One of the top 20 coal mining investment banks, HSBC, sees 2014 as 'the beginning of a new climate agenda': "We believe 2014 will mark the beginning of a new climate agenda. The traditional narrative was that climate risks are in the future, that carbon has to be priced to be cut, and that low-carbon alternatives are high risk and speculative. We see three issues that will give new impetus to the climate economy in the year: impacts, carbon risk and green bonds." Source.
Pattern Recognition in Physics - a new journal run "on nepotistic basis" by climate skeptics has been shut down: "Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP."
Is the Australian Open tennis feeling the heat of climate change? Canadian player Frank Dancevic hallucinated a cartoon dog shortly before collapsing: "Dancevic said it was "inhumane" to ask players to continue in the relentless heat. British star Andy Murray commented it was a bad look for the sport to have ball boys and girls, players and spectators collapsing."
"Of course, summer is naturally hot and extreme temperature events will occur at this time of year. But we're now seeing much more of these events, that last longer, and are hotter. It's this trend that's concerning." - Dr Sarah Perkins, a researcher at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of New South Wales and specializes in studying heat waves.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-17-2014).]
Didn't you see in the other thread on PFF? some fish were "instantly frozen solid" because of a cold front off the Norwegian coast. Therefore, AGW is a hoax.
Didn't you see in the other thread on PFF? some fish were "instantly frozen solid" because of a cold front off the Norwegian coast. Therefore, AGW is a hoax.
Ha! And didn't Boondawg posted an article about the Antarctic Glaciers "tipping point" but we know that will never happen because a ship got stuck in the ice.
Thus, the following records for the period of reliable data hold for the entire Atlantic basin (from 1966-2012) and for the USA coastline (1900-2012):
Category Average Maximum Years Minimum Years Named storms (including subtropical storms) 11.7& 28 2005 4 1983 Hurricanes 6.3 15 2005 2 1982 Major Hurricanes 2.4 7 2005* 0 many times, last 1994 USA landfalling hurricanes 1.7 6 1985, 2004, 2005+ 0 many, last 2010 USA landfalling major hurricanes 0.6 4 2005 0 many, last 2012
In the Atlantic basin 2012 had 19 tropical storms, 10 hurricanes, and 2 major hurricanes.
In 1950 it was 13, 11, and 8, arguably rougher but with about the same number of events
In 1933 it was 20, 11, and 6, heavier than both the others.
Atlantic basin Individual years with the numbers in each category Year Named Storms Hurricanes Major Hurricanes ACE
As for Australia having a hot summer, they've been having deadly hot summers as long as I can remember. Holding an outdoor tennis event in that area in the summer is just asking for trouble.
My brother in law lives down there and it is always a long hot summer.
If there was global warming happening though, those ships would not have got caught in flow ice this past month.
“For every billion-dollar weather disaster identified as being ‘consistent with’ human-caused global warming, there are probably several other potential billion-dollar weather disasters that human-caused global warming averted.”
Last week, the government’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) finalized its list of “Billion Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters” for 2012. They reported 11 such events with the combined loss exceeding $110 billion, making it the second costliest year since their compilation began in 1980.
Since the number of billion dollar weather disasters has been increasing over time, the temptation to point a finger at anthropogenic global warming is too great for many global warming addicts to resist, despite the known problems with the list (for example, the lack of proper accounting for changing population demographics—a factor which explains virtually all of the increase).
It seems folks are extremely creative at coming up with reasons why virtually every weather disaster is “consistent with” human-caused climate change and how things will get worse in the future. However, such creativity evaporates when trying to come up with any positive weather/climate effects that are “consistent with” anthropogenic climate change.
To see this creativity/lack thereof in action, go read a few pages of the latest version of the government’s report from the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee. Or, to save some time, you can pursue my (and colleagues) comments on the report.
In reality, not a whole lot of creativity is really needed to come up with ways that anthropogenic climate change has made things better. And I am not talking about the well-known improvement to the planet’s plant life (including food crops) from increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide, but rather direct effects on the weather/climate.
Billion-Dollar Aversions: Some Recent Examples I have begun to compile a list of averted billion-dollar weather events during the past year “consistent with” anthropogenic global warming. A full list is necessarily much greater because there are certainly many more events that we could never know about because they didn’t rise to the extreme to be recorded.
Hurricane Debby, June 2012. Hurricane Debby never formed. Increased vertical wind shear “consistent with” expectations from global warming prevented the development of tropical storm Debby into hurricane Debby. Damage estimates from tropical storm Debby have been estimated at $250 million with 5 direct and 3 indirect fatalities from the storm. Had global warming not helped to inhibit the growth of the storm system, these totals may well have been higher, exceeding a billion dollars. (For more information of the life of Debby, see here.)
Hurricane Florence, August 2012. Hurricane Florence never formed. Increased wind shear and African dust—both conditions which are “consistent with” anthropogenic global warming, combined to inhibit the formation of the Cape Verde tropical cyclone. As many Cape Verde tropical cyclones develop into major hurricanes and make landfall along the U.S. coastline, in the absence of the inhibiting conditions, major Hurricane Florence may have made a direct hit on Miami, or Charleston, or Washington DC causing many billion dollars in damage and taking countless lives. (For more details of the life of Florence, see here.)
Hurricane Leslie, September 2012. Hurricane Leslie was another Cape Verde tropical cyclone that looked to be headed toward the southeastern U.S. coastline. But the influence of an atmospheric “blocking” pattern—the same type of pattern that acted to intensify Hurricane Sandy and steer it into the northeastern U.S. (and which has been called “consistent with” global warming)—acted to halt the westward progression of the storm systems and inhibit its development. Instead of becoming a disastrous landfalling hurricane, Leslie drifted out at sea, eventually delivering a glancing blow to southeastern Newfoundland. A potential multi-billion dollar disaster averted thanks to factors “consistent with” global warming. (For more details of the life of Leslie, see here.)
Hurricane Nadine, September 2012. Hurricane Nadine was Cape Verde tropical cyclone that never really got going. Instead of a potentially damaging major hurricane making a direct hit along the Southeastern U.S. coast, conditions “consistent with” global warming, such as a large Atlantic Warm Pool (above average sea surface temperatures in the tropical north Atlantic), conspired to steer the storm northward, harmlessly into the central Atlantic instead of allowing it to track across warm waters conducive for tropical cyclone intensification and on course for a potentially calamitous U.S. landfall. Another potential billion-dollar-plus disaster averted. (For more information on the life of Nadine, see here.)
I could continue on this list of potential damaging hurricanes, but you get the idea—every one that didn’t grow to a major hurricane and make landfall along the U.S. coastline was potentially influenced by factors “consistent with” anthropogenic global warming.
There are many times more tropical cyclones that didn’t cause a billion-dollar weather disaster than did. In fact, we are currently in the midst of the longest period since 1900 that the U.S. has gone without a major hurricane making landfall—and this despite human-caused climate change.
Perhaps we should be finger pointing at that good news!
More Examples
California Freeze, January 11-16th, 2013. A 6-day major freeze event occurred across California’s agricultural regions, threatening a variety of crops including the state’s 2 billion/year citrus harvest. However, the region narrowly escaped widespread damage. Since an increased greenhouse effect from human carbon dioxide emissions preferentially warms the nighttime winter air, it is entirely “consistent with” expectations from global warming to hypothesize that absent global warming, a multi-billion dollar weather-related disaster would have occurred—much like the ones that have occurred there in the past.
Florida Freeze, February 16-18th, 2013. A cold, arctic airmass dropped into the deep South and threatened Florida’s citrus crop with multiple nights of below freezing temperatures. However, widespread damage was averted as the nighttime temperatures did not fall low enough for long enough. Had anthropogenic global warming not been in operation, a billion dollar crop loss may have occurred, as it has in the past.
East Coast Snowstorm, March 2013. A major late-season snowstorm was forecast to dump large amounts of heavy snow across the major metropolitan areas of the Mid-Atlantic, from Washington DC to New York City. The forecast was so ominous for the Washington DC area—a possibility of more than a foot of heavy, wet snow, high winds—that area schools and the federal government closed down in expectation. But the storm was a bust in DC as the temperatures near the ground were just a little too warm for the snow to accumulate. Instead of multi-day widespread power outages, snarled traffic, and lost business, a potential billion dollar disaster (like the blizzard of 2011), was averted by factors “consistent with” global warming.
Tornado Outbreaks, May 2012-April 2013. The 12-month period from May 2012-April 2013 was notable for its lack of tornado activity. In fact, this 12-month period was marked by the fewest tornadoes since good records began in the early 1950s and the fewest number of deaths since 1875. In recent years, the number of billion-dollar weather events which included a tornado outbreak has been growing—not from an increasing number of tornadoes, but rather from an increasing amount of people and their stuff in harm’s way. Using the past few years as an example, perhaps several different tornado-spawned billion dollar weather disasters would have been expected to have occurred from May 2012-April 2013. The lack of the necessary ingredients coming together to produce major tornado outbreaks—which includes cold, dry air—may well be “consistent with” the impacts of anthropogenic global warming.
Plains/East/Northeast Severe Weather, June 12-13, 2013. An event similar to the June 29-July 2, 2012 severe weather event across the same part of the country was being predicted by the National Weather Service, including a possibility of a damaging derecho event similar to the one which swept from Chicago to Washington DC last year causing more than a billion dollars in damage, killing 13 people, and leaving more than 4 million without power. This year, no derecho materialized (or a very weak one), and while there were isolated severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, and hail, the total damages were far less than last year’s event. Should global warming get the credit for averting a disaster this year? Well, the meteorological situation was very complicated, as it always is, but perhaps anthropogenic climate change acted to reduce the magnitude of the cold air pool that acted to fuel the storm system, and thereby prohibited the systems from reaching its full destructive intensity.
Like I mentioned, this list is necessarily incomplete. My guess is that for every billion-dollar weather disaster identified as being “consistent with” human-caused global warming, there are probably several potential billion-dollar weather disasters that human-caused global warming averted.
Isn’t it about time we start hearing about these?! If it is good enough for the goose to link global warming to weather disasters, it should be good enough for the gander to link global warming to weather disasters averted.
You are invited to add your own examples to the list in the comment section.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The idea that there are increased storms due to global warming is simply errant..
What about when there's more global warming?
The scientists that are in favor of climate mitigation, by moving away from fossil fuels, are basing their arguments on being proactive.
I don't think that you are someone who could substantiate that there was ever a consensus among AGW-leaning scientists about a smooth, linear relationship, with storm activity increasing in lockstep uniformity with global temperatures. Given the complexity of the climate system, it seems very reasonable to consider that there's a threshold of global warming, still ahead, but on track to be reached before 2100, after which storm activity starts to increase somewhat abruptly on a global scale. That's a direction that I would look towards, if I were going to pursue this storms issue at more length.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: If there was global warming happening though, those ships would not have got caught in flow ice this past month.
Another one of the countless straw man arguments in this discussion. Make an assertion that is not derived from the scientific consensus about MMGW. Negate that assertion. Then claim that negating the straw man assertion falsifies MMGW. FAIL.
Even AGW skeptic supreme Anthony Watts blogged recently (October 22, 2013) about the currently robust state of the Antarctic sea ice, without inferring in any way that this marks an end or even a significant reversal for the scientific consensus on the reality of MMGW.
Originally posted by avengador1: Global Savings: Billion-Dollar Weather Events Averted by Global Warming
What about when there's more global warming? I'm among those who expect that the balance sheet of positive vs. negative impacts will go increasingly negative, from a worldwide human perspective. Even from a national (U.S.) perspective.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-18-2014).]
Daily sea ice growth rates were variable during December. By the end of the month, ice extent remained below average in most of the far north. In Antarctica, ice extent remained above average and access to the continent by ship has been more difficult than normal.
The polar vortex phenomenon has distributed the cold air further south and it is not concentrated around the pole.
Havoc for us guys north of the 49th parallel but easier for the folks up at the Arctic Circle.
Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling: "The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-18-2014).]
Originally posted by avengador1: ... there are probably several other potential billion-dollar weather disasters that human-caused global warming averted.
Deniers: Taking credit for speculated disasters that never happened - denying credit for disasters that actually occured.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-18-2014).]
taking data from the Fram Strait is partial data at best from a dubious named source
Every time I post legitimate data from nsidc, or refer to Inuit Government sources (they live there after all) Flyinfieros finds some reason to discount it or call it a fantasy or otherwise criticize it. He in turn quotes opinions from Universities by Global Warming extremists and ignoring the fact that co2 had nothing to do with the end of the last ice age and is not related in any way to legitimate data which shows both rising and falling temperatures over the past 2 centuries. If one looks, one can find all sorts of junk science which tries to mask the fact that the temperature history does not support their outlandish claims. Weak minded sheep though, are often lead astray.
2013 was due to be year of the 'solar maximum' Researchers say solar activity is at a fraction of what they expect Conditions 'very similar' a time in 1645 when a mini ice age hit By Mark Prigg
PUBLISHED: 19:04 EST, 17 January 2014 | UPDATED: 19:55 EST, 18 January 2014 The Sun's activity is at its lowest for 100 years, scientists have warned. They say the conditions are eerily similar to those before the Maunder Minimum, a time in 1645 when a mini ice age hit, Freezing London's River Thames. Researcher believe the solar lull could cause major changes, and say there is a 20% chance it could lead to 'major changes' in temperatures. THE SOLAR CYCLE Conventional wisdom holds that solar activity swings back and forth like a simple pendulum. At one end of the cycle, there is a quiet time with few sunspots and flares. At the other end, solar max brings high sunspot numbers and frequent solar storms. It’s a regular rhythm that repeats every 11 years. Reality is more complicated. Astronomers have been counting sunspots for centuries, and they have seen that the solar cycle is not perfectly regular. 'Whatever measure you use, solar peaks are coming down,' Richard Harrison of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire told the BBC. 'I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything like this.' He says the phenomenon could lead to colder winters similar to those during the Maunder Minimum. 'There were cold winters, almost a mini ice age. 'You had a period when the River Thames froze.' Lucie Green of UCL believes that things could be different this time due to human activity. 'We have 400 years of observations, and it is in a very similar to phase as it was in the runup to the Maunder Minimum. 'The world we live in today is very different, human activity may counteract this - it is difficult to say what the consequences are.' Mike Lockwood University of Reading says that the lower temperatures could affect the global jetstream, causing weather systems to collapse. 'We estimate within 40 years there a 10-20% probability we will be back in Maunder Minimum territory,' he said. Last year Nasa warned 'something unexpected' is happening on the Sun' This year was supposed to be the year of 'solar maximum,' the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle. But as this image reveals, solar activity is relatively low. THE MAUNDER MINIMUM The Maunder Minimum (also known as the prolonged sunspot minimum) is the name used for the period starting in about 1645 and continuing to about 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time. It caused London's River Thames to freeze over, and 'frost fairs' became popular. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past, Nasa says. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research. 'Sunspot numbers are well below their values from 2011, and strong solar flares have been infrequent,' the space agency says. The image above shows the Earth-facing surface of the Sun on February 28, 2013, as observed by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) on NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory. What is this mystery object spotted on Google Moon? Bizarre wedge-shaped 'craft' appears on the lunar surface Twerking for their life - the video of male black widow spiders forced to vibrate their body to avoid being eaten by females Mystery on Mars: Rock suddenly appears in front of Opportunity rover leaving scientists baffled It observed just a few small sunspots on an otherwise clean face, which is usually riddled with many spots during peak solar activity. Experts have been baffled by the apparent lack of activity - with many wondering if NASA simply got it wrong. However, Solar physicist Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center believes he has a different explanation. 'This is solar maximum,' he says. 'But it looks different from what we expected because it is double-peaked.' 'The last two solar maxima, around 1989 and 2001, had not one but two peaks.' Solar activity went up, dipped, then rose again, performing a mini-cycle that lasted about two years, he said. The same thing could be happening now, as sunspot counts jumped in 2011 and dipped in 2012, he believes. Pesnell expects them to rebound in 2013: 'I am comfortable in saying that another peak will happen in 2013 and possibly last into 2014.' He spotted a similarity between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century. If the two cycles are twins, 'it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015'.
Originally posted by avengador1: Is a mini ice age on the way? Scientists warn the Sun has 'gone to sleep' and say it could cause temperatures to plunge..
Stock up at your nearest Burlington Coat Factory outlet (if you must), but here's why I'm not expecting a Little Ice Age anytime in the foreseeable future, despite the current and unexpectedly rapid decline in sunspot activity, suggestive of a Maunder Minimum:
Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics, from the University of Reading (UK):
quote
Lockwood says that while UV light varies with solar activity, other forms of radiation from the Sun that penetrate the troposphere (the lower layer of air that sits above the Earth) do not change that much.
He explains: "If we take all the science that we know relating to how the Sun emits heat and light and how that heat and light powers our climate system, and we look at the climate system globally, the difference that it makes even going back into Maunder Minimum conditions is very small.
"I've done a number of studies that show at the very most it might buy you about five years before you reach a certain global average temperature level. But that's not to say, on a more regional basis there aren't changes to the patterns of our weather that we'll have to get used to."
In other words, even if this is the onset of a Maunder Minimum, or an indication that a Maunder Minimum is not far ahead--sometime in the next 50 years--Lockwood expects that it wouldn't change the main outline of any of the IPCC's predicted scenarios for Anthropogenic Global Warming out to year 2100.
"If the updated measurements of solar ultraviolet irradiance are correct, low solar activity, as observed during recent years, drives cold winters in northern Europe and the United States, and mild winters over southern Europe and Canada, with little direct change in globally averaged temperature."
I think that I have seen statements online attributed to scientists who believe that the Little Ice Age that coincided with a Maunder Minimum and produced exceptionally cold winters across Northern Europe and England from about 1645 to 1715 (a 70 year stretch) cannot return, because of the elevation of CO2 levels from fossil fuels starting towards the end of the 1800s.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-19-2014).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: taking data from the Fram Strait is partial data at best from a dubious named source
Every time I post legitimate data from [NSIDC], or refer to Inuit Government sources (they live there after all) Flyinfieros finds some reason to discount it or call it a fantasy or otherwise criticize it. He in turn quotes opinions from Universities by Global Warming extremists and ignoring the fact that co2 had nothing to do with the end of the last ice age and is not related in any way to legitimate data which shows both rising and falling temperatures over the past 2 centuries. If one looks, one can find all sorts of junk science which tries to mask the fact that the temperature history does not support their outlandish claims. Weak minded sheep though, are often lead astray.
Data is just data. Science is the knowledge of reliably interpreting it. Arn's latest assertion that "CO2 had nothing to do with the end of the last ice age" is misleading.
The last glaciation or ice age gave way to the current interglacial or warm period almost 12,000 years ago. It certainly wasn't because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Human populations were small, and were not using fossil fuels to any measurable extent. Not coal. Not crude oil. Not natural gas. Not even peat.
But that doesn't exclude the possibility (at that time) of a climate feedback or some other natural cycle involving CO2, or methane, or CO2and methane: CO2 and methane comprising two of the four anthropogenic greenhouse gases that are at the center of the current focus on MMGW, along with nitrous oxide and the general grouping of fluorinated industrial gases.
It may be that some as yet undetermined natural cycle or process started elevating CO2 above 200 ppm, where I think it was during the last glaciation (what I've absorbed by reading), and that kicked off a CO2-driven warming which brought about the transition to the current interglacial, in which CO2 never went above 280 ppm until after the expansion of fossil fuels towards the end of the 1800s. (It was recently recorded as 392 ppm, the highest ever, since monitoring began in the 1950s).
Or it may be that towards the end of the last ice age, temperatures started rising for some other reason, releasing CO2 and/or methane into the atmosphere, which greatly amplified the small warming that was already underway. That would be called a "positive warming feedback", and it could have been the result of retreating glaciers that exposed he underlying soil, that then thawed and emitted CO2 and/or methane from decomposing vegetation; and/or CO2 being released from warming ocean waters, as its solubility in seawater was predictably reduced by slowly rising temperatures.
There are definite theories about what caused the last ice age and then the transition to the current interglacial, but no firmly grounded consensus about a complete explanation.
This all sounds very sketchy and provides a perfect invitation for anyone who wants to assert that MMGW must be false because there is obviously no anthropogenic explanation for the transition out of the last ice age. But:
"...the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. Many people have died naturally but murder still exists; it is up to the police to learn whether a given mortality was natural or not, and up to climate science to learn what is causing ongoing changes--and we have good confidence that most of what is happening to climatic global average surface temperature is being caused by humanity today."
university climate researcher Richard Alley
Scientists with ideas about the cause (or causes) of the warming that ended the last ice age have looked for the fingerprints of those causes on the current global warming--and have not found a match.
That's why my "money" is riding with MMGW, and the general consensus that has coalesced about MMGW and its increasingly adverse impacts, as presented in the latest reports from the IPCC.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-19-2014).]
Deniers: Taking credit for speculated disasters that never happened - denying credit for disasters that actually occured.
Warming zombies like you, who despite being shown that NONE of the predicted disasters like increasing hurricanes or tornadoes are occurring, yet you repeat false claims that they are.
In other words, even if this is the onset of a Maunder Minimum, or an indication that a Maunder Minimum is not far ahead--sometime in the next 50 years--Lockwood expects that it wouldn't change the main outline of any of the IPCC's predicted scenarios for Anthropogenic Global Warming out to year 2100.
Of course that's what they say. Their reputations are on the line. They can't back away now, so they keep beating the drum, and changing the story.
Lockwood says that while UV light varies with solar activity, other forms of radiation from the Sun that penetrate the troposphere (the lower layer of air that sits above the Earth) do not change that much.
Interesting quote alright. Rather misleading. spaceweather website is the main source for reading up on Sun activity.
Currently there is a coronal hole in the sun expected to hit earth by the 22nd or 23rd with solar wind. That is not a case of "not much" change. Solar flares and other solar events affect all sorts of human activity.
Here is the current arctic air mass
It is a hum dinger. We are having quite a winter. I am willing to bet this winter is causing apoplexy amongst Global Warming/Climate Change enthusiasts.
Of course Flyinfieros won't think anything of it because he is blind to the fact that there is no firm data to backup the assertions made by the GW's. Only conjectures, and errant observations based on errant information
We are having quite a winter. I am willing to bet this winter is causing apoplexy amongst Global Warming/Climate Change enthusiasts.
No, only deniers think that one winter that's "cold" disproves anything. One season is nowhere near long enough to matter.
But if you want to go down that road, there are plenty of places that are above average temperature for the season. Lake Tahoe is about 15 F above average and is having one of the worse snow seasons ever recorded. But that does nothing to validate AGW, just like how one cold winter does nothing to disprove it.
You post legitimate data from the NSIDC but people "find some way to discount it" because you've taken about 95% of the data out of context or interpreted it wrong.
First line.....Europe may be backing away from its ambitious climate protection goals.
Either way we have seen that immediate monetary concerns will trump the environment most times. People tend to be very short sighted.
Also from the article..
quote
All of the goals were formulated relative to 1990 levels. And the targets could very well be met. But in the future, European climate and energy policy may be limited to just a single project: reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission plans also set no new binding rules for energy efficiency.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-21-2014).]
Originally posted by newf: Either way we have seen that immediate monetary concerns will trump the environment most times. People tend to be very short sighted.
Or it may be simpler than that. It may be there aren't enough people still buying this bullshit anymore. The carbon market certainly isn't ...
No, only deniers think that one winter that's "cold" disproves anything. One season is nowhere near long enough to matter.
But if you want to go down that road, there are plenty of places that are above average temperature for the season. Lake Tahoe is about 15 F above average and is having one of the worse snow seasons ever recorded. But that does nothing to validate AGW, just like how one cold winter does nothing to disprove it.
You post legitimate data from the NSIDC but people "find some way to discount it" because you've taken about 95% of the data out of context or interpreted it wrong.
I am not posting interpreted data or massaged data. The reason for my comment on the current facts is that the yearly temperature average (if we have a colder than norm winter ) will be affected downward. We see a downward trend for the last 2 years and this may well add. Every time there is a downward tick the anti-GW rhetoric ratchets up, but every time it ticks up the GW's go ape. Let's not forget that regardless of who's historical data you use, the warming and cooling cycles are there and the net temperature increase/decrease is nowhere near the outlandish forecasts
The scientific evidence that marine ecosystems are being degraded as a direct result of human activities is overwhelming; and the consequences both for the vital and valuable ocean goods and services we rely on, including for the maintenance of a healthy Earth system, are alarming. Recent assessments by the UN’s climate change panel the IPCC, for example, show that these changes are progressive and relentless: whilst terrestrial temperature increases may be experiencing a pause this is not true for the ocean, which continues to warm regardless. For the most part, however, the public and policymakers are failing to recognize–or choosing to ignore the severity of the situation and are not taking the action necessary to address it.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-21-2014).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Let's not forget that regardless of who's historical data you use, the warming and cooling cycles are there and the net temperature increase/decrease is nowhere near the outlandish forecasts
Originally posted by fierobear: Warming zombies like you, who despite being shown that NONE of the predicted disasters like increasing hurricanes or tornadoes are occurring, yet you repeat false claims that they are.
If the predicted disasters aren't coming to fruition like you claim, how can WUWT publish an article claiming global warming is adverting just as many disasters as it causes? Oh, that's right, zero scientific integrity and a readership too brain dead to notice the relentless inconsistency.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Every time I post legitimate data from nsidc,... Flyinfieros finds some reason to discount it or call it a fantasy or otherwise criticize it.
The text I quoted in my reply contained nothing from NSIDC. Your post talked about "the last ice age" and contained zero links. It was entirely based on data from "Arn's Fantasy World".
I also find it interesting you make an appeal to authority for NSIDC then say the following:
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: He in turn quotes opinions from Universities by Global Warming extremists
Where do you think the scientists at NSIDC got their education? If you could make a post without contradicting yourself it would help your case considerably.
Originally posted by fierobear: While the moronic oronic leftists in this country keep beating the warming drum, even greenie weenie Europe seems to have come to their senses
