The cost of solar panels has dropped dramatically — 30 percent in the past year alone. One major reason is the "China price," or the competitive advantages offered by Chinese manufacturing, with its cheap labor and economies of scale. China is now the world's biggest producer of photovoltaic solar panels, making about 40 percent of all panels, according to the China Daily, mostly for export.
They're doing it because they're making the solar panels, and are making them cheaper than anyone. Having near slave labor doesn't hurt. It ain't because they're "green", unless you mean money.
NASA has to satisfy the Obama administration's requirements for funding. Do you really trust their numbers? And, he did not state NASA he made a more general comment.
Arn
So you don't trust the IPCC or NASA or any credible scientific organization?
You seem to love linking the NSIDC, they seem to be in agreement with the rest of the organizations. NASA, NOAA, The Royal Society of the UK, just to name a few.
to be fair, I"ve posted only about 8,321 posts and I really can't recall who all I've referred to so here is a list of web locations that are useful and credible scientists and organizations that are skeptical about Global Warming. I don't have time today to look them all up, but these are a few to pick on for you.
to be fair, I"ve posted only about 8,321 posts and I really can't recall who all I've referred to so here is a list of web locations that are useful and credible scientists and organizations that are skeptical about Global Warming. I don't have time today to look them all up, but these are a few to pick on for you.
Yeah that's quite the list there but I thought I said credible scientific organizations? Not Scientists AND organizations.
Most of your links seem to be opinion sites and blogs not recognized institutions of science while others do not seem to have anything to do with the study of CO2 and climate.
Why not try again and show the credible recognized scientific organization sites that say definitively there is no correlation between CO2 and climate change.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-24-2010).]
Statements by dissenting organizations With the release of the revised statement[94] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming.[2][3]
Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include opinions that the earth has not warmed, or that warming is attributable to causes other than increasing greenhouse gases.
So let me get this straight, Colorado State University meteorology department isn't qualified?
How about Warwich Hughes? or the Fraser Institute, or Professor Ross McKittrick?
Like you are qualified to discount these individuals and organizations' publications?
Who are you? You asked for some credible scientific sources and here they are.
You can counter with the discredited East Anglia data, the fraudulent IPCC data, or the politically driven NASA data, but when you go to actual indepenent scientists you find more and more published skeptics.
So let me get this straight, Colorado State University meteorology department isn't qualified?
How about Warwich Hughes? or the Fraser Institute, or Professor Ross McKittrick?
Like you are qualified to discount these individuals and organizations' publications?
Who are you? You asked for some credible scientific sources and here they are.
You can counter with the discredited East Anglia data, the fraudulent IPCC data, or the politically driven NASA data, but when you go to actual indepenent scientists you find more and more published skeptics.
Arn
Dismissive?? Not at all, I know there are scientists that claim that Climate Change is not happening and some that say it is but man is not effecting it but NOT ONE SCIENTIFIC BODY OF NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL STANDING REJECTS THE FINDINGS OF HUMAN_INDUCED EFFECTS ON GLOBAL WARMING!!!!
Oh, and I'm sure you will show me now where the Colorado State University are saying that there is no evidence of Climate Change will you?
Qualified to discount them? Hmmmmmm... isn't that what you have been doing with the IPCC even though they have been investigated at least 4 times and cleared?
Idependent scientists that are skeptics, I would hope so, every community usually has the nay sayers no matter what the facts shows.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-24-2010).]
You DO realize that, at this point, your argument comes down to "yes I am, no you're not, yes I am, no you're not..."
Yeah, that's what I'm all about. Clearly it's only me arguing. Like I said if you don't want to see differing opinions start a blog with your fellow deniers.
Still trying to get you to realize you have an opinion on the matter like all the rest of us non-experts, so when you say you "know" things you are wrong, you just have an opinion.
You are choosing to trust the minority of people who have knowledge in this field, which is fine by me, you can believe whatever it is you like.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-24-2010).]
You are choosing to trust the minority of people who have knowledge in this field, which is fine by me, you can believe whatever it is you like.
Who says they are a minority? Do you have a poll of all the scientist that shows this to be a fact? What is your proof that your statement is true? Don't bother answering, as I know there isn't such a thing or proof. You too can believe what you want to, it doesn't mean it is right.
Originally posted by avengador1: Who says they are a minority? Do you have a poll of all the scientist that shows this to be a fact? What is your proof that your statement is true? Don't bother answering, as I know there isn't such a thing or proof. You too can believe what you want to, it doesn't mean it is right.
No worries, Arn already proved it for me.
No, it doesn't mean I'm right but I'll go with what the vast majority of scientists say in this case until proven wrong.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-24-2010).]
Newf, you won't know when you are proven wrong. Right now World Governments are simply posturing but are back tracking like crazy on Global Warming initiatives. Just look at the American Congress and the EU.
You're too busy arguing to realize your argument is lost.
Yeah, that's what I'm all about. Clearly it's only me arguing. Like I said if you don't want to see differing opinions start a blog with your fellow deniers.
FYI, "deniers" is a pejorative, like saying "you and your fellow holocaust deniers", which is intentional on the part of the ones who decided to call we skeptic "deniers."
quote
Still trying to get you to realize you have an opinion on the matter like all the rest of us non-experts, so when you say you "know" things you are wrong, you just have an opinion.
I fully realize I have an opinion, and I've never said I don't. You are arguing against a "straw man" that you've set up, not me, because I haven't said or implied the things you accuse me of having said or implied.
quote
You are choosing to trust the minority of people who have knowledge in this field, which is fine by me, you can believe whatever it is you like.
There you go again..."the minority". It seems to be all about numbers with you. If the "majority" says it's right, then damnit, it *must* be right. Keep clinging to that if it brings you comfort.
There you go again..."the minority". It seems to be all about numbers with you. If the "majority" says it's right, then damnit, it *must* be right. Keep clinging to that if it brings you comfort.
The prejorative thing is something I had never considered if you'd rather be classed as skeptics I have no problem with it. I apologize if I hurt your feewings. I know how you love political correctness
With regards to the majority, it brings me a lot of comfort and if believing the lone wolves and internet bloggers brings you comfort good for you.
You have many times in this thread claimed to "know" with certainty the "truth" in the case of Climate Change if you are willing to say that you only have an opinion and that opinion is as valid as anyone elses about this subject I'm fine with that.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-24-2010).]
Newf, you won't know when you are proven wrong. Right now World Governments are simply posturing but are back tracking like crazy on Global Warming initiatives. Just look at the American Congress and the EU.
You're too busy arguing to realize your argument is lost.
Arn
Ohhh my changing the discussion again Arn? Hard to keep up sometimes.
American Congress and EU are back-tracking like crazy?
Let's see your "proof" and the reasons for this back tracking.
Proof now, not opinion pieces and blogs that ar easily shown to be biased.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-24-2010).]
The prejorative thing is something I had never considered if you'd rather be classed as skeptics I have no problem with it. I apologize if I hurt your feewings. I know how you love political correctness
Ass.
quote
With regards to the majority, it brings me a lot of comfort and if believing the lone wolves and internet bloggers brings you comfort good for you.
No, that's why I post mainly articles with links to science. I *occasionally* post opinion.
quote
You have many times in this thread claimed to "know" with certainty the "truth" in the case of Climate Change if you are willing to say that you only have an opinion and that opinion is as valid as anyone elses about this subject I'm fine with that.
I can only know with as much certainty as anyone can who reads and forms a conclusion. I've seen enough evidence that AGW is a hoax, and the numbers are cooked and fudged. That paints the warmist scientists as dishonest. Why the hell would I believe dishonest scientists simply because they're are part of some majority? All that means is the majority has been hookwinked by falsified information.
It's kind of boring spoon feeding the unwilling to hear what they don't want to acknowledge.
Arn
Thanks for the links you certainly proved your points using them on your last few positions.
Now what is it you are saying exactly?
That these policies are not being implemented right now due to the disbelief of the science or are you simply stating what I have also said many times, that "in this economy environmental policies will be less of a priority".
Here are some quotes from your links. They are in order as to how you linked them.
quote
concern about the near-term costs and adverse impact on employment when the economy is only just starting to recover from deep recession, are dimming enthusiasm at state level as well.
Why did cap and trade die? The short answer is that it was done in by the weak economy, the Wall Street meltdown, determined industry opposition and its own complexity
Environmental groups and their foes in industry joined hands to embrace the approach, a market-driven system that sets a ceiling on global warming pollution
Cap-and-trade is also fading into irrelevancy because the North American economy remains fragile
Australia is a small greenhouse gas polluter in global terms, but one of the worst per capita because it relies heavily for its electricity on its abundant reserves of coal. Opponents of the legislation say it amounts to a huge new tax on polluting industries such as power generators, which would put a crimp on the economy and lead to higher prices for consumers.
Whether U.S. cap and trade legislation is dead remains to be seen. What is certain is that it will be delayed indefinitely, as one of Obama’s closest allies in the Senate said this Tuesday. But action on energy and climate cannot be delayed any longer.
(I noticed two of them are the same article reprinted on different webpages of the NYTimes further indication that you don't bother to read some of the information you c&p, in fact the last article/site seems to support both Cap and Trade and the Climate Change science) Are you into the Christmas "spirits" a little early or something? Enjoy it if you are.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-24-2010).]
I can only know with as much certainty as anyone can who reads and forms a conclusion. I've seen enough evidence that AGW is a hoax, and the numbers are cooked and fudged. That paints the warmist scientists as dishonest. Why the hell would I believe dishonest scientists simply because they're are part of some majority? All that means is the majority has been hookwinked by falsified information.
Fierobear could be correct about the assertion that China's "leadership" in green energy is more of a political facade than a technical reality.
But with reference to the original topic, that is not evidence against AGW.
What it suggests is that if China and other developing countries are not successful in reducing their GHG emissions, then AGW, which is only barely discernible in current weather patterns, will surely accelerate as the current century unfolds.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-26-2010).]
Now that one is hilarious. We are having record cold temperatures with high swings in an decade of downward temperature indicators and this is supposed to justify the belief that GW is still going to accelerate for the balance of the century? Are we now to believe the FRAUDULENT hockey stick graph is after all correct? LOL.
Just to be clear, one of the signs of Global Cooling is expanding ice fields. It is worth noticing that at one time Canada was covered by ice, and while I don't subscribe to the notion that an ice age is imminent, I do acknowledge the following ice fields and glaciers are expanding.
I do not believe that with ice fields growing on virtually all continents that one can claim Global Warming is to blame.
Indeed, it can be successfully argued that if Global Warming were a reality, these glaciers and icefields would indeed be shrinking right now. Of course they do go into periodic retreat, but, all evidence is that they are quite healthy and growing well.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 12-26-2010).]
I don’t feel hugely energetic right now in terms of writing anything very complicated. As a simple exercise, I decided to quickly revisit the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts – also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthony‘s, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998 – an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansen’s Y2K error. As CA readers recall, Hansen’s Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007 – a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.
This impacts comparisons made in 2007 between GISS and CRN1-2 stations. At the time, it was noted that GISS adjustments for UHI resulted in the GISS US temperature anomaly having quite a bit in common with a TOBS average from Anthony’s CRN1-2 stations. Critics of Anthony’s surfacestations.org project commented on this rather smugly – too smugly given the large differences with NOAA and CRU versions in the US and the incoherence of Hansen’s adjustments outside the US. The post-2007 adjustments to GISS adjustments change this. The increased trend in the GISS US statistic comes at the expense of reconciliation with CRN1-2 stations: the trends no longer cohere.
In the past, Hansen said that he was too busy to joust with jesters – see here. At the time, I observed: presumably he’s too busy adjusting to have time for jousting. We by contrast have lots of time to jest with adjusters. Little did we appreciate that Hansen’s new adjustments were not in jest. Update Dec 26- Hansen’s new article on GISTEMP – Hansen et al 2010 here updates Hansen et al 1999, 2001. Section 4 contains a discussion of US adjustments under different systems, each purporting to show that UHI doesn’t matter. Later in section 9, there is a section on US adjustments, with a brief whining mention of the Y2K adjustment and the following graphic purporting to show that change to USHCN v2 had negligible impact.
It is entirely possible that the change in GISS US since August 2007 is primarily due to the replacement of USHCN v1 methodology (TOBS and that sort of thing that we discussed in the past) with Menne’s changepoint methodology used in USHCN v2. Menne’s methodology is another homemade statistical method developed by climate scientists introduced without peer review in the statistical literature. As a result, its properties are poorly known. As I mentioned some time ago, my impression is that it smears stations together so that, if there are bad stations in the network, they influence good stations. Jones used the Menne method in Jones et al 2008, his most recent attempt to show that UHI doesn’t “matter.” My guess is that it will be very hard to construct circumstances under which UHI will matter after data has been Menne-transformed. And that tests of the various night lights scenario on data after it has been Menne-transformed will not tell you very much. This is just a surmise as I haven’t waded through Menne code. (I requested it a number of years ago, but was unsuccessful until 2009.) It’s too bad that the Menne adjustment methodology wasn’t published in statistical literature where its properties might have been analysed by now. It’s a worthwhile topic still.
It is entirely possible that the change in GISS US since August 2007 is primarily due to the replacement of USHCN v1 methodology (TOBS and that sort of thing that we discussed in the past) with Menne’s changepoint methodology used in USHCN v2. Menne’s methodology is another homemade statistical method developed by climate scientists introduced without peer review in the statistical literature. As a result, its properties are poorly known. As I mentioned some time ago, my impression is that it smears stations together so that, if there are bad stations in the network, they influence good stations. Jones used the Menne method in Jones et al 2008, his most recent attempt to show that UHI doesn’t “matter.” My guess is that it will be very hard to construct circumstances under which UHI will matter after data has been Menne-transformed. And that tests of the various night lights scenario on data after it has been Menne-transformed will not tell you very much. This is just a surmise as I haven’t waded through Menne code. (I requested it a number of years ago, but was unsuccessful until 2009.) It’s too bad that the Menne adjustment methodology wasn’t published in statistical literature where its properties might have been analysed by now. It’s a worthwhile topic still.
"Global warming is over -- at least for a few decades," Easterbrook told conference attendees. "However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming, and a cause for even greater concern."
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 12-29-2010).]
Volcanic eruptions enhance the haze effect to a greater extent than the greenhouse effect, and thus they can lower mean global temperatures. It was thought for many years that the greatest volcanic contribution of the haze effect was from the suspended ash particles in the upper atmosphere that would block out solar radiation. However, these ideas changed in the 1982 after the eruption of the Mexican volcano, El Chichon. Although the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens lowered global temperatures by 0.1OC, the much smaller eruption of El Chichon lowered global temperatures three to five times as much. Although the Mt. St. Helens blast emitted a greater amount of ash in the stratosphere, the El Chichon eruption emitted a much greater volume of sulfur-rich gases (40x more). It appears that the volume of pyroclastic debris emitted during a blast is not the best criteria to measure its effects on the atmosphere. The amount of sulfur-rich gases appears to be more important. Sulfur combines with water vapor in the stratosphere to form dense clouds of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. These droplets take several years to settle out and they are capable to decreasing the troposphere temperatures because they absorb solar radiation and scatter it back to space.
EXAMPLES OF GLOBAL COOLING IN THE AFTERMATH OF HISTORIC ERUPTIONS: Observational evidence shows a clear correlation between historic eruptions and subsequent years of cold climate conditions. Four well-known historic examples are described below.
LAKI (1783) -- The eastern U.S. recorded the lowest-ever winter average temperature in 1783-84, about 4.8OC below the 225-year average. Europe also experienced an abnormally severe winter. Benjamin Franklin suggested that these cold conditions resulted from the blocking out of sunlight by dust and gases created by the Iceland Laki eruption in 1783. The Laki eruption was the largest outpouring of basalt lava in historic times. Franklin's hypothesis is consistent with modern scientific theory, which suggests that large volumes of SO2 are the main culprit in haze-effect global cooling.
TAMBORA (1815) -- Thirty years later, in 1815, the eruption of Mt. Tambora, Indonesia, resulted in an extremely cold spring and summer in 1816, which became known as the year without a summer. The Tambora eruption is believed to be the largest of the last ten thousand years. New England and Europe were hit exceptionally hard. Snowfalls and frost occurred in June, July and August and all but the hardiest grains were destroyed. Destruction of the corn crop forced farmers to slaughter their animals. Soup kitchens were opened to feed the hungry. Sea ice migrated across Atlantic shipping lanes, and alpine glaciers advanced down mountain slopes to exceptionally low elevations.
KRAKATAU (1883) -- Eruption of the Indonesian volcano Krakatau in August 1883 generated twenty times the volume of tephra released by the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Krakatau was the second largest eruption in history, dwarfed only by the eruption of neighboring Tambora in 1815 (see above). For months after the Krakatau eruption, the world experienced unseasonably cool weather, brilliant sunsets, and prolonged twilights due to the spread of aerosols throughout the stratosphere. The brilliant sunsets are typical of atmospheric haze. The unusual and prolonged sunsets generated considerable contemporary debate on their origin.They also provided inspiration for artists who dipicted the vibrant nature of the sunsets in several late 19th-century paintings, two of which are noted here.
In London, the Krakatau sunsets were clearly distinct from the familiar red sunsets seen through the smoke-laden atmosphere of the city. This is demonstrated in the painting shown here of a sunset from the banks of the Thames River, created by artist William Ascroft on November 26, 1883.
For a more thorough description of the 1883 eruption, see Krakatau.
PINATUBO (1991) -- Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines on June 15, 1991, and one month later Mt. Hudson in southern Chile also erupted. The Pinatubo eruption produced the largest sulfur oxide cloud this century. The combined aerosol plume of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Hudson diffused around the globe in a matter of months. The data collected after these eruptions show that mean world temperatures decreased by about 1 degree Centigrade over the subsequent two years. This cooling effect was welcomed by many scientists who saw it as a counter-balance to global warming.
Yet, they don't list any major volcanic eruptions since 1991. Phil Jones from CRU (of climategate fame) said "there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995". Since there hasn't been a major volcanic eruption since 4 years earlier than 1995, then the latest cooling can't be attributed to volcanoes.
