More good news on the Climate Change front

[BlindBoo]

Since 2005? Wasn't that one of the hottest years in the US due to a very warm el Nino?

Sea Ice? What matters in Antarctica is the Ice trapped on land, and that is still melting into the sea. Fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water. So I would be suprised if that is one of the reason there was an increase in the sea ice.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I think that "all" is a bit much but certainly much less is a goal. Now I assume you will come back asking how they are limiting the use. Well prices is how. Obama himself said that he wanted higher prices only not so quickly. Higher prices does one thing, reduces the use by the poor and the middle class. The rich they don't care at all.

And how does any of that change what I said originally? The science and all common sense all point to the fact that our habits need to change if we want a clean & inhabitable place to live for our children and grandchildrens generations.

We can use fossil fuels and leave a habitable planet. Tremendous progress has already been made. Why not take an "all of the above" approach to energy? safe fossil fuels, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, et al

We are and the only form of energy that has opposition is the natural ones.

You can nit pick different models, or say this didnt exactly match what happened (because they are models not psychics) but the one thing you cannot dismiss with any evidence is that the entire scientific community all agree on Climate Change. And save that "they want the grant money" bologna because the first Climate Change studies were done in the 30's with no grant money at all. Innuendo, assumptions and logical leaps does not refute science

 

[RDD_1210]

Total horseshit. We should be looking into all alternative forms of energy. No one, even the oil companies, has ever said otherwise.

But until we find something that will power our millions of cars, trucks, buses, trains, and planes, we need oil. This country has plenty of untapped oil, its foolish not to use it.

Who is suggesting we abandon all oil usage today?

not abandon, but curtail usage by driving up the prices. Obama has said that several times "your power bills will skyrocket". Do you think that skyrocketing energy prices would be good for our economy?

Again, which part of any of what you said makes AGW false? You might not like the approach being taken to remedy the situation, but that doesn't make the issue less real.

 

[RDD_1210]

I think that "all" is a bit much but certainly much less is a goal. Now I assume you will come back asking how they are limiting the use. Well prices is how. Obama himself said that he wanted higher prices only not so quickly. Higher prices does one thing, reduces the use by the poor and the middle class. The rich they don't care at all.

And how does any of that change what I said originally? The science and all common sense all point to the fact that our habits need to change if we want a clean & inhabitable place to live for our children and grandchildrens generations.

Your implication is that is not the case today. The air is cleaner, then 40 years ago. The water is cleaner then 40 years ago. Nothing is pristine as it was 10000 years ago but there are trade offs. If you want to drive then you are polluting no matter how little and no matter what you drive.

Who says the air is cleaner today? Who says the water is cleaner? Remember, this is a global issue, not just your backyard.

 

[RDD_1210]

I think that "all" is a bit much but certainly much less is a goal. Now I assume you will come back asking how they are limiting the use. Well prices is how. Obama himself said that he wanted higher prices only not so quickly. Higher prices does one thing, reduces the use by the poor and the middle class. The rich they don't care at all.

And how does any of that change what I said originally? The science and all common sense all point to the fact that our habits need to change if we want a clean & inhabitable place to live for our children and grandchildrens generations.

We can use fossil fuels and leave a habitable planet. Tremendous progress has already been made. Why not take an "all of the above" approach to energy? safe fossil fuels, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, et al

No arguments with that. But the emphasis has to be on what is safe and not what is most profitable.

 

[JoeNormal]

Here are three articles that should put to debate into perspective. I am willing to give the CC fearist the benefit of the doubt and say they were just honestly wrong. But now it is time to wake up.

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling - Forbes

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year

Read more: Global warming latest: Amount of Antarctic sea ice hits new record high | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Misconceptions helped kill Australian carbon tax

Misconceptions helped kill Australian carbon tax

As Obama has sought support for the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed carbon rules, he has noted the political perils.

"If we're blithe about saying this is the defining issue of our time but we don't address people's legitimate economic concerns, then even if they are concerned about climate change they may not support efforts to do something about it," he told the League of Conservation Voters last month.

Australia's tax faces its demise as support for change appears to be rebounding. Forty-five percent of respondents in this year's Lowy poll see global warming as a "serious and pressing problem," up 5 percentage points from 2013 — Australia's hottest year on record.

Meanwhile, Australians are limiting pollution themselves. Australia's power consumption declined for the first time in 2010, and has fallen every year since. Its greenhouse gas emissions dropped a record 0.8 percent from 2012 to 2013.

One reason for the change, according to an Australian Institute think tank report, was all the carbon tax attention. It made many Australians realize how much they were spending on electricity.

If you want to look at the data in fits and starts, there a many periods that show no warming. I once plotted the raw data in Matlab and found a 17 year period around 40 years ago. What else have you got?

 

[Old Rocks]

The levels of man created GHGs in the atmosphere continues to climb. The alpine glaciers and continental ice caps continue to melt. The oceans continue to warm. But nothing is connected.

The science is clear, the attempts at denial are numerous, and when reality demonstrates the price of that denial, it will be far to late to retrieve what we had.

 

[Freewill]

Here are three articles that should put to debate into perspective. I am willing to give the CC fearist the benefit of the doubt and say they were just honestly wrong. But now it is time to wake up.

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling - Forbes

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year

Read more: Global warming latest: Amount of Antarctic sea ice hits new record high | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Misconceptions helped kill Australian carbon tax

Misconceptions helped kill Australian carbon tax

As Obama has sought support for the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed carbon rules, he has noted the political perils.

"If we're blithe about saying this is the defining issue of our time but we don't address people's legitimate economic concerns, then even if they are concerned about climate change they may not support efforts to do something about it," he told the League of Conservation Voters last month.

Australia's tax faces its demise as support for change appears to be rebounding. Forty-five percent of respondents in this year's Lowy poll see global warming as a "serious and pressing problem," up 5 percentage points from 2013 — Australia's hottest year on record.

Meanwhile, Australians are limiting pollution themselves. Australia's power consumption declined for the first time in 2010, and has fallen every year since. Its greenhouse gas emissions dropped a record 0.8 percent from 2012 to 2013.

One reason for the change, according to an Australian Institute think tank report, was all the carbon tax attention. It made many Australians realize how much they were spending on electricity.

If you want to look at the data in fits and starts, there a many periods that show no warming. I once plotted the raw data in Matlab and found a 17 year period around 40 years ago. What else have you got?

What 40 years ago?

Here is where I go for information:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Here is the data from a plot for 1998 to now;

Year, Anomaly, Rank

1998 0.54°C 4
1999 0.63°C 15
2000 0.44°C 1
2001 0.44°C 1
2002 0.57°C 7
2003 0.61°C 12
2004 0.61°C 12
2005 0.58°C 8
2006 0.64°C 17
2007 0.63°C 15
2008 0.54°C 4
2009 0.54°C 4
2010 0.61°C 12
2011 0.64°C 17
2012 0.53°C 3
2013 0.59°C 9
2014 0.63°C 15

I do not see a tread other then slight fluctuation.

 

[Freewill]

The levels of man created GHGs in the atmosphere continues to climb. The alpine glaciers and continental ice caps continue to melt. The oceans continue to warm. But nothing is connected.

The science is clear, the attempts at denial are numerous, and when reality demonstrates the price of that denial, it will be far to late to retrieve what we had.

What is the utopian sea level?

What is the ideal global temperature?

How are more glacier more valuable to man then less?

What do you make out of no real warming since 1998?

 

[Freewill]

We all agree on that. Why not find non-polluting ways to use our plentiful fossil fuels until viable alternatives are found?

Are we not doing that today? My cars are emission inspected every year, are yours? And guess what, after 25 years of emission inspecting my car, and not the ones in the next county, air quality has not improve on bit because of the inspection.

my point exactly, but you are wrong about air quality improvements. It has improved greatly in the last 25 years.

Read again what I posted.

 

[Freewill]

Since 2005? Wasn't that one of the hottest years in the US due to a very warm el Nino?

Sea Ice? What matters in Antarctica is the Ice trapped on land, and that is still melting into the sea. Fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water. So I would be suprised if that is one of the reason there was an increase in the sea ice.

Antarctic ice is at record levels, not sure your concern.

 

[Old Rocks]

Since 2005? Wasn't that one of the hottest years in the US due to a very warm el Nino?

Sea Ice? What matters in Antarctica is the Ice trapped on land, and that is still melting into the sea. Fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water. So I would be suprised if that is one of the reason there was an increase in the sea ice.

Antarctic ice is at record levels, not sure your concern.

Sea ice, which melts every year. In the meantime, the continental ice is decreasing by billions of tons yearly.

http://skepticalscience.net/pdf/rebuttal/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.pdf

Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice
sheet's massive size and complexity. However, since the 1990s satellites have been launched that allow us to measure those changes. There are three entirely different approaches, and they all agree within their measurement uncertainties. The most recent estimate of land ice change that combines estimates from these three approaches reported (Shepherd and others, 2012) that between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 gigatonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr, or 1.9 mm per decade. Together with the land ice loss from Greenland, this represents about 30% of the observed global-average sea level rise over this period.

 

[JoeNormal]

Here are three articles that should put to debate into perspective. I am willing to give the CC fearist the benefit of the doubt and say they were just honestly wrong. But now it is time to wake up.

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling - Forbes

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year

Read more: Global warming latest: Amount of Antarctic sea ice hits new record high | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Misconceptions helped kill Australian carbon tax

Misconceptions helped kill Australian carbon tax

As Obama has sought support for the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed carbon rules, he has noted the political perils.

"If we're blithe about saying this is the defining issue of our time but we don't address people's legitimate economic concerns, then even if they are concerned about climate change they may not support efforts to do something about it," he told the League of Conservation Voters last month.

Australia's tax faces its demise as support for change appears to be rebounding. Forty-five percent of respondents in this year's Lowy poll see global warming as a "serious and pressing problem," up 5 percentage points from 2013 — Australia's hottest year on record.

Meanwhile, Australians are limiting pollution themselves. Australia's power consumption declined for the first time in 2010, and has fallen every year since. Its greenhouse gas emissions dropped a record 0.8 percent from 2012 to 2013.

One reason for the change, according to an Australian Institute think tank report, was all the carbon tax attention. It made many Australians realize how much they were spending on electricity.

If you want to look at the data in fits and starts, there a many periods that show no warming. I once plotted the raw data in Matlab and found a 17 year period around 40 years ago. What else have you got?

What 40 years ago?

Here is where I go for information:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Here is the data from a plot for 1998 to now;

Year, Anomaly, Rank

1998 0.54°C 4
1999 0.63°C 15
2000 0.44°C 1
2001 0.44°C 1
2002 0.57°C 7
2003 0.61°C 12
2004 0.61°C 12
2005 0.58°C 8
2006 0.64°C 17
2007 0.63°C 15
2008 0.54°C 4
2009 0.54°C 4
2010 0.61°C 12
2011 0.64°C 17
2012 0.53°C 3
2013 0.59°C 9
2014 0.63°C 15

I do not see a tread other then slight fluctuation.

The numbers you're using don't appear to come from the link you provided. But the graph they provide shows a fairly clear upward trend even in the last 10 years.

The data I used was from the (7?) climate centers that compute average global temperature.

 

[Old Rocks]

The levels of man created GHGs in the atmosphere continues to climb. The alpine glaciers and continental ice caps continue to melt. The oceans continue to warm. But nothing is connected.

The science is clear, the attempts at denial are numerous, and when reality demonstrates the price of that denial, it will be far to late to retrieve what we had.

What is the utopian sea level?

What is the ideal global temperature?

How are more glacier more valuable to man then less?

What do you make out of no real warming since 1998?

A sea level that floods our ports is definately not utopian.

A global temperature driving climatic changes that negatively affect the agriculture that a world with 7 billion people on it is definately not utopian.

As for you question concerning the glaciers, that is truly stupid.

 

[Freewill]

The levels of man created GHGs in the atmosphere continues to climb. The alpine glaciers and continental ice caps continue to melt. The oceans continue to warm. But nothing is connected.

The science is clear, the attempts at denial are numerous, and when reality demonstrates the price of that denial, it will be far to late to retrieve what we had.

What is the utopian sea level?

What is the ideal global temperature?

How are more glacier more valuable to man then less?

What do you make out of no real warming since 1998?

A sea level that floods our ports is definately not utopian.

Granted. How much higher would they have to be for this to happen?

A global temperature driving climatic changes that negatively affect the agriculture that a world with 7 billion people on it is definately not utopian.

Granted, and what temperature would that occur? Warmer or colder?

As for you question concerning the glaciers, that is truly stupid.

What do you mean stupid? The more the glacier recedes the more land for man to use. I am not sure what is stupid about that. Obviously if the shrinking glaciers are brought up as a downside of GW/CC/CD then it is important to someone.

 

[Freewill]

If you want to look at the data in fits and starts, there a many periods that show no warming. I once plotted the raw data in Matlab and found a 17 year period around 40 years ago. What else have you got?

What 40 years ago?

Here is where I go for information:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Here is the data from a plot for 1998 to now;

Year, Anomaly, Rank

1998 0.54°C 4
1999 0.63°C 15
2000 0.44°C 1
2001 0.44°C 1
2002 0.57°C 7
2003 0.61°C 12
2004 0.61°C 12
2005 0.58°C 8
2006 0.64°C 17
2007 0.63°C 15
2008 0.54°C 4
2009 0.54°C 4
2010 0.61°C 12
2011 0.64°C 17
2012 0.53°C 3
2013 0.59°C 9
2014 0.63°C 15

I do not see a tread other then slight fluctuation.

The numbers you're using don't appear to come from the link you provided. But the graph they provide shows a fairly clear upward trend even in the last 10 years.

The data I used was from the (7?) climate centers that compute average global temperature.

Those numbers came directly from the site.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

My agenda.....in regards to the climate change issue?

that is the subject

I don't have one. I look at the subject like this.

Clean air and water is better than dirty air and water.
Not being dependent on a finite energy sources is better than being so dependent.

Therefore, I am in favor of policies that promote clean air and water....and that lead to the effective development of renewable energy sources. These things happen to be in line with what science is recommending we do to address climate change.

This reasoned approach only appears like an agenda to nutjobs who are hopelessly mired in the political echo chamber and see such positive things as a power grab.

I agree with you, but you cannot deny that there are some people who are using the issue of global warming only as a way to claim more money and power. That is the element that worries me. People who push for "carbon tax credits" as a way to curb global warming will meet my full opposition. And I will never side with anyone who thinks the US should pay other countries to help with their pollution, treating the US as though we are the sole bad guy in this issue.

I don't care what people believe as far as the climate. You can be a "cultist" or a "denier", that's your right to believe what you want. It's when one side or the other starts pushing for dangerous legislation that I care.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I agree with you, but you cannot deny that there are some people who are using the issue of global warming only as a way to claim more money and power.

I hear this often so I'll ask: Is your paranoia about Climate Science strickly based on some people being able to make money from it or is it the science? Are people not supposed to make money ONLY in this field for it to be "valid" in your eyes?

That is the element that worries me. People who push for "carbon tax credits" as a way to curb global warming will meet my full opposition. And I will never side with anyone who thinks the US should pay other countries to help with their pollution, treating the US as though we are the sole bad guy in this issue.

We're not the only bad guys and I agree other countries need to step up but why play a game of chicken because another country wants too? Like "Hey I'm not going to do anything about pollution or global warming because Billy isnt doing anything! Not Fair!

I don't care what people believe as far as the climate. You can be a "cultist" or a "denier", that's your right to believe what you want. It's when one side or the other starts pushing for dangerous legislation that I care.

What "dangerous legislation" are you referring too? Light bulbs? Frankly you should care because people can believe what they want but there is only TRUE or FALSE. What they are doing is believing something is false based on nothing and dismissing science for assumptions, logical leaps and innuendo WHILE the problem continues.

To put it another way: Firefighters have determined the house is on fire but there is a group of people stopping the fire from being put out because they want to know how much the chief gets or because they suspect the Firefighters want to control fire itself.

When asked "how?" the crowd goes: You cant deny that someone wants to benefit from putting out this fire.

Like...what?

 

[JoeNormal]

What 40 years ago?

Here is where I go for information:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Here is the data from a plot for 1998 to now;

Year, Anomaly, Rank

1998 0.54°C 4
1999 0.63°C 15
2000 0.44°C 1
2001 0.44°C 1
2002 0.57°C 7
2003 0.61°C 12
2004 0.61°C 12
2005 0.58°C 8
2006 0.64°C 17
2007 0.63°C 15
2008 0.54°C 4
2009 0.54°C 4
2010 0.61°C 12
2011 0.64°C 17
2012 0.53°C 3
2013 0.59°C 9
2014 0.63°C 15

I do not see a tread other then slight fluctuation.

The numbers you're using don't appear to come from the link you provided. But the graph they provide shows a fairly clear upward trend even in the last 10 years.

The data I used was from the (7?) climate centers that compute average global temperature.

Those numbers came directly from the site.

Here's what I see:

Year, Anomaly, Rank
1998 0.67°C 132
1999 0.41°C 118
2000 0.49°C 122
2001 0.61°C 129
2002 0.57°C 126
2003 0.61°C 129
2004 0.47°C 120
2005 0.66°C 131
2006 0.54°C 124
2007 0.58°C 127
2008 0.48°C 121
2009 0.56°C 125
2010 0.72°C 134
2011 0.54°C 124
2012 0.68°C 133
2013 0.66°C 131
2014 0.74°C 135

 

[Freewill]

I agree with you, but you cannot deny that there are some people who are using the issue of global warming only as a way to claim more money and power.

I hear this often so I'll ask: Is your paranoia about Climate Science strickly based on some people being able to make money from it or is it the science? Are people not supposed to make money ONLY in this field for it to be "valid" in your eyes?

That is the element that worries me. People who push for "carbon tax credits" as a way to curb global warming will meet my full opposition. And I will never side with anyone who thinks the US should pay other countries to help with their pollution, treating the US as though we are the sole bad guy in this issue.

We're not the only bad guys and I agree other countries need to step up but why play a game of chicken because another country wants too? Like "Hey I'm not going to do anything about pollution or global warming because Billy isnt doing anything! Not Fair!

I don't care what people believe as far as the climate. You can be a "cultist" or a "denier", that's your right to believe what you want. It's when one side or the other starts pushing for dangerous legislation that I care.

What "dangerous legislation" are you referring too? Light bulbs? Frankly you should care because people can believe what they want but there is only TRUE or FALSE. What they are doing is believing something is false based on nothing and dismissing science for assumptions, logical leaps and innuendo WHILE the problem continues.

To put it another way: Firefighters have determined the house is on fire but there is a group of people stopping the fire from being put out because they want to know how much the chief gets or because they suspect the Firefighters want to control fire itself.

When asked "how?" the crowd goes: You cant deny that someone wants to benefit from putting out this fire.

Like...what?

The bolded above is exactly what I was saying about the left. We are bad guys because we make something of value. I note you did not name one other "bad guy."