Is the US losing the Climate Tech war?

[Old Rocks]

You see, those of us that really research the issue, can post relevant information from scientists that are studying the issue. Whereas all we see you silly asses doing is flapping yap and in general, making fools of yourselves. What other way is there to speak to you other than down?

 

[Iceweasel]

You see, those of us that really research the issue, can post relevant information from scientists that are studying the issue. Whereas all we see you silly asses doing is flapping yap and in general, making fools of yourselves. What other way is there to speak to you other than down?

"There appear to be relationships between trends observed in our Northern Hemisphere reconstruction and certain climatic forcing functions, including solar fluctuations, volcanic activity and atmospheric CO2..."

That doesn't prove shit. Too bad you can't see it but don't blame those that don't partake of the communion wine.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate

You have free access to this content
Accelerated decline in the Arctic sea ice cover

1. Josefino C. Comiso1,
2. Claire L. Parkinson1,
3. Robert Gersten1,2,3 and
4. Larry Stock1,4

Article first published online: 3 JAN 2008



Abstract
[1] Satellite data reveal unusually low Arctic sea ice coverage during the summer of 2007, caused in part by anomalously high temperatures and southerly winds. The extent and area of the ice cover reached minima on 14 September 2007 at 4.1 × 106 km2 and 3.6 × 106 km2, respectively. These are 24% and 27% lower than the previous record lows, both reached on 21 September 2005, and 37% and 38% less than the climatological averages. Acceleration in the decline is evident as the extent and area trends of the entire ice cover (seasonal and perennial ice) have shifted from about −2.2 and −3.0% per decade in 1979–1996 to about −10.1 and −10.7% per decade in the last 10 years. The latter trends are now comparable to the high negative trends of −10.2 and −11.4% per decade for the perennial ice extent and area, 1979–2007.

Accelerated decline in the Arctic sea ice cover - Comiso - 2008 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

See how easy that was. An article about Arctic Sea Ice, written by a real scientist, that supports the hypothesis that the Arctic is rapidly warming. Since it was published in 2008, the decline in Arctic Ice has continued.

Now your turn, present me an article from a credible source supporting your point of view.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why is it called Greenland?

 

[Old Rocks]

On climate tech in the US. We have recently seen wind farms being put in the with the per watt building cost well below that of conventional energy, and the producton cost, per watt, unsubsidized, about 1/2 that of conventional energy. Now they are still getting some subsidization, but then, they do not get depletion allowance, since you cannot deplete the wind. Solar, within five years, will also cost less the install and far less per watt produced. Even without subsidization. And the grid scale batteries will start coming online in about three years, making wind and solar 24/7.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why is it called Greenland?

Real estate scam;

How Greenland got its Name - Ancient History Blog

One Viking in particular, Erik the Red was very good at raiding and pillaging. Although history is somewhat sketchy, it is believed that he discovered Greenland after being sent away from Iceland in exile. This was rumored to have been his punishment for committing murder. He was able to settle in Greenland and survive there for several years. Finally, his exile was ended and he found that he wanted to settle the island more fully. For that, he needed to convince others to come with him. Erik the Red is believed to have lived from circa 950 to 1003CE.

Of course, when you tell someone that they will be travelling with you to a place that is barren, cold and inhospitable you may have trouble convincing even a Viking to come with you. So instead, Erik (according to popular legend) called the island Greenland and instead painted the island as being a wonderful place to settle.

 

[Iceweasel]

Climate

You have free access to this content
Accelerated decline in the Arctic sea ice cover

1. 
   
   
   • Josefino C. Comiso1,
   • Claire L. Parkinson1,
   • Robert Gersten1,2,3 and
   • Larry Stock1,4

Article first published online: 3 JAN 2008



Abstract
[1] Satellite data reveal unusually low Arctic sea ice coverage during the summer of 2007, caused in part by anomalously high temperatures and southerly winds. The extent and area of the ice cover reached minima on 14 September 2007 at 4.1 × 106 km2 and 3.6 × 106 km2, respectively. These are 24% and 27% lower than the previous record lows, both reached on 21 September 2005, and 37% and 38% less than the climatological averages. Acceleration in the decline is evident as the extent and area trends of the entire ice cover (seasonal and perennial ice) have shifted from about −2.2 and −3.0% per decade in 1979–1996 to about −10.1 and −10.7% per decade in the last 10 years. The latter trends are now comparable to the high negative trends of −10.2 and −11.4% per decade for the perennial ice extent and area, 1979–2007.

Accelerated decline in the Arctic sea ice cover - Comiso - 2008 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

See how easy that was. An article about Arctic Sea Ice, written by a real scientist, that supports the hypothesis that the Arctic is rapidly warming. Since it was published in 2008, the decline in Arctic Ice has continued.

Now your turn, present me an article from a credible source supporting your point of view.

I thought the debate was about AGW?

 

[Old Rocks]

And yet you wonder why we talk down to you? Good God, what in the hell do you think has caused the Arctic Ice to decline so rapidly?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why is it called Greenland?

Real estate scam;

How Greenland got its Name - Ancient History Blog

One Viking in particular, Erik the Red was very good at raiding and pillaging. Although history is somewhat sketchy, it is believed that he discovered Greenland after being sent away from Iceland in exile. This was rumored to have been his punishment for committing murder. He was able to settle in Greenland and survive there for several years. Finally, his exile was ended and he found that he wanted to settle the island more fully. For that, he needed to convince others to come with him. Erik the Red is believed to have lived from circa 950 to 1003CE.

Of course, when you tell someone that they will be travelling with you to a place that is barren, cold and inhospitable you may have trouble convincing even a Viking to come with you. So instead, Erik (according to popular legend) called the island Greenland and instead painted the island as being a wonderful place to settle.

No, fool.

Greenland was actually a Viking settlement The Fate of Greenland s Vikings - Archaeology Magazine Archive

"Some people call it the Farm under the Sand, others Greenland's Pompeii. Dating to the mid-fourteenth century, it was once the site of a Viking colony founded along the island's grassy southwestern coast that stretches in a fjord-indented ribbon between the glaciers and the sea. Archaeologists Jette Arneborg of the Danish National Museum, Joel Berglund of the Greenland National Museum, and Claus Andreasen of Greenland University could not have guessed what would be revealed when they excavated the ruins of the five-room, stone-and-turf house in the early 1990s.

As the archaeologists dug through the permafrost and removed the windblown glacial sand that filled the rooms, they found fragments of looms and cloth. Scattered about were other household belongings, including an iron knife, whetstones, soapstone vessels, and a double-edged comb. Whoever lived here departed so hurriedly that they left behind iron and caribou antler arrows, weapons needed for survival in this harsh country, medieval Europe's farthest frontier."

 

[mamooth]

Frank, was there a point to any of that? We all know Greenland was a Viking settlement. A really cold and miserable one. It's much warmer in Greenland today than it was even at the height of the MWP, due to that global warming thing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, was there a point to any of that? We all know Greenland was a Viking settlement. A really cold and miserable one. It's much warmer in Greenland today than it was even at the height of the MWP, due to that global warming thing.

"As the archaeologists dug through the permafrost...." means it's much warmer in Greenland today than it was even at the height of the MWP, due to that global warming thing?

Really?

The Vikings dug into the permafrost to build their farms and settlements?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, was there a point to any of that? We all know Greenland was a Viking settlement. A really cold and miserable one. It's much warmer in Greenland today than it was even at the height of the MWP, due to that global warming thing.

^ A cautionary tale that hatred makes people stupid

 

[mamooth]

"As the archaeologists dug through the permafrost...." means it's much warmer in Greenland today than it was even at the height of the MWP, due to that global warming thing?

Yes. As the temperature record indicates. You will, of course, ignore the hard data and cherrypick an anecdote, which you'll interpret in a bizarre way so you can claim disproves the temperature record.

The Vikings dug into the permafrost to build their farms and settlements?

And there it is!

First, some of the buildings would have been partially dug into the ground. Vikings built that way even in warmer climates.

Second, given enough time, items on the surface of permafrost eventually end up buried. It's not a fixed sterile sheet of ice. Stuffs grows there. Glacial sand blows on to it. If it's a turf house, the roof falling in would have buried things.

 

[S.J.]

On climate tech in the US. We have recently seen wind farms being put in the with the per watt building cost well below that of conventional energy, and the producton cost, per watt, unsubsidized, about 1/2 that of conventional energy. Now they are still getting some subsidization, but then, they do not get depletion allowance, since you cannot deplete the wind. Solar, within five years, will also cost less the install and far less per watt produced. Even without subsidization. And the grid scale batteries will start coming online in about three years, making wind and solar 24/7.

Fine. When they make it abundant and affordable, and it can meet our needs, fossil fuels won't be needed. Until then, we'll use fossil fuels. See how that works?

 

[mamooth]

Fine. When they make it abundant and affordable, and it can meet our needs, fossil fuels won't be needed. Until then, we'll use fossil fuels. See how that works?

Given nobody has commanded fossil fuels be immediately banned, what on earth are you crying about?

 

[skookerasbil]

Fine. When they make it abundant and affordable, and it can meet our needs, fossil fuels won't be needed. Until then, we'll use fossil fuels. See how that works?

Given nobody has commanded fossil fuels be immediately banned, what on earth are you crying about?

s0n.........they are going to be around for a long, long, long, long time!!! In fact, you and me will be long in our boxes and oil will still be dominating the energy landscape!!!! And as you're about to check out, you can proclaim boldly that the deniers are crazy!!!

 

[westwall]

A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems Abstract Nature
Nature 421, 37-42 (2 January 2003) | doi:10.1038/nature01286; Received 5 March 2002; Accepted 22 October 2002



A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems
Camille Parmesan1 & Gary Yohe2

1. Integrative Biology, Patterson Laboratories 141, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712, USA
2. John E. Andrus Professor of Economics, Wesleyan University, 238 Public Affairs Center, Middletown, Connecticut 06459, USA

Correspondence to: Camille Parmesan1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to C.P. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).



Topof page
Abstract
Causal attribution of recent biological trends to climate change is complicated because non-climatic influences dominate local, short-term biological changes. Any underlying signal from climate change is likely to be revealed by analyses that seek systematic trends across diverse species and geographic regions; however, debates within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reveal several definitions of a 'systematic trend'. Here, we explore these differences, apply diverse analyses to more than 1,700 species, and show that recent biological trends match climate change predictions. Global meta-analyses documented significant range shifts averaging 6.1 km per decade towards the poles (or metres per decade upward), and significant mean advancement of spring events by 2.3 days per decade. We define a diagnostic fingerprint of temporal and spatial 'sign-switching' responses uniquely predicted by twentieth century climate trends. Among appropriate long-term/large-scale/multi-species data sets, this diagnostic fingerprint was found for 279 species. This suite of analyses generates 'very high confidence' (as laid down by the IPCC) that climate change is already affecting living systems.

What the evidence says.

Instead of "what the evidence says" it should read "what the computer models say". Because they are very far from "evidence".

 

[westwall]

Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere annual temperature since 1671 based on high-latitude tree-ring data from North America - Springer

Climatic Change
February 1989, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 39-59
Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere annual temperature since 1671 based on high-latitude tree-ring data from North America

• 
  
  
  • Gordon C. Jacoby Jr.,
  • Rosanne D'Arrigo

Abstract
Annual Northern Hemisphere surface temperature departures for the past 300 yr were reconstructed using eleven tree-ring chronologies from high-latitude, boreal sites in Canada and Alaska, spanning over 90 degrees of longitude. This geographic coverage is believed to be adequate for a useful representation of hemispheric-scale temperature trends, as high northern latitudes are particularly sensitive to climatic change. We also present a reconstruction of Arctic annual temperatures. The reconstructions show a partial amelioration of the Little Ice Age after the early 1700's, an abrupt, severe renewal of cold in the early 1800's and a prolonged wanning since approximately 1840. These trends are supported by other proxy data. Similarities and differences between our Northern Hemisphere reconstruction and other large-scale proxy temperature records depend on such factors as the data sources, methods, and degree of spatial representation. Analyses of additional temperature records, as they become available, are needed to determine the degree to which each series represents fluctuations for the entire hemisphere. There appear to be relationships between trends observed in our Northern Hemisphere reconstruction and certain climatic forcing functions, including solar fluctuations, volcanic activity and atmospheric CO2. In particular, our reconstruction supports the hypothesis that the global warming trend over the past century of increasing atmospheric CO2 has exceeded the recent level of natural variability of the climate system.

More evidence.

Yet more science fiction.

 

[westwall]

A very good development, data sets available to students for research.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
THE WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel Dataset: A New Era in Climate Change Research
Gerald A.Meehl
National Center for Atmospheric Research, *Boulder, Colorado

CurtCovey and Karl E.Taylor
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Livermore, California

ThomasDelworth and Ronald J.Stouffer
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey

MojibLatif
Leibniz-Institut fuer Meereswissenschaften, Kiel, Germany

BryantMcAvaney
Bureau of Meteorology, Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia

John F. B.Mitchell
Hadley Centre, Exeter, United Kingdom





Abstract
A coordinated set of global coupled climate model [atmosphere–ocean general circulation model (AOGCM)] experiments for twentieth- and twenty-first-century climate, as well as several climate change commitment and other experiments, was run by 16 modeling groups from 11 countries with 23 models for assessment in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Since the assessment was completed, output from another model has been added to the dataset, so the participation is now 17 groups from 12 countries with 24 models. This effort, as well as the subsequent analysis phase, was organized by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR) Working Group on Coupled Models (WGCM) Climate Simulation Panel, and constitutes the third phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3). The dataset is called the WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset, and represents the largest and most comprehensive international global coupled climate model experiment and multimodel analysis effort ever attempted. As of March 2007, the Program for Climate Model Diagnostics and Intercomparison (PCMDI) has collected, archived, and served roughly 32 TB of model data. With oversight from the panel, the multimodel data were made openly available from PCMDI for analysis and academic applications. Over 171 TB of data had been downloaded among the more than 1000 registered users to date. Over 200 journal articles, based in part on the dataset, have been published so far. Though initially aimed at the IPCC AR4, this unique and valuable resource will continue to be maintained for at least the next several years. Never before has such an extensive set of climate model simulations been made available to the international climate science community for study. The ready access to the multimodel dataset opens up these types of model analyses to researchers, including students, who previously could not obtain state-of-the-art climate model output, and thus represents a new era in climate change research. As a direct consequence, these ongoing studies are increasing the body of knowledge regarding our understanding of how the climate system currently works, and how it may change in the future.

So here they ran a whole bunch of science fiction and compared it to other science fiction and somehow they think that it is meaningful. What a farce climatology has become.....

"A coordinated set of global coupled climate model"

 

[westwall]

You see, those of us that really research the issue, can post relevant information from scientists that are studying the issue. Whereas all we see you silly asses doing is flapping yap and in general, making fools of yourselves. What other way is there to speak to you other than down?

Since when is science fiction "research"?