Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the "Uncertainty Monster"[2] in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a "wicked problem."[3] Curry also hosts a popular science blog in which she writes on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.[4]

Spinning the ‘warmest year’

by Judith Curry

The buzz is intensifying about 2014 possibly being the warmest year globally in the historical temperature record.


The spin

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) issued a Press Release on 3 Dec: 2014 on course to be one of the hottest, possibly hottest, on record. Excerpts:

WMO’s provisional statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2014 indicated that the global average air temperature over land and sea surface for January to October was about 0.57° Centigrade (1.03 Fahrenheit) above the average of 14.00°C (57.2 °F) for the 1961-1990 reference period, and 0.09°C (0.16 °F) above the average for the past ten years (2004-2013).

If November and December maintain the same tendency, then 2014 will likely be the hottest on record, ahead of 2010, 2005 and 1998. This confirms the underlying long-term warming trend. It is important to note that differences in the rankings of the warmest years are a matter of only a few hundredths of a degree, and that different data sets show slightly different rankings.

“The provisional information for 2014 means that fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “There is no standstill in global warming,” he said.

“What we saw in 2014 is consistent with what we expect from a changing climate. Record-breaking heat combined with torrential rainfall and floods destroyed livelihoods and ruined lives. What is particularly unusual and alarming this year are the high temperatures of vast areas of the ocean surface, including in the northern hemisphere,” he said.

“Record-high greenhouse gas emissions and associated atmospheric concentrations are committing the planet to a much more uncertain and inhospitable future. WMO and its Members will continue to improve forecasts and services to help people cope with more frequent and damaging extreme weather and climate conditions,” said Mr Jarraud.

The provisional statement was published to inform the annual climate change negotiations taking place in Lima, Peru. WMO also updated its acclaimed Weather Reports for the Future series, with scenarios for the weather in 2050 based on the Fifth Assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, which is co-sponsored by WMO and the UNEP. Newly added reports are for Peru, France, Viet Nam, Spain, Canada and Norway, painting a compelling picture of what life could be like on a warmer planet.

Matt Ridley has a subsequent article in The Times: Beware the corruption of science. Subtitle: Environmental researchers are increasingly looking for evidence that fits their ideology rather than seeking the truth. Excerpts (from the GWPF article):

Second example: last week, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a supposedly scientific body, issued a press release stating that this is likely to be the warmest year in a century or more, based on surface temperatures. Yet this predicted record would be only one hundredth of a degree above 2010 and two hundredths of a degree above 2005 — with an error range of one tenth of a degree. True scientists would have said: this year is unlikely to be significantly warmer than 2010 or 2005 and left it at that.

In any case, the year is not over, so why the announcement now? Oh yes, there’s a political climate summit in Lima this week. The scientists of WMO allowed themselves to be used politically. Not that they were reluctant. To squeeze and cajole the data until they just crossed the line, the WMO “reanalysed” a merger of five data sets. Maybe that was legitimate but, given how the institutions that gather temperature data have twice this year been caught red-handed making poorly justified adjustments to “homogenise” and “in-fill” thermometer records in such a way as to cool down old records and warm up new ones, I have my doubts.

Most of the people in charge of collating temperature data are vocal in their views on climate policy, which hardly reassures the rest of us that they leave those prejudices at the laboratory door. Imagine if bankers were in charge of measuring inflation.

Typically, Michael Mann responds to Ridley’s article with this tweet:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael E. Mann: Latest #climatescience smearer @mattwridley has a disturbing record of disinformation & denial. Via @SourceWatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matt_Ridley

Data and uncertainty

Last week, I received the following query from a reporter:

I’m covering the release of the WMO’s provisional climate statement for 2014. It says 2014 is on track to become one of the hottest, if not the hottest, years on record. A lot of people here at the UN climate talks in Lima say this shows there is no slowdown in warming. What is your take?

My response:

We won’t really have a good assessment on the temperatures for 2014 until about March 2015, when all of the observations have been assembled and quality controlled. The different temperature datasets and analyses give different results, which reflects the uncertainties in the data and analysis methods. Even if one or several data sets do find 2014 to be the hottest year, given the uncertainties one can only conclude that this is one of the top 5 or so warmest years.

The real issue that is of concern to me is the growing divergence between the the observed global temperature anomalies and what was predicted by climate models. Even if 2014 is somehow unambiguously the warmest year on record, this won’t do much to alleviate the growing discrepancy between climate model predictions and the observations.

If it does turn out to be the hottest does that indicate the pause is over?

One year won’t really make a difference, unless it is extremely warm. And then 2015 would need to be even warmer than 2014. So declaring the pause to be ‘over’ will require continued warming. Again, the pause itself is not of such great significance; rather it is the growing divergence between climate model predictions and the observations – one warm year isn’t going to really change this.

—-

The differences among the different global surface temperature analyses are illustrated by this figure that Steve Mosher provided for my recent Senate testimony:

Slide1 From the main text of the WMO report:

Global average temperatures are also estimated using reanalysis systems, which use a weather forecasting system to combine many sources of data to provide a more complete picture of global temperatures. According to data from the reanalysis produced by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, the January to October combined land and ocean global average temperature would place 2014 as third or fourth highest for this dataset, which runs from 1958. Based on these lines of evidence it is most likely that 2014 is currently one of the four warmest years on record, but there is a possibility that the final rank will lie outside this range.

The reanalysis systems have been underutilized for estimated temperature trends, warmest years, etc. Because of changes to observing systems, the reanalyses have generally not been used for trend analyses. However, particularly for examining recent trends (e.g. the pause), I would say that the observing systems have arguably been sufficiently homogeneous since 1989 for this purpose. The great advantage of using the reanalyses is that ‘infilling’ for regions without observations is accomplished through data assimilation using a numeral weather prediction system (for details, see previous CE post reanalyses.org). This ‘infilling’ is done in a dynamically consistent way, which IMO is much better than the various statistical infilling or kriging strategies.

With regards to ‘warmest year’, Gavin Schmidt tweeted an interesting graph that illustrates record warmth estimates, although it is not clear what constitutes the distributions. In any event, it is seen that 2014 has a similar distribution to 1998, 2005, 2010. With this visualization, it is seen that 1998 clearly stood out as ‘warmest year’ at the time.

gavin_Page_1

Implications for the pause

Well, ranking 1998, 2005, 2010 and 2014 as the ‘warmest years’ seems very consistent with a plateau in surface temperatures since 1998. Even if 2014 maintains its status among the top 4, how does this impact the ‘pause’ narrative?

RealClimate, Tamino, and probably others are busy trying to convince that the pause doesn’t exist. The preferred data set for such analyses is Cowtan and Way; I am not a fan of this dataset owing to concerns about how they treat the Arctic [link]. Statistical games can be played, and you can infer that there is a pause (or not).

The real issue is the growing divergence between climate model projections and the surface temperature observations, illustrated in this diagram by Ed Hawkins:

hawkins

You can see that using the Cowtan and Way data set doesn’t help much with regards to the discrepancy: Cowtan and Way is within the error bars of HadCRUT4.

Updating this diagram to include 2014 is going to increase the discrepancy between the models and observations, because the climate models show an inexorable warming.

JC summary

Focusing on the ‘warmest year’ is a pointless exercise, unless the warm anomaly is as large as 1998. Focusing on the ‘pause’ is mainly significant in context of the comparison between climate model projections and surface temperatures.

Attempts to spin 2014 as a possible ‘warmest year’ is exactly that: spin designed to influence the Lima deliberations. While the WMO report was not unreasonable, their press release was a clear attempt to influence the Lima deliberations in the direction of being ‘alarmed.’

I’ll be waiting until HadCRUT and Berkeley Earth have provided their final 2014 temperature analyses (which will probably be sometime late winter). Particularly with regards to the recent temperature record and the ‘pause’, I think more scrutiny should be given to the various reanalyses, which in principle is probably the best way to provide a truly global analysis.
 
The short answer is NO.


The funding came from a pot of money established by the U.N. in 2009, when wealthy nations pledged to accumulate $30 billion in climate finance over the following three years. At the time, Japan agreed to provide about half that sum.

Is it rorting, cronyism, “success” or all three?
So the UN didn’t have any watchdog or clear directives in place, and they’ve been caught. But against their finest intentions, quite possibly the new coal fired stations are reducing CO2. Though they won’t be changing the climate.

The Japanese defend themselves saying there was never a formal definition of what constitutes “climate finance”, and they’ve broken no law or treaty. According to Associated Press “Japan says these plants burn coal more efficiently and are therefore cleaner than old coal plants.” This is quite likely — the new hotter super-critical coal plants which cut emissions by as much as 15% , but oh the dilemma.

If environmentalists really cared about CO2 emissions, they would love the new coal power. Wind and solar dream of being that environmentally useful. The more we use renewables, the less CO2 they save. In South Australia residents pay 150 times as much for energy that produces almost as much CO2 as would have been made anyway.

Rinse, Repeat, recycle that corruption
The UN is not too concerned about whether the environmental donations get wasted, or achieve anything for the environment. Apparently they value the PR more




I can tell that you can read but it's the comprehension you seem to be having a problem with on this news piece. Let me help you by putting this in such a way that might help. I'll use the Tom, Dick and Harry approach.

Tom = UN/IPCC
Dick = Japan
Harry = Indonesia

Tom, Dick and Harry sit down to talk about Harry's problem with drinking and partying. It was agreed that something needs to be done. Dick steps up to pledge money, in the form of a loan, and support to help Harry change his ways. Tom takes him at his word and trusts Dick to do the right thing. When all is said and done the press find out that Dick didn't help Harry, in fact he used the money and took Harry out for a night of drinking and partying. When confronted with the truth Dick blames Tom for the whole mess. The moral of the story is don't be a Dick.

Anthony at "tony's house and Pizza and climate change " spins the story to blame Tom and the fanboys, on Tony's blog site, eat it up like fresh pizza from the oven. They tell all their friends that there is fresh pizza and Tonys house.

Sound about right?
 
The short answer is NO.

Perhaps you could break it down for us simple folk. Make it clear and use the Tom, Dick and Harry method because the way I read it was your side that is the cheat.
 
You have got to love it.
Saving the world.


LIMA, Peru (AP) — The current U.N. climate talks will be the first to neutralize all the greenhouse gas pollution they generate, offset by host country Peru's protection of forest at three different reserves, organizers say.

Now the bad news: The Lima conference is expected to have the biggest carbon footprint of any U.N. climate meeting measured to date.


At more than 50,000 metric tons of carfb/phbon dioxide, the negotiations' burden on global warming will be about 1 1/2 times the norm, said Jorge Alvarez, project coordinator for the U.N. Development Program.

The venue is one big reason. It had to be built.

Eleven football fields of temporary structures arose for the 13-day negotiations from what three months ago was an empty field behind Peru's army's headquarters. Concrete was laid, plumbing installed, components flown in from as far as France and Brazil.

Standing in the midday sun here can get downright uncomfortable, but the Lima sun is not reliable. That's one reason solar panels were not used.

For electricity, the talks are relying exclusively on diesel generators.

Organizers had planned to draw power from Peru's grid, which is about 52 percent fed by non-polluting hydroelectric power. "We worked to upgrade transformers and generators but for some reason it didn't work," said Alvarez.

[ALSO: EPA Proposes Tighter Smog Standards]

Peru's hydroelectric power could be in danger by mid-century, anyway. Much of that water comes from glaciers that are melting at an accelerated pace. Peru is hardly on a green trajectory. Though it emits in a year the greenhouse gases that China spews in three days it has doubled its carbon output in the past decade.

Nor is there a guarantee that the 580 square miles (1,500 square kilometers) of forest — the size of Houston, Texas — offsetting the talks' carbon pollution won't someday be gone. It must lie unperturbed for a half century in order to neutralize carbon emitted at the conference.

Alvarez itemized the talks' carbon footprint:

—Construction, nearly 20 percent of the footprint.

—Jet fuel burned by the estimated 11,000 delegates and observers who flew in from abroad. About 30 percent.

—Local transportation. Organizers hired more than 300 buses since there are no public transit services to the venue. All burn fossil fuels. About 15-20 percent.

—Electricity, solid waste treatment, water, paper, food, disposable plates and cups, keeping 40,000 police on high alert. The balance.

[MORE: Obama's Latest Climate Goal With China: What It Will Take]

A more accurate carbon footprint will be published after the conference and certified by the Spanish company Aenor, organizers say. U.N. volunteers have been polling delegates on their air travel in search of precision.

The conference's green components are meager.

Peruvian Environment Minister Manuel Pulgar-Vidal asked for a bicycle parking lot. He got it, but only about 40 people use it daily. Most delegates spend about an hour in traffic traveling less than 6 miles (10 kilometers) from their hotels.

Blame that, in part, on the army. It initially balked on letting in bikes even though only the credentialed can enter the base known as "El Pentagonito."

"It took them three days to sort it out," said Andrew Marquard, an adviser to South Africa delegation and an avid cyclist who was interviewed after arriving at the talks on two wheels, skin shiny with sweat.

Blame the dearth of bikes also on Lima, one of the world's least friendly cities for cyclists. The city's few cyclists so fear drivers that they tend to prefer to compete with pedestrians for sidewalk space.

"There are quiet (leafy) areas around the convention center for riding bikes," said Alvarez. "But getting here is a problem."

No hybrids or electric vehicles have been seen at the event. Japan donated 121 electric and hybrid vehicles, chiefly for dignitaries.

"Unfortunately, most didn't arrive," said Alvarez, blaming shipping bureaucracy.

Some energy savings were applied inside the white temporary structures where delegates wrangle, journalists toil and testy closed-door sessions take place.

"We did not put in strong air conditioning. It is (designed) only to fight the heat in the structures," said Maxime Rosenwald of GL Events, the Lyon, France-based company which built and runs the physical plant.

The air conditioning is often losing that fight as the sun regularly burns away Lima's low coastal clouds, the Southern Hemisphere summer being nigh.

On Monday, U.N. organizers announced that, "in view of the high temperatures expected to continue and intensify," delegates were invited to adjust "by wearing business casual attire" to most events.

__

Frank Bajak on Twitter: http://twitter.com/fbajak

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets see how open your mind is.

Paper Reviewed
Woppelmann, G., Marcos, M., Santamaria-Gomez, A., Martin-Miguez, B., Bouin, M.-N. and Gravelle, M. 2014. Evidence for a differential sea level rise between hemispheres over the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters 41: 1639-1643.

As a preface to describing their new approach to the subject, Woppelmann et al. (2014) write that "whichever data analysis strategy is employed, the evidence for sea level rise primarily comes from the information provided by long tide gauge records," which "are mainly located along the coasts of northeast America or western Europe." And given this uneven distribution, they say that "information on long-term spatial variability is limited," citing Woodworth (2006), while additionally noting that "in the majority of studies the tide gauge records have only been corrected for the vertical land motion associated with the glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA)," citing Peltier (2004). And irrespective of the accuracy of the GIA models involved, they state that "other geophysical processes can cause vertical displacements of the land upon which the tide gauges are grounded," citing as examples the facts that (1) "delta regions are prone to subsidence processes, which are often caused by sediment compaction and removal of underground water," as noted by Kolker et al. (2011) and Woppelmann et al. (2013), and that (2) "tectonically active areas are likely to display abrupt vertical land movements," citing Ballu et al. (2011).

The way in which the six European researchers overcame this latter problem was to accurately determine the vertical motion of the land upon which each of the tide gauges employed in their study was located. This they did, based on data they obtained from the Global Positioning System (GPS) that the University of La Rochelle consortium (Santamaria-Gomez et al., 2012) used to produce the final gauge-site vertical velocities. And what did their results reveal?

Woppelmann et al. (2014) report that their work revealed the existence of "a clearly distinct behavior between the Northern and the Southern Hemispheres," with mean sea level rates of rise of 2.0 mm/year and 1.1 mm/year, respectively. And given the coherent spatial patterns they observed, they go on to say that a mean global sea level rate-of-rise value of 1.5 ± 0.5 mm/year is inferred from "a weighted average of the hemispheric trends according to the area they represent." And they note that these findings "challenge the widely accepted value of global sea level rise for the twentieth century."

I have no problem with this science paper. That's how science works. A team sets out to try to figure out what is going on with the accelerated global sea level rise and find ways to improve our understanding. If this paper turns out to be backed up with other papers using different methods then so be it. I will accept it when this is done. Till then I will go with the hundreds of papers that make up the IPCC report on the matter. Here is what the best science is telling us as of now.
1.7 (1.5 to 1.9) mm yr between 1901 and 2010
2.0 (1.7 to 2.3) mm yr between 1971 and 2010
3.2 (2.8 to 3.6) mm yr between 1993 and 2010

Here is what I wont accept....
Denial blogs that claim different.
I don't care if those blogs have names like "friends of solvents" or Tony's House of Pizza and climate" or Climate, Fish and Chips To-go" or "Steve's Bubble Idea". I'm definitely not listening to some Op-ed on the WSJ or some TV channel like Fox Entertainment. Go to the science..... or is that asking too much.

Do you ever wonder about what the global sea level was 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 or 10000 years ago? You should if you are trying to make a case that there is no change to global sea level.

Do you ever answer one of my question using more the 5 of your own words or do you just let others think for you and copy and paste what they say.
 
The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming

The most egregious myths, misconceptions and flat-out lies about the future of the planet



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...d-about-global-warming-20130619#ixzz3LSclmVQt
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

20130618-polarbear-x624-1371587095.jpg


A list of the dumbest things ever said about global warming is, sadly, almost impossible to curate in any comprehensive fashion. Politicians, talk show hosts, economists, pundits – people are saying dumb things about climate change all the time. But after much exhaustive research, we narrowed it down to 10 prize-winningly idiotic statements on this subject.
1. Carbon dioxide "literally cannot cause global warming."
People have tried to deny climate science in a lot of ways, but it's hard to beat a complete rejection of well-established atmospheric physics. Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist appearing on Fox News, argued that CO2 "literally" cannot cause warming because it doesn't "mix well in the atmosphere" (it does). He's also claimed that warming would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. (In fact, global warming has nothing to do with newly created energy, but with the atmosphere trapping energy that's already around.)
2. "Snow skiing will be hurt – but water skiing will benefit."
In 1990, as the world was beginning to grapple with the devastating predictions of climate models, a Yale economist set out to determine how much was a reasonable amount to spend on combating the problem. Not that much, he concluded, since "Humans thrive in a wide variety of climate zones. Cities are increasingly climate-proofed by technological changes like air-conditioning and shopping malls." Further, he argued, the hardest-hit sectors – like, say, agriculture – are relatively small parts of the economy anyway. And economic growth in other sectors could compensate: "Snow skiing will be hurt – but water skiing will benefit." How reassuring!
RS contributor Bill McKibben lambasted this analysis in his 2007 book, Deep Economy. "It's nice to have microelectronics; it's necessary to have lunch," wrote McKibben. "If global warming 'only' damages agriculture, the rest may not matter much."
3. "We must demand that more coal be burned to save the Earth from global cooling."
The "global cooling" myth is another favorite of climate deniers, despite broad scientific consensus that the planet is in fact warming. But it's got to be an especially appealing fiction when you're the CEO of a coal company – this statement is from a tweet by Don Blankenship, then the head of Massey Energy.
4. Climate change is impossible because "God's still up there."
In 2012, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) contended that acceptance of climate science was at odds with Christianity – never mind that many Christian leaders and institutions take climate change very seriously. "My point is, God's still up there," he told Voice of Christian Youth America. "The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
A close runner-up in this category: In 2009, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Illinois) cited God's post-flood promise to Noah as evidence we shouldn't be worried. "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over," he declared. "Man will not destroy this Earth." Well, that must be nice to know.
5. God buried fossil fuels "because he loves to see us find them."
Bryan Fischer, a director at the American Family Association, compared efforts to burn less fossil fuels to telling a friend that you don't like their birthday present. "That's kind of how we're treating God when he's given us these gifts of abundant and inexpensive and effective fuel sources," he observed. "God has buried those treasures there because he loves to see us find them." And everyone knows it's bad manners to turn down a divine treasure hunt.
6. "The President was wearing a trench coat it was so cold, but he's talking about global warming."
This gem, from U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) in reference to President Obama's 2013 inauguration speech, is part of a long, confused tradition: The conviction that anecdotally observed cold weather of any kind debunks the science of climate change. See also the igloo that James Inhofe's family built on the National Mall (they called it "Al Gore's new home") or the ad from the Virginia Republican Party, aired before the same snowstorm, advising voters to call legislators who supported climate actions and "tell them how much global warming you get this weekend. Maybe they'll come help you shovel." With probably thousands of articles out there now explaining the simple fact that weather is not the same thing as climate, this joke gets dumber every time it's made.


 
Cont....
7. "I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost."
Yes, Sen. Inhofe gets two entries. Speaking to Rachel Maddow in 2012, he admitted that his rejection of climate science began with realizing how expensive mitigation would be. Not only is it flatly nonsensical to deny that a problem exists because you don't like its cure, delaying climate action is actually themore expensive course. The International Energy Agency has estimated that for every year the world delays taking significant action to curb climate change, we'll end up paying an additional $500 billion later on.
8. Safeguarding the climate is "a worldview that elevates the Earth above man."
Rick Santorum was a front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination when he called climate science a "phony theology" – "a worldview that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can't take those resources because we're going to harm the Earth." (Santorum has also said, "We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit.") This people-vs.-planet idea is another common refrain from climate skeptics. They rarely seem to have considered the fairly obvious point that functioning human society depends on a healthy planet.
9. "100 years is a long time . . . There is an extremely high chance that the very nature of human society itself will have changed by that time in ways that render this entire issue moot."
This novel bit of reasoning is from an essay called "In Praise of Dirty Energy: There Are Worse Things Than Pollution and We Have Them," by economist and blogger Karl W. Smith, now a writer for Forbes. Smith accepts the science of climate change – but argues that we should burn more fossil fuels anyway, in order to spur economic growth. As the climate changes, he believes that people will simply build new cities or move north to Siberia, and build a society so technologically advanced it's somehow progressed beyond the need for a stable climate. Piece of cake!
10. "I have a theory about global warming and why people think it's real. Go back 30, 40 years when there was much less air conditioning in the country. When you didn't have air conditioning and you left the house, it may in fact have gotten a little cooler out there, because sometimes houses become hot boxes. Especially if you're on the second or third floor of a house in the summer time and all you've got is open windows and maybe a window fan. Or you have some servant standing there fanning you with a piece of paper. When you walked outside, no big deal, it's still hot as hell. Now, 30, 40 years later, all this air conditioning, and it's a huge difference when you go outside. When you go outside now, my golly, is it hot. Oh. Global warming. It's all about the baseline you're using for comparison."
Oh, OK: All those scientists who have confirmed a pattern of long-term climate change were just getting confused by their air conditioning. Right. Thanks, Rush Limbaugh, for the low-hanging fruit.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...d-about-global-warming-20130619#ixzz3LSdtgBGf
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

 
bernie.jpg

The denial blogosphere waves to it's fans at Peru Climate Summit
 
As previously, go hard.
Dont expect everyone to agree with you, cause that is not happening.


I have no problem with this science paper. That's how science works. A team sets out to try to figure out what is going on with the accelerated global sea level rise and find ways to improve our understanding. If this paper turns out to be backed up with other papers using different methods then so be it. I will accept it when this is done. Till then I will go with the hundreds of papers that make up the IPCC report on the matter. Here is what the best science is telling us as of now.
1.7 (1.5 to 1.9) mm yr between 1901 and 2010
2.0 (1.7 to 2.3) mm yr between 1971 and 2010
3.2 (2.8 to 3.6) mm yr between 1993 and 2010

Here is what I wont accept....
Denial blogs that claim different.
I don't care if those blogs have names like "friends of solvents" or Tony's House of Pizza and climate" or Climate, Fish and Chips To-go" or "Steve's Bubble Idea". I'm definitely not listening to some Op-ed on the WSJ or some TV channel like Fox Entertainment. Go to the science..... or is that asking too much.

Do you ever wonder about what the global sea level was 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 or 10000 years ago? You should if you are trying to make a case that there is no change to global sea level.

Do you ever answer one of my question using more the 5 of your own words or do you just let others think for you and copy and paste what they say.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Childish stuff.
But if it floats your boat.

bernie.jpg

The denial blogosphere waves to it's fans at Peru Climate Summit
 
[h=1]'Big month' for wind power in Scotland - new data published[/h]8 December 2014
November 2014 was a “big month” for wind power in Scotland, new figures published today (Monday 8 December) reveal. [1]
Analysis by WWF Scotland of data [2] provided by WeatherEnergy found that for the month of November:

• Wind turbines alone generated an estimated 812,890MWh of electricity to the National Grid, enough to meet the electrical needs of 107% of all Scottish households for the whole month – the equivalent of 2.6 million homes.

• Maximum output was on 11 November, when generation was an estimated 55,611MWh, enough to supply 5.34m homes for the whole day – equivalent to 221% of all Scottish households.

• Minimum output was on 15 November, when generation was an estimated 7,838MWh, enough to supply 753,000 homes – equivalent to 31% of all Scottish households.

• Wind generated enough output to supply 100% or more of Scottish homes on eleven out of the 30 days of November.

The figures come as ministers from almost 200 countries gather in Lima, Peru for the second and final week of the UN climate talks, which is aiming to make progress on the draft of a new global deal on climate. [3]

Speaking from the climate talks in Lima, where he is an observer, WWF Scotland’s director Lang Banks said:

“While Torness nuclear power station had to be shutdown unexpectedly, November turned out to be another big month for wind power in Scotland, with enough pollution-free electricity generated to supply 107 per cent of Scottish households with the electricity they need. Even on calmer days, when wind wasn’t at its strongest, wind still supplied the equivalent of almost a third of electricity needs of every home. It’s clear that wind is now a critical and growing part of our current power sector.”

“I’m currently at the UN climate talks spreading the word about Scotland’s world leading climate targets and the rapid progress we’re making on renewables. I hope that news of November’s renewable output, alongside news that renewables are now the largest source of electricity in Scotland, will help inspire other countries to follow our lead, embrace the clear opportunities clean energy provides and secure progress for global action on climate.”

http://www.wwf.org.uk/about_wwf/pre...r-wind-power-in-Scotland---new-data-published
 
Published on Dec 4, 2014
This video is an annotated version of the video "Ian Anderson - Let's Keep Talking" by Canadian CEO of Kinder Morgan Ian Anderson regarding the ongoing protests on Burnaby Mountain. This video is intended as satire, and is not intended to represent the views of Ian Anderson or Kinder Morgan.

[EHLxpHznwKA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHLxpHznwKA
 
Now we are geting to the truth. MONEY, forget Global Warming.

ban-ki-moon
General Secretary of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon has announced that countries have not lived up to their responsibility to give him and his teams of bureaucrats more money.

According to The Guardian;

“The world’s action has not so far matched its responsibilities, said UN secretary-general at Lima summit on climate change

“Ban said there was still a chance of limiting global warming to an internationally agreed ceiling of 2C above pre-industrial times in the hope of limiting floods, droughts, desertification and rising sea levels.
“But the window of opportunity is fast narrowing,” he told the delegates of about 190 nations.
“This is not a time for tinkering; it is a time for transformation,” he said. Despite signs of progress he is “deeply concerned that our collective action does not match our common responsibilities.
“We must act now,” he said.
….
Ban urged developed nations to “meet and exceed” a goal set in 2009 of mobilising at least $100bn a year, in public and private finance, by 2020 to help developing nations.

Ban Ki-moon didn’t explain, in the Guardian article, how giving him and his bureaucrats more money would help prevent global warming. Presumably the donors, once parted with their money, wouldn’t be able to afford as much gas for their cars, which might reduce their carbon footprint. However, given that UN eco-warriors seem to spend a lot of their time flying between climate conferences, their enlarged carbon footprints might more than compensate for the poverty constricted carbon footprints of the taxpayers who are paying their bills.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mow we are geting to the truth. MONEY, forget Global Warming.

ban-ki-moon
General Secretary of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon has announced that countries have not lived up to their responsibility to give him and his teams of bureaucrats more money.

Again you have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you find out for yourself what and how these funds are administered. Is this too much to ask of you? Think for yourself or let other think for you. Is that what you want?

And you trust a website called "Tony's house of Pizza and climate change" Typical......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's going to hurt
[video]http://bcove.me/iws6319p
 
Climate change is here, increasing global loss of life and property damage as weather patterns change. We now know that with climate change comes rising seas – and that this sea level rise will dramatically affect Canada’s southern coastal communities.
These communities will require resilience and adaptive capacity
to ensure their long-term sustainability.
Coastal hazards associated with sea level rise include:
• Coastal inundation and reduced drainage capacity;
• Coastal erosion;
• Changes to coastal habitats and loss of wetlands such as salt marshes;
• Reduction in coastal sea ice; and
• More frequent and intense storms, storm surge and wave action.
This Primer provides an introduction to past and future sea levels, an overview of four different adaptation strategies, a recommended framework for decision making and finally a total of 21 adaptation tools to support local adaptation action.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/adaptation/pdf/SLR-Primer.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top