change over the past decade and the effects of the 'climategate' media event Abstract - "We observe high, but transient spikes of search terms indicating skepticism around the two media events, but find no evidence of effects lasting more than a few months. Our results indicate that while such media events are visible in the short-term, they have little effect on salience of skeptical climate search terms on longer time-scales."
"Each year, CDP requests climate-change-related disclosures from public companies on behalf of a growing number of institutional investors. In 2014, the request for disclosure was sent on behalf of 767 institutional investors with $92 trillion in assets. This report presents key findings and responses provided by S&P 500 companies across economic sectors to the risk-related questions in CDP’s annual disclosure requests from 2011 to 2013.
Findings show that S&P 500 companies assess physical risks from climate change to be increasing in urgency, with physical disruptions and cost impacts already being felt. 45% of risks were described by companies as current or predicted to fall within the next 1-5 years in 2013, up from 26% in 2011 50% of the risks disclosed were described as more likely than not to virtually certain in 2013, up from 34% in 2011 68% of the disclosed physical risks were direct to operations in 2013, up from 51% in 2011"
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By JOSEPH BAST And ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 05-28-2014).]
I have a question, if I might interject. I've been making mental note of the record highs and lows as I watch the local evening news, and I don't really see any pattern or trend. For example, today's almanac says:
quote
Average High: 74° Average Low: 53° Record High: 92° in 1911 Record Low: 35° in 1971 Sunrise: 5:53 AM EDT Sunset: 8:41 PM EDT
source: http://www.wtae.com/weather/almanac Tomorrow's might be a high from 2011 and a low from 1923. Or both during the 1950s, or basically pick any two random years from 1900 til now. My question is, if records per day vary so much, how can we be sure whether a trend exists or doesn't exist? How are daily fluctuations accounted? Last month we had a week of 60s-80s with snow in the middle (source: http://www.accuweather.com/.../1310?monyr=4/1/2014 , april 13-19). What causes a day to be 20 degrees hotter or colder than the previous day, or the same day the previous year? Are temperature averages what we should be looking at, or is something getting lost in the condensing of the data sets into single points?
I have a question, if I might interject. I've been making mental note of the record highs and lows as I watch the local evening news, and I don't really see any pattern or trend. For example, today's almanac says: source: http://www.wtae.com/weather/almanac Tomorrow's might be a high from 2011 and a low from 1923. Or both during the 1950s, or basically pick any two random years from 1900 til now. My question is, if records per day vary so much, how can we be sure whether a trend exists or doesn't exist? How are daily fluctuations accounted? Last month we had a week of 60s-80s with snow in the middle (source: http://www.accuweather.com/.../1310?monyr=4/1/2014 , april 13-19). What causes a day to be 20 degrees hotter or colder than the previous day, or the same day the previous year? Are temperature averages what we should be looking at, or is something getting lost in the condensing of the data sets into single points?
Climate patterns can be modeled using averages and ranges, which would capture the high and low spread.
Certainly year-to-year weather patterns in a certain part of the world may vary wildly and not show an obvious trend. However, taking into account the entire world and considering both averages and ranges, we see that averages are rising (despite Arn's look-out-the-window comments). I would bet that ranges are also increasing but I don't know this for sure.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
Another article from the Heartland Institute? Seriously? These guys have absolutely no shame, and no credibility. They would be preaching the same crap even of global temperatures had risen 20 degrees in 10 years.
So which is it - is athropogenic global warming a hoax, or is it just "not urgent"? Or is it so urgent that action is a moot cause and we're doomed anyway?
Originally posted by fierobear: Chamber Study Predicts Obama Climate Rule Will Kill Jobs
Also known as growing pains.
Maybe not deny the science next time?
Seriously, the alarmists said the same thing about limiting lead and acid rain.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Greatest ice cover on Great Lakes since satellite records began
Nice anecdote.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: WSJ: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'; What is the origin of the false belief that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
Monckton's blog post and paper tried to deny the consensus by ignoring 98% of the papers that endorse it. He compared only papers that explicitly quantified the human contribution to global warming to the full sample of all peer-reviewed papers that mention the phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.”
By that standard, there’s less than a 1% expert consensus on evolution, germ theory, and heliocentric theory, because there are hardly any papers in those scientific fields that bother to say something so obvious as, for example, “the Earth revolves around the sun.” The same is true of human-caused global warming. That Bast and Spencer refer to Monckton and Legates’ fundamentally wrong paper in an obscure off-topic journal as “more reliable research” reveals their bias in only considering denial “reliable.”"
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: And let's not forget...
Why is 1994-2004 colder than 2004-2014?
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 05-28-2014).]
Originally posted by kwagner: Tomorrow's might be a high from 2011 and a low from 1923. Or both during the 1950s, or basically pick any two random years from 1900 til now. My question is, if records per day vary so much, how can we be sure whether a trend exists or doesn't exist?
Looking at a single location on a single day will yield a high degree of noise because you're looking at a fraction of the picture. But take an average of global temperatures for a month, year, or decade, it becomes easier to compare that length of time to a base line. For instance, this past April was the 38th consecutive April and 350th consecutive month with global temperatures above the temperature average for the 20th century, despite the cold in the north eastern United States (source). You have to look at earth as a whole to get an accurate picture.
quote
Originally posted by kwagner: How are daily fluctuations accounted?
With multiple locations. GHCN-Daily contains records from 75,000 locations in 180 countries. Source.
quote
Originally posted by kwagner: What causes a day to be 20 degrees hotter or colder than the previous day, or the same day the previous year?
Originally posted by kwagner: Are temperature averages what we should be looking at, or is something getting lost in the condensing of the data sets into single points?
Yes averages are needed, but something is getting lost, the noise. If you take an average and monitor it, you begin to notice when an anomaly is occurring.
Study: Co-benefits of Carbon Standards "Of the three scenarios simulated, the top-performing option decreased sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions by 27 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 22 percent by 2020 compared to the reference case. This option reduced carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector by 35 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. The scientists state that the resulting air quality improvements are likely to lead to significant gains in public and environmental health." Source.
OK, the world as some know it has ended. FOX 'news' Shepard Smith reports that global climate change is real. GASP!!!! Humans are to blame. Who knew? (hint: almost everyone)
FOX said it, that settles it. Because they're "Fair and Balanced" TM. FINALLY after 111 pages, this argument is settled for good. ------------------ I speak English. Sue me.
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 05-28-2014).]
No matter what the weather, the alarmsist claim it is due to humanity's environmental sins. This is not just a scientific debate for the alarmists, it is their belief system.
No matter what the weather, the alarmsist claim it is due to humanity's environmental sins. This is not just a scientific debate for the alarmists, it is their belief system.
Hahahaha that clip is too much, the response by Charles Krauthammer is hilarious.
Charles Krauthammer went outside his K-Zone (Knowledge Zone) on that segment. He should stick to the topics that he knows something about.
K-Zone is my latest brainstorm. It would be displayed on the screen at the same time that the commentator is talking, and indicate in real time whether he (she) is talking with their zone (topic that they actually know something about), or whether they are right on the borderline, or have blundered (like Krauthammer on that segment) into the "just bloviating" region, well outside of their domain of expertise.
ESPN's K-ZONE
I have used the mixed case "K-Zone" instead of "K-ZONE" to sidestep any copyright issues.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-30-2014).]
No matter what the weather, the alarmsist claim it is due to humanity's environmental sins. This is not just a scientific debate for the alarmists, it is their belief system.
this is BS that the nut-con's spread about projecting their belief's on to others
science measures and records data and uses facts believers make stuff up have no data or facts and only record BS
I do note a large over lap in nut con's who both believe in religion and believe totally without data or facts that CO2 is not a man made problem both belief's are in error but believers do not use facts or data to correct errors in religion or other subjects they are not and can not be objective or unbiased themselves they think god will fix it if they are good, pray hard, and hate sin
so global warming has become a religion in the nut-con's spin but no religion uses data and collects facts or modify actions to fit developments in a systematic manor
The responses from the loonie Leftist to my previous post was exactly as I expected. Attack the man instead of the message. It is obvious that the message hits home.
Continue in your superstition. One day Mother Earth will reward your piety.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Global Warming Alarmism is equal to superstition:
Superstition implies no scientific evidence, of which there's plenty of. If I missed the point, you'll have to forgive me, I can't see the video (it's blocked on this computer).
quote
No matter what the weather, the alarmsist claim it is due to humanity's environmental sins. This is not just a scientific debate for the alarmists, it is their belief system.
The debate is not about the "weather", its about the climate, and the two are not the same.
quote
The responses from the loonie Leftist to my previous post was exactly as I expected. Attack the man instead of the message. It is obvious that the message hits home. Continue in your superstition. One day Mother Earth will reward your piety.
Why is it always about right and left? Why can't it be about logic, scientific validity, and common sense?
Regarding Krauthammer, he is not a scientist. At this point, he's a highly politicized media figure.
His statement "I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists" shows this nicely. No scientist "pretends to know exactly" the future, but it sure as hell is a better guess than anything else. The fact that he would even make that statement means he's either trying to be dramatic, or has no idea what he's talking about, or both.
Originally posted by masospaghetti: The debate is not about the "weather", its about the climate, and the two are not the same.
Exactly. Which is why it is comical every time one of the Global Warming Alarmist claims that every major weather phenomenon is a result of Global WarmingClimate ChangeGlobal Weirding whatever term the Alarmist use today.
Name any major weather event and I'll bet I can find a news story attributing it to Global Warming with a simple Google search.
Exactly. Which is why it is comical every time one of the Global Warming Alarmist claims that every major weather phenomenon is a result of Global WarmingClimate ChangeGlobal Weirding whatever term the Alarmist use today.
Name any major weather event and I'll bet I can find a news story attributing it to Global Warming with a simple Google search.
news story are NOT about science even if they claim to be news storys are news first and storys second with a HUGE ERROR RATE IN science
Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet Billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation? http://blog.heartland.org/2...f-energy-in-america/
quote
The Regulatory Death of Energy in America by Alan Caruba May 30, 2014
Before President Obama took office in 2009, the amount of electricity being produced by coal-fired utilities was approximately fifty percent of the total. Today it is approximately forty percent and, when the Environmental Protection Agency regulations take effect as of June 2, more such utilities are likely to close their doors. The basis for the regulations is utterly devoid of any scientific facts.
Environmentalism, as expressed by many of the organizations that advocate it is, in fact, an attack on America, its economic system of capitalism, and its need for energy to maintain and grow its business and industrial base. Electricity, of course, is also the energy we all use daily for a multitude of tasks ranging from heating or cooling our homes to the use of our computers and every other appliance.
The EPA regulations are said to be necessary to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) which the Greens deem to be a “pollutant” in our atmosphere. It is not a pollutant, despite a Supreme Court decision that identifies it as such, but rather a gas vital to all life on Earth, used by all vegetation for its growth. CO2 is to vegetation what oxygen is to all animal life. Humans, all seven billion of us, exhale CO2!
Viv Forbes, the Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition and a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, notes that the Earth’s atmosphere “is not a greenhouse” and “does not have a glass roof. It uses convection to redistribute heat very quickly.” The claim for several decades has been that CO2 has an effect on the Earth’s surface temperature, but Forbes points out that “water vapor is a far more effective agent for insulating the Earth and preserving its warmth than carbon dioxide,” adding that “there is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is a significant cause of global warming.”
Indeed, even though the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has increased, Forbes points out that “Close examination of past records shows that temperature tends to rise before carbon dioxide content rises, sometimes centuries earlier.” Significantly, at the same time Greens have been crying out against emissions of CO2 from coal-fired utilities and other sources, the Earth has been in a cooling cycle now verging on eighteen years!
The EPA is lying to Americans regarding carbon dioxide and, worse, its proposed regulations will reduce the number of coal-fired utilities and drive up the cost of electricity for Americans.
One of the many Green organizations, Earthjustice, claims that “Climate change threatens the world as we know it—and the chief culprit is fossil fuel burning. To avert ecological disaster, Earthjustice is pushing for a shift from dirty to clean energy to stabilize our climate and build a thriving sustainable world.”
There is literally nothing that mankind can do to “stabilize” the Earth’s climate. While the Earth has been going through climate change for 4.5 billion years, there is no evidence that anything mankind does has any effect on it. The change the Earth has encountered, as mentioned, is a cooling, a far different scenario than the “global warming” claims of the past three decades or more.
Tom Richard, the editor of ClimageChangeDispatch.com, notes that “Arctic sea ice has rebounded to higher and higher levels each year. Antarctica is actually gaining in size and there has been no increase in droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, ‘extreme weather’, flooding, et cetera.”
Reducing CO2 would have zero benefits while, at the same time, the EPA regulations would have a dangerous and totally unnecessary effect on CO2 emissions from plants producing electricity. Other nations around the world are actually abandoning “clean energy”. i.e., wind and solar power, in favor of building many more coal-fired plants to meet their need to provide energy for their populations and their economic growth. China and India are just two examples.
To support its claims of the forthcoming EPA regulations, EarthJustice is claiming that climate change “hits people of color the hardest” and that power plants “disproportionately impact Latino communities.” It noted “the moral obligation of faith community to act on climate change and support carbon pollution limits.” This has nothing to do with the actual facts of climate change and CO2 as noted here and is a blatant political campaign to secure support from these groups.
The reality, as noted by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a policy research organization founded by former Senate leaders from both parties, was quoted in the May 26 edition of The Wall Street Journal saying “A 25% reduction (of CO2) with a 2015 baseline might make it impossible for some companies to operate”, noting that the cap-and-trade policies of emissions allowances that the EPA is putting in place “amounts to a hidden tax” on a whole range of electrical generation and industrial plants that produce CO2 emissions. The EPA will likely use the term “budget program” to avoid “cap-and-trade”, a proposal that was rejected by Congress.
Writing in Commentary, Jonathan S. Tobin, said that the new regulations on carbon emissions “will have a potentially devastating impact on America’s more than 600 coal-fired power plants” noting that “the move was made possible by Supreme Court decisions that ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had the right to regulate (CO2) emissions, giving the President virtual carte blanche to remake this sector of our economy without requiring congressional consent.”
In July, the Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, will hold its ninth international conference on climate change. Previous conferences have brought together some of the world’s leading authorities on meteorology and climatology to debunk the decades of lies Greens have told about climate change and global warming.
The President has put “climate change” high on his list of priorities and it is an attack on the nation’s ability to affordably and extensively provide the energy needed to meet current needs for electricity and reducing our capacity to meet future needs.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is on record saying that the President’s bogus “climate change” policy could cost the U.S. economy $50 billion a year and force more than a third of coal-fired plants to close by 2030. The Heritage Foundation says “The plan will drive up energy prices for American families and businesses without making a dent in global temperatures.”
This is a form of regulatory death for the nation and comes straight out of the Oval Office of the White House.
Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet Billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation? http://blog.heartland.org/2...f-energy-in-america/
HEARTLAND IS PAID PROFESSIONAL DISINFORMATION THAT IS THE ONLY REASON HEARTLAND EXISTS
