Funding has been in the news. Specifically a scientist who is upset because democrats have requested transparency in her funding. It would appear political because it came from one party but what is wrong with transparency? She refused to reveal her funding by the way. She deflected with the counter claim of government funding for other scientists. I don't know how we could investigate government funding but I don't have a problem with doing that either. Pure science should be pure but it does require funding. I'm not going to go so far as to say that funding requires the scientist to slew their research in the direction that the funder wants but it does make me wonder to some extent.
Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.
“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.
Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).
The single-day maximum extent this year was reached on Sept. 20, according to NSIDC data, when the sea ice covered 7.78 million square miles (20.14 million square kilometers). This year's five-day average maximum was reached on Sept. 22, when sea ice covered 7.76 million square miles (20.11 million square kilometers), according to NSIDC.
A warming climate changes weather patterns, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler air to some areas. And in the Antarctic, where sea ice circles the continent and covers such a large area, it doesn’t take that much additional ice extent to set a new record.
“Part of it is just the geography and geometry. With no northern barrier around the whole perimeter of the ice, the ice can easily expand if conditions are favorable,” he said.
Researchers are investigating a number of other possible explanations as well. One clue, Parkinson said, could be found around the Antarctic Peninsula – a finger of land stretching up toward South America. There, the temperatures are warming, and in the Bellingshausen Sea just to the west of the peninsula the sea ice is shrinking. Beyond the Bellingshausen Sea and past the Amundsen Sea, lies the Ross Sea – where much of the sea ice growth is occurring.
The Ross Sea region has seen some of the largest increases in Antarctic sea ice extent.
That suggests that a low-pressure system centered in the Amundsen Sea could be intensifying or becoming more frequent in the area, she said – changing the wind patterns and circulating warm air over the peninsula, while sweeping cold air from the Antarctic continent over the Ross Sea. This, and other wind and lower atmospheric pattern changes, could be influenced by the ozone hole higher up in the atmosphere – a possibility that has received scientific attention in the past several years, Parkinson said.
“The winds really play a big role,” Meier said. They whip around the continent, constantly pushing the thin ice. And if they change direction or get stronger in a more northward direction, he said, they push the ice further and grow the extent. When researchers measure ice extent, they look for areas of ocean where at least 15 percent is covered by sea ice.
While scientists have observed some stronger-than-normal pressure systems – which increase winds – over the last month or so, that element alone is probably not the reason for this year’s record extent, Meier said. To better understand this year and the overall increase in Antarctic sea ice, scientists are looking at other possibilities as well.
Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea ice easier, Parkinson said. Or changes in water circulation patterns, bringing colder waters up to the surface around the landmass, could help grow more ice.
Snowfall could be a factor as well, Meier said. Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow – leading to a slushy mixture that freezes in the cold atmosphere and adds to the thickness of the ice. This new, thicker ice would be more resilient to melting.
“There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”
For Antarctica, key variables include the atmospheric and oceanic conditions, as well as the effects of an icy land surface, changing atmospheric chemistry, the ozone hole, months of darkness and more.
“Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did,” Parkinson said. “The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”
The sun is currently experiencing its weakest solar cycle in over a century according to scientists.
“The sun is flatlining. For the 6th day in a row, solar activity remains very low. No sunspots are flaring, and the sun’s X-ray output has flatlined” says spaceweather.com
Scientists say that if the solar flatlining continues it may be an indication we are about to enter into a mini ice-age.
“The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky – has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century,” echoes vencoreweather.com. “Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and today the sun is virtually spotless despite the fact that we are still in what is considered to be its solar maximum phase
Courtesy NOAA/Space Weather Prediction Center “There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity,” continues vencoreweather.com. “The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830. “Both of these historical periods coincided with below-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many as the “Little Ice Age”. “If this trend continues for the next couple of cycles, then there would likely be more talk of another “grand minimum” for the sun.”
A new temperature model has sparked debate about the extent of global warming.
An article found in the journal Science Bulletin is called Why Models Run Hot: Results from an Irreducibly Simple Climate Model; it has introduced a simpler model for understanding the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
According to the think tank The Heartland Institute, “The new model tracks temperatures and temperature trends more closely than the complex climate models used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
The authors of the paper are Lord Christopher Monckton; Astrophysicist Willie Soon, Ph.D.; climatologist and geologist David Legates, Ph.D.; and statistician William Briggs.
The authors note that the complex climate models such as those used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have significantly overstated the amount of warming during the past 150 years.
Also, they note that there has been an 18 year pause in temperature increase, a fact that is not included in the more complex temperature models.
Lord Monckton spoke about the model to Environment and Climate News:
“The errors of the enormously complex climate models are attributable to a well-kept secret: Doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations should result in an average global warming of just 1 degree Celsius, and possibly less than half that, but climate modelers erroneously assume ‘temperature feedbacks’—climatic changes triggered by a direct warming such as from CO2—triple warming. Without the assumed tripling, there is no climate problem.”
Monckton also said: “The simple model presented in Science Bulletin has received extensive coverage and has been downloaded more than 10,000 times from the journal’s website, a near-unprecedented hit-rate for a scientific paper.”
Monckton is not alone in his acceptance of the new temperature model. The Heartland Institute notes that a “number of scientists stepped forward to defend the Science Bulletin paper.”
In fact, Miroslav Kutilek, emeritus professor at Czech Technical University in Prague, stated:
“The results from complex computer models in common use do not agree with observations of reality. They lack validity because, when tested, they do not reflect well the climates of the past. In addition, they seem to underestimate some forcing factors while overestimating others. The complex models also entirely miss long-term processes, large scale, primary oceanic processes, driving regional climate.”
Yet another bitterly cold, snowy winter is destroying alarmist global warming claims, proving once again that over-the-top global warming predictions are proving no more scientifically credible than snake oil.
This morning, stunning photos show New England lobster boats frozen in port, looking like they are stranded deep within the Arctic Circle. The boats have been frozen in place for weeks, which would be remarkable enough if this were the middle of January. However, the calendar is about to turn to March.
Connecticut is experiencing its coldest February in recorded history. So is Michigan. So is Toronto. Cleveland and Chicago are experiencing their second coldest February in recorded history. Frigid and record cold temperatures are being set from Key West to International Falls. At the same time, blizzard after blizzard is burying much of the nation with record winter snow totals, with winter snowfall records beings set from Boston to Denver.
Global warming activists are in full-throttle damage control, desperately claiming global warming causes record snow and cold.
The Center for American Progress claimed, “climate change may have affected the [Boston] snowstorm — may have made it more likely, may have made it worse than it would have been without so much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.”
National Geographic published an article titled, “Blizzard of Nor’easters No Surprise, Thanks to Climate Change.”
“How global warming can worsen snowfalls,” read a Boston Globe headline.
Global warming alarmists’ own prior global warming claims, however, indict their current claims.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated very clearly, “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Well, winters are clearly not becoming milder or bereft of heavy snowstorms.
Many global warming activists are still attempting to defend the discredited IPCC prediction, claiming a single winter does not invalidate a long-term trend. As the Union of Concerned Scientists claimed, “Winters have generally been warming faster than other seasons in the United States and recent research indicates that climate change” is causing it. The problem with such an assertion is that last winter was exceptionally cold and snowy, too. And winters nationwide have been getting colder for the past 20 years. Objective scientific data show winters have been getting colder and colder throughout the United States for the past two decades. When global warming alarmists claim winters will become warmer and free of snow, yet their predictions are proven false for 20 years in a row, at some point logical people come to realize that global warming alarmists are selling snake oil.
It is not just the winter, either. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data show the United States has been cooling for the past decade. Nor is it just the United States defying alarmist predictions. Global temperature data show no global warming since the late 1990s and very little global warming for the past 45 years.
Another global warming activist tactic is to argue that global warming actually causes more snow. Of course, this is exactly the opposite of what they used to claim, as shown in the IPCC prediction. Moreover, real-world scientific data prove their new claims false. Global warming activists argue that warmer air can hold more moisture, so winter snow storms that used to bring 12 inches of snow now bring 14 inches of snow. The problem with this new assertion is – as documented above – winter temperatures are substantially colder now than they used to be. Global warming activists cannot claim recent record snowfalls are caused by warmer winters when winters are in fact much colder than they used to be.
The most meaningful lesson from the unusually cold and snowy recent winters is that global warming is so minor as to be barely noticeable. When temperatures rise merely a fraction of one degree, the polar ice caps won’t melt, the oceanic conveyor belt will not shut down, alligators will not take up residence in Montana, cats will not start living with dogs, and winters will not suddenly disappear. We will still have very cold and snowy winters. We will still have hot summers. Your grandfather will still claim that to make it to school each day he walked barefoot through the snow, uphill each way.
Global warming alarmists will still try to sell their snake oil, hoping you will forget that tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, snow, and heat waves all really did occur prior to 1988. Most of these events actually occurred more frequently in decades past. And global warming activists will try to induce you to forget their prior snake-oil predictions, like the warm and snow-free predictions issued by the IPCC. They claim every weather and climate event – whether warmth or cold, rain or shine – is caused by global warming. Global warming is the new snake oil that soulless hucksters on the Western frontier claimed applied to every malady a person could experience.
In the classic movie The Outlaw Josey Wales, a carpet-bagging snake oil salesman claimed his product cures cramps, wounds, hangovers, and “just about everything.” Clint Eastwood, playing Josey Wales, then spit a mouthful of dark brown tobacco juice on the snake oil salesman’s bright white jacket and asked, “How is it with stains?”
This makes one think of failed and all-encompassing global warming predictions. Heck, it makes one think of the entire alarmist global warming movement – how is it with stains?
In 2012, my colleagues and I at the ACLJ filed suit against multiple officials at UCLA on behalf of Dr. James Enstrom, a researcher fired after he blew the whistle on the junk science used to justify draconian new emissions regulations in California.
The facts of the case were astounding. As the environmentalist Left pushed new, job-killing regulations in the interests of “public health,” Dr. Enstrom took his own look at the data and determined that the health threat from diesel emissions was being wildly overstated. As he looked further, he discovered that the lead researcher pushing the new regulations actually possessed a fraudulent degree, purchased from “Thornhill University,” a shady, long-distance diploma mill. Moreover, members of the state’s “scientific review panel” tasked with evaluating the science had in some cases overstayed term limits by decades. At least one was a known ideological radical. (He was a member of the infamous “Chicago Seven.”)
Dr. Enstrom did what a scientist should do. He exposed public corruption, called out fake scientific credentials, and worked to save California from onerous and unnecessary regulations.
So UCLA fired him. After more than 30 years on the job.
Dr. Enstrom’s suit survived UCLA’s efforts to dismiss the case, and last week the case was settled, on favorable terms:
Not only did the Regents agree to pay Dr. Enstrom $140,000, but they also have effectively rescinded the termination, agreeing to Dr. Enstrom’s use of the title “Retired Researcher” (as opposed to acknowledgment as a non-titled terminated employee) and his continued access to UCLA resources he previously enjoyed during his appointment.
Dr. Enstrom’s victory comes at a critical time, reminding the public that the scientific establishment is hardly infallible. Indeed, it’s subject to all the same failings as any human institution, including greed, corruption, and bias. It’s worth remembering as the House once again takes up the Secret Science Reform Act, a bill that would render the EPA more transparent by requiring it to make available for public review the “scientific and technical information used in it's assessments.”
It shouldn’t take an act of job-risking courage to bring transparency and honesty to science, but in the Leftist-dominated academy, dissent from progressive orthodoxy is seen as toxic, instead of patriotic. Here’s hoping that with more victories like Dr. Enstrom’s (and Dr. Mike Adams’s jury verdict last year), universities will learn that censorship is expensive. Protecting academic freedom may lead to less scientific “consensus,” but it will certainly lead to greater integrity. And we won’t stop litigating until universities get the message.
In their desperation to prove to everyone that the “science” is on their side, climate scientists have adjusted past temperature data down so that the more recent temperature readings form a warming trend.
Of course, they have their excuses for adjusting the data. Sometimes it is necessary to change data when there are errors present. That much is understandable.
But how convenient that their “errors” were all the same and required that everything be changed so as to reflect the proper warming trend that they need to blame catastrophic global warming on right-wing conservatives and the oil and gas industry.
The Daily Caller reported:
Roy Spencer, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that the National Climatic Data Center made large adjustments to past summer temperatures for the U.S. Corn Belt, lowering past temperatures to make them cooler. Adjusting past temperatures downward creates a significant warming trend in the data that didn’t exist before.
“I was updating a U.S. Corn Belt summer temperature and precipitation dataset from the NCDC website, and all of a sudden the no-warming-trend-since-1900 turned into a significant warming trend,” Spencer wrote on his blog, adding that NCDC’s “adjustments” made the warming trend for the region increase from just 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per century to 0.6 degrees per century.
NCDC temperature data downloaded by Spencer in March 2014 looked quite different from data he downloaded this month. That’s because NCDC constantly adjusts its data to correct for errors, but critics have said these adjustments seem to always increase the warming trend for the U.S. or globally.
“Being the co-developer of a climate dataset (UAH satellite temperatures) I understand the need to make adjustments for known errors in the data … when you can quantitatively demonstrate an error exists,” Spencer wrote.
“But a variety of errors in data measurement and collection would typically have both positive and negative signs,” Spencer noted, adding that he corrects for such errors when calculating satellite temperature data even if they tend to cancel each other out.
“In contrast, the thermometer data apparently need to be adjusted in such a way that almost always leads to greater and greater warming trends,” he added.
So, errors are going to happen. And as long as you can prove that an error exists, it should be corrected. But what you’ll find is that there are errors in both directions sometimes that cancel each other out, so it might have no real net difference. What are the chances that every single error had to do with the temperature not being low enough, requiring that they all be adjusted down, while leaving the more recent temperatures where they are? The net effect is the famous hockey stick graph that shows catastrophic global warming to be a recent phenomenon, correlating to rising carbon emissions.
Winter Sets Global Heat Record Despite US East's Big Chill
Federal records show that this winter and the first two months of 2015 were the hottest on record globally, with a chilly U.S. East sticking out like a cold thumb in a toastier world. At nearly 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit above 20th century average, last month was the second warmest February on record globally, slightly behind 1998. But the combined January and February temperature beat the old record for the first two months set in 2002. December through February broke the meteorological winter record set in 2007. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration records go back to 1880. Parts of Russia, Asia, Europe, Australia, Africa, South America and especially the U.S. West were extra warm. As a whole, the U.S. had a bit-cooler-than-normal February, but slightly warmer-than-normal winter.
but heartless [heartland] and americans against [for] progress are not biased funded denier sites ?
I do note [as you totally fail to] CO2 works as claimed when the sun went to a slightly lower out put recently WE ARE NOT COOLING because CO2 does retain heat
btw I bet NBC just reported and didNOT fund or direct the study reported on warming unlike how your nut con funded denier sites do
just once try to post data from unbiased science based sites not pimps for the bro's K's agenda
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
But the combined January and February temperature beat the old record for the first two months set in 2002. December through February broke the meteorological winter record set in 2007. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration records go back to 1880. Parts of Russia, Asia, Europe, Australia, Africa, South America and especially the U.S. West were extra warm. As a whole, the U.S. had a bit-cooler-than-normal February, but slightly warmer-than-normal winter.
Well, someone needs to explain the difference between "climate" and "weather event" to Forbes (courtesy of avengador1). The author of this column at Forbes, which is summarized by the heading "Record Cold And Snow Destroy Global Warming Claims", thinks that a mere weather event, or series of current and recent weather events--the Arctic incursions that have resulted in an exceptionally fierce winter for about ONE PERCENT of the planet's surface area (severe winter-afflicted areas across the continental U.S.)--is "destroying" the steadily accumulating evidence that substantiates current global warming.
you can't even stick to your own claims of what climate is. don't worry about what non climate change people are saying. stick to your definition. according to chicken littles like yourself, you are posting mere weather events, not climate. posting stats on 2 months during a single winter does not support your man made climate change argument. so why do you post it? it goes against your very own definition of climate, and does NOT support your argument.
Last Monday, record highs were tied in Orlando (84), Melbourne (84) and Vero Beach (85). Tuesday, Miami tied its daily record high (83).
Over the next several days, Sunshine State residents will have more to brag about, weatherwise. And thousands of "snowbirds" -- those part-time residents from more northern climates -- can thaw out and enjoy a respite from winter's persistent cold, snow and clouds.
Last Monday, record highs were tied in Orlando (84), Melbourne (84) and Vero Beach (85). Tuesday, Miami tied its daily record high (83).
Over the next several days, Sunshine State residents will have more to brag about, weatherwise. And thousands of "snowbirds" -- those part-time residents from more northern climates -- can thaw out and enjoy a respite from winter's persistent cold, snow and clouds.
But with all the extra co2 that chicken littles claim is causing the warming, shouldn't those old records have been broken and not just tied since we have way more co2 now then we did when those previous records were set?
A down side? Well, you would see a down side, when West Coasters, Southwesterners, High Plains Drifers, Midwesterners and Texans start coming in droves to Florida--to enjoy some cooler temperatures.
A down side? Well, you would see a down side, when West Coasters, Southwesterners, High Plains Drifers, Midwesterners and Texans start coming in droves to Florida--to enjoy some cooler temperatures.
:sigh:
how many solar panels do you have on your house? I see you are in california. apparently there is a drought there. what are you doing to conserve water?
drinking beverages from the east coast? how do they get to the west coast? fossil fuels need to be burned to get that beverage to you yes? but I thought you cared about rising co2 levels? co2 is burned to get your beverage to you. don't you care about all that co2? so you admit you aren't doing anything to save the environment where you live. yet you run around like a chicken little saying we have a huge problem, while you do nothing yourself to stop this so called problem. there is a word for people like you.
Finding ways to grow food and other crops, produce electricity and other products and fuel vehicles with fewer CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Developing with more energy efficient building architectures, and retrofitting buildings for energy savings, where it is seen to be practical. Preserving and where possible, expanding the effectiveness of natural carbon sinks, such as forested areas. Transformational changes in the way that people live and work; not marginal reductions in the scale of each individual's and family's lifestyle and material comforts.
I am not one of the "we must all live our personal lives a little bit smaller, in order to save the planet" crowd.
For the most part, I am just an observer. It is not my lot in life to be active in any technical or organizational capacity, where I could directly leverage this situation in any significant way. My lifestyle--like many others here, I suspect--definitely "means limited". My material lifestyle has already been downsized, although not by my own volition. Not saying that I am "hard up". But I certainly do not live on anywhere near the personal comfort scale or travel possibilities of an "Al Gore".
I root for "players" that impress me with their knowledge. I try to understand what is being published and spoken on the subject. It's a recreation for me to respond to other members' ideas and thinking, via this forum, and particularly, via this thread.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-20-2015).]
Finding ways to grow food and other crops, produce electricity and other products and fuel vehicles with fewer CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Developing with more energy efficient building architectures, and retrofitting buildings for energy savings, where it is seen to be practical. Preserving and where possible, expanding the effectiveness of natural carbon sinks, such as forested areas. Transformational changes in the way that people live and work; not marginal reductions in the scale of each individual's and family's lifestyle and material comforts.
I am not one of the "we must all live our personal lives a little bit smaller, in order to save the planet" crowd.
For the most part, I am just an observer. It is not my lot in life to be active in any technical or organizational capacity, where I could directly leverage this situation in any significant way. My lifestyle--like many others here, I suspect--definitely "means limited". My material lifestyle has already been downsized, although not by my own volition. Not saying that I am "hard up". But I certainly do not live on anywhere near the personal comfort scale or travel possibilities of an "Al Gore".
I root for "players" that impress me with their knowledge. I try to understand what is being published and spoken on the subject. It's a recreation for me to respond to other members' ideas and thinking, via this forum, and particularly, via this thread.
thats really long winded just to say that you are producing copious amounts of co2 on this planet while also claiming that co2 is killing this planet. how much has your material life been downsized? its obvious you are still using a lot of electricity. you are using a computer which takes co2 to produce and get to your house. not to mention all the coal burned to recharge its batteries. I am sure you bath everyday which wastes water in a state that is low on it, so you steal it from other states. of course it takes energy to pump that water to your house, which produces co2. its apparent you aren't doing enough to save the planet
Yes, I am using additional electricity from the grid for all of my Internet message board posts, emails and Web-media interactions. Much of this electricity consumption on my part is for personal recreation, and not required for me to meet my obligations to society--mostly, paying the bills that I incur to maintain my residence, my more or less routine medical, dental and vision care needs, and the caloric and nutrient intake that enables me to continue breathing.
What if I were to exchange some of this Internet recreation for myself, to driving laps in my V6-engined Fiero on a publicly accessible racetrack? I could do that, in theory. I would have to pay the fees and successfully complete some training, as required by the racetrack. I'm thinking of one called "Thunder Hill". Not all that far away from where I reside. How many CO2 emissions would that generate, compared to my grid use for Internet recreation?
Would that make it even less appropriate for me to offer the kinds of messages that I have been offering, on this forum, and particularly, this forum thread?
Or, I could eliminate my desire for recreation by terminating my life.
I see this thread as a logical venue for discussions about the reality of evidence that substantiates or debunks the idea of anthropogenically-driven planetary warming.
Anyone could be some kind of crook--an embezzler say, or an identity thief--and still submit logical and thoughtful statements about this subject.
You seem to be taking a different tack, with respect to what I want to focus on, in this discussion.
Originally posted by rinselberg: What if I were to exchange some of this Internet recreation for myself, to driving laps in my V6-engined Fiero on a publicly accessible racetrack? I could do that, in theory. I would have to pay the fees and successfully complete some training, as required by the racetrack. I'm thinking of one called "Thunder Hill". Not all that far away from where I reside. How many CO2 emissions would that generate, compared to my grid use for Internet recreation?
What makes you think you should be allowed to do either one? what makes you think you should have a choice between the two? both produce co2. it doesn't matter if one produces more than the other. both acts produce co2 and its man made co2 that you claim is warming the planet. i thought you cared about the environment. I thought you cared about saving the planet.
CO2 to is beneficial. The relative low quantities of the stuff in atmosphere are used by nature to generate plant growth. This means more and better crops, healthier and better forests.
And while the earth has been gradually warming since the last ice age, there is no evidence of net global warming for 18 years despite what the Democrats say, or Al Gore, or David Suzuki, or the IPCC.
It is also interesting that the American Government nsidc.org has now stopped publishing the Antarctic ice reports because the ice growth in the Antarctic is so great it destroys their global warming narrative. In short, when the Arctic Ice field diminishes, the Antarctic Ice field increases. It has something to do with the tilt of the earth.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: CO2 to is beneficial. The relative low quantities of the stuff in atmosphere are used by nature to generate plant growth. This means more and better crops, healthier and better forests.
And while the earth has been gradually warming since the last ice age, there is no evidence of net global warming for 18 years despite what the Democrats say, or Al Gore, or David Suzuki, or the IPCC.
That first paragraph, about CO2 (carbon dioxide), is risible. The experimental evidence that either crops or forests would be improved from a human perspective, by being subjected to regimes of increased CO2, is sketchy, and unable to support such a generalized conclusion. Which particular crop species and where? What kind of forests? I will be waiting for someone to show me the evidence.
Beyond that, even if certain crops or forests would theoretically benefit from more CO2, the real question is how much more CO2? The theoretical benefits of more CO2 have to be weighed against the effects of more CO2 on climate, which is likely to result in changing regimes of temperate, humidity and precipitation. How well can we expect corn to grow under an "enriched" CO2 regime, if the growing season temperatures are increased by more than 2 degrees (C), or if the growing season rainfall in the corn belt is halved--or doubled?
A lot of unanswered questions and hardly any reassurance are raised by that first paragraph from our Canadian colleague.
As for the second paragraph, about the much touted 18-year pause or hiatus in global warming, I think not.
I have a commentary on the Scripps Oceanography website, in regards to a letter that was published in the February (2015) issue of Nature Climate Change.
quote
A global network of profiling floats that provides scientists the most accurate means of observing energy accumulation in the climate system has detected an increase in the temperature of the world’s oceans over a recent eight-year period.
Researchers led by Dean Roemmich, a physical oceanographer at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, found that the top 2,000 meters (6,500 feet) of the world’s oceans warmed at a rate of 0.4 to 0.6 watts per square meter (W/m 2) between 2006 and 2013. The rate translates to a warming of roughly 0.005° C (0.009° F) per year in the top 500 meters of ocean and 0.002° C (0.0036° F) per year at depths between 500 and 2,000 meters.
For perspective, Roemmich noted that the heat gain was the equivalent of adding the heat of two trillion continuously burning 100-watt light bulbs to the world’s oceans.
“The rate of ocean heat gain during the past eight years is not unusual – indeed many studies of ocean data over the past 50 years and longer have produced similar rates. What is new is that the rate and patterns of ocean heat gain are revealed over a period as short as eight years, thanks to the Argo array, that the warming signal is shown to extend to 2,000 meters and deeper, and that it is occurring predominantly in the Southern Hemisphere ocean south of 20° S,” said Roemmich.
“When we measure globally and deep enough, we see a steady rise in the earth’s heat content, consistent with the expected greenhouse gas-driven imbalance in our planet’s radiation budget,” said study co-author Susan Wijffels of Australian research agency the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO).
The study puts a widely reported “hiatus” in global surface air temperatures since 1998 into context. Roemmich said the study illustrates that the hiatus in warming of the sea surface and the lower atmosphere is not representative of the steady, continuing heat gain by the climate system. Scientists measure that heat gain in terms of increasing temperature averaged over the water column.
The science team reports its findings in the Feb. 2 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change in a paper entitled “Unabated planetary warming and its ocean structure since 2006.”
Years ago when I was thinking of an indoor grow they were promoting co2 enrichment so I'm pretty sure that plant growth can be enhanced. I'm not sure that plants benefit from the co2 in the atmosphere that is causing climate change though. The altitude of that co2 might be too high for the plants to benefit. Every denier that I know always brings up that argument. I truly hope that the deniers are right but I'm not going to base my behaviour on that hope.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 03-23-2015).]
The rate translates to a warming of roughly 0.005° C (0.009° F) per year in the top 500 meters of ocean and 0.002° C (0.0036° F) per year at depths between 500 and 2,000 meters.
OMG is this a joke? you are worried about 9 THOUSANDTHS of a degree? ok serious question. how much of that 9 thousandths was caused by man? I mean man made climate change is "settled science" so the science must have hard data on how much of that .009 was caused by man and how much was caused by natural earth and sun cycles. yes? where is the data on how much man contributed to that .009?
quote
Originally posted by dratts:
Years ago when I was thinking of an indoor grow they were promoting co2 enrichment so I'm pretty sure that plant growth can be enhanced. I'm not sure that plants benefit from the co2 in the atmosphere that is causing climate change though.
The climate is always changing. Its not being caused by man though. The climate changed long before humans were here and will do so after you are gone. Speaking of which how many solar panels are on your house? you use geothermal to heat your house? you use the sun to heat your water? you drive a car right? you use a/c in the summer right? man it doesn't like you are doing much to reverse this co2 problem that you claim you yourself is causing. why is that?
Originally posted by bigformula: The climate is always changing. Its not being caused by man though. The climate changed long before humans were here and will do so after you are gone. Speaking of which how many solar panels are on your house? you use geothermal to heat your house? you use the sun to heat your water? you drive a car right? you use a/c in the summer right? man it doesn't like you are doing much to reverse this co2 problem that you claim you yourself is causing. why is that?
I have a few solar panels and I will have more as they continue to be more affordable. My new house will be earth bermed with a sod roof. I suppose you could call that geo thermal. It's the only geo thermal source available here. The house will have passive solar to help heat it. I drive a car and I don't need air conditioning for it. I have my solar water heater storage tank and a friend is going to give me a panel for it so that I can heat my water. Why would you assume that I am not trying to walk the walk? Again, nothing would make me happier than to find out that you are right. So far when I weigh all the evidence available from people who are far smarter than I am I'm thinking that fossil fuel is aggravating a naturally occurring weather cycle.
I have a few solar panels and I will have more as they continue to be more affordable. My new house will be earth bermed with a sod roof. I suppose you could call that geo thermal. It's the only geo thermal source available here. The house will have passive solar to help heat it. I drive a car and I don't need air conditioning for it. I have my solar water heater storage tank and a friend is going to give me a panel for it so that I can heat my water. Why would you assume that I am not trying to walk the walk? Again, nothing would make me happier than to find out that you are right. So far when I weigh all the evidence available from people who are far smarter than I am I'm thinking that fossil fuel is aggravating a naturally occurring weather cycle.
only a few solar panels? don't claim cost is a factor. if you really cared you would have more. No I would not call a sod roof geothermal. passive solar to help heat is not enough. you are still producing co2 being on the grid. you can claim you are walking the walk, but you have not done enough so far. if you firmly believe that fossil fuel is aggravating natural cycles, then why are you still using fossil fuels? you are not setting an example at all.
only a few solar panels? don't claim cost is a factor. if you really cared you would have more. No I would not call a sod roof geothermal. passive solar to help heat is not enough. you are still producing co2 being on the grid. you can claim you are walking the walk, but you have not done enough so far. if you firmly believe that fossil fuel is aggravating natural cycles, then why are you still using fossil fuels? you are not setting an example at all.
You've got a problem. Either you just like to argue or there is something wrong with your mind.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 03-23-2015).]
You've got a problem. Either you just like to argue or their is something wrong with your mind.
you have a problem. you believe bunk science with no proof man is the cause of anything. meanwhile you tell others they are the problem while doing the bare minimum so you can claim you are at least doing something thus making yourself feel like you are better than others. tidbit, you aren't better, you are the problem with the planet getting warmer. that is if you really believe that bunk science. not to mention I just joined this thread. you have been in here arguing a lot. its obvious that it is you who likes to argue with as much time as you have spent in here.
[This message has been edited by bigformula (edited 03-23-2015).]
you have a problem. you believe bunk science with no proof man is the cause of anything. meanwhile you tell others they are the problem while doing the bare minimum so you can claim you are at least doing something thus making yourself feel like you are better than others. tidbit, you aren't better, you are the problem with the planet getting warmer. that is if you really believe that bunk science. not to mention I just joined this thread. you have been in here arguing a lot. its obvious that it is you who likes to argue with as much time as you have spent in here.
Well we know where we stand now don't we? Is this Shaun? You obviously don't like me and I'm not getting warm fuzzies about you. I have no interest in further discussion with you.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 03-23-2015).]
I know where you stand, and that is everyone else needs to change their lifestyle, while you change yours none. thats what I have learned from reading your multiple posts in this thread. the sky is falling yet you do nothing to stop it, while pointing the finger at everyone else for the reason why the sky is falling. the climate changes whether man is here or not. why do you have a hard time comprehending that simple fact?
How this recent report in Scientific American begins:
quote
Let’s be clear: The planet is still getting hotter. The so-called pause, or hiatus, in global warming means the rate of temperature rise has slowed. The average global temperature is still going up, but in the past 10 to 15 years it hasn’t been going up as quickly as it was in the decades before.
Although the ongoing increase is trouble, a slower rate is preferable. The question is: Why did the slowdown occur—and how long will it last? We now have an answer. Three well-known climate researchers have combined actual temperature readings from 1880 to 2010 with a slew of climate models and have concluded that the slowdown is caused by the timing of two large ocean cycles, known as the Pacific multidecadal oscillation and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. And their analysis, published online today in Science, suggests that the slowdown will end in the next few decades.
How it ends:
quote
The lesson in all this is that even though the oceans run through natural cycles of warming and cooling, pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the entire system hotter over time. In the past decade the oceans have saved us, to an extent, from rapid atmospheric warming, but when the current ocean effect reverses, our emissions will come back to haunt us.
The earth was heating up before man was burning fossil fuels. That's how we came out of an ice age. Settled science hates that fact. So of the .003 degree rise in the ocean how much of that rise was caused by man? You gonna answer rinselberg?
You obviously don't understand basic science or basic agriculture. Read about CO2's role Here
I know that plants use co2 but I'm guessing that the co2 they use is the co2 immediately next to them. I think that the co2 we are concerned about is higher in our atmosphere and unattainable to plants. This is something that I am only guessing on and if someone can confirm or deny my guess I would really appreciate it. Any discussion that furthers our knowledge is way more beneficial than just arguing. If I sometimes come off as just argumentive I apologize. I do recognize that we have differences of opinion and one of us is probably at least partly wrong. I don't question anyones integrity and I know that if we disagree it is not intentional and is an honest disagreement. I do think that the one thing we can all agree on is that the earth does go through natural cycles.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 03-24-2015).]
