Register to Comment
Page 1228 of 6579 FirstFirst ... 2287281128117812181226122712281229123012381278132817282228 ... LastLast
Results 12,271 to 12,280 of 65783
Like Tree13928Likes
  1. #12271
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,764

    John Nielsen-Gammon, State Climatologist of Texas, has a good paost on the "Lack of Warming", relevant to anrejsv's post above.

    N-G does find an effect due to a sequence of La Ninas, the periodic cooling of the Pacific Ocean. However, we are moving into an El Nino phase.

    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/f...7withlines.pdf

    So we see a couple of recent La Niņas have caused the recent global temperature trend to level off. But be honest: doesn’t it seem likely that, barring another major volcanic eruption, the next El Niņo will cause global temperatures to break their previous record? Doesn’t it appear that whatever has caused global temperatures to rise over the past four decades is still going strong?

    So about that lack of warming: Yes, it’s real. You can thank La Niņa.

    As for whether this means that Tyndall gases are no longer having an impact: Nice try.
    About the Lack of Warming… | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #12272
    osioradain osioradain is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    227

    Quote Originally Posted by onetimeonly View Post
    I like this kind of stuff. Can you give a link?
    I was reading it on BBC website 5 min before i posted but i cant seem to find the page now..they said if it was a country it would be the 5 biggest polluter..
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #12273
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,764

    Strictly speaking unrelated to climate change, but of great importance nonetheless.

    The Royal Society have issued an important report on population and consumption of the world's resources in preparation for the Rio summit.

    Population per se is less of a problem, but parallel to it is the expectations of growing billions (especially in the BRICS - Brazil, India, China, and South Africa) that they or their children will live a lifestyle equivalent to the American and European middle class of today, with all the food and energy consumption that entails.

    And it looks as if the Earth cannot sustain that. For example, demand for energy resources is growing at 4% per year. Does not seem much, but something growing at that rate will double every twenty years. Which means that by about 2040, they world will need 4 times as much delivered energy as it does today, when oil is peaking and square miles are about to be ravaged by fracking to eke out the last accessible molecules of gas.

    Something's gotta give.

    Here is the BBC website: BBC News - Population and consumption key to future, report says

    Over-consumption in rich countries and rapid population growth in the poorest both need to be tackled to put society on a sustainable path, a report says.

    An expert group convened by the Royal Society spent nearly two years reading evidence and writing their report.

    Firm recommendations include giving all women access to family planning, moving beyond GDP as the yardstick of economic health and reducing food waste.

    The report will feed into preparations for the Rio+20 summit in June.

    "This is an absolutely critical period for people and the planet, with profound changes for human health and wellbeing and the natural environment," said Sir John Sulston, the report's chairman.

    "Where we go is down to human volition - it's not pre-ordained, it's not the act of anything outside humanity, it's in our hands."
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 26th April 2012 at 11:14 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #12274
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,764



    Naomi Oreskes confronts a climate change denier "You are right to want to make sure that the correct approach is being taken with confidence. But your denial of the science is making things worse!"
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #12275
    Destiny's Soldier Destiny's Soldier is offline
    Destiny's Soldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,081

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post

    Temperature Rise is (Global Warming Signal)+(Natural Variability)+(Statistical Noise). That is not too hard to understand. Foster and Rahmsdorff(2010) adjusted for the natural variability since 1979 and got this:


    But a more realistic presentation is as follows:

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #12276
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,764

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier View Post
    But a more realistic presentation is as follows:
    The first chart from Foster and Rahmsdorff (2010) was an isolation of the warming trend after natural variability (volcanos, La Ninas, El Ninos, sulphate aerosols, solar variabiity) is removed, so it is not an apples-apples comparison. Note the lower chart fails to display the trend, because there is an increasing trend there.

    This chart has the tricks I point out before to deceive the eye

    - Stretch the x-axis to make it longer than the y-axis. That compresses the data into the middle and makes it srtificially static.
    - Put a lot of whitespace at the top and bottom of the chart for the same reason.

    Here is one of the data streams (UAH, as it happens) in a better display.



    And here is another one courtesy of andrejsv:



    The IPCC prediction is 0.2C/ decade rise in the 21st century.
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 26th April 2012 at 07:08 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #12277
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,764



    A survey by George Mason University seems to show the American public are solidly behind renewable energy, and want the state to take a firm line on pollution and GHG emissions. Even 67% of Republicans "strongly" support, or "somewhat" support regulation of CO2.

    • 63 percent of Americans support “signing an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050“!
    • By a margin of 3 to 1 — 61 percent to 20 percent — Americans say they would be more likely to vote for a political candidate who supports a “revenue neutral” tax shift, increasing taxes on fossil fuels, and reducing the federal income tax by an equal amount.
    • 61 percent said they support holding the fossil fuel industry responsible for “hidden costs we pay for citizens who get sick from polluted air and water, military costs to maintain access to foreign oil, and the environmental costs of spills and accidents.”
    • By 3 to 1 — 58 percent to 17 percent — Americans say “protecting the environment … improves economic growth and provides new jobs” vs those who say it “reduces economic growth and costs jobs.”
    • Asked “When there is a conflict between environmental protection and economic growth, which do you think is more important?” an amazing 62 percent supported “protecting the environment, even if it reduces economic growth” vs. 38 percent who backed “Economic growth, even if it leads to environmental problems.”
    Discussion: Climate Progress | ThinkProgress

    http://environment.yale.edu/climate/...March-2012.pdf
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #12278
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,764

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Strictly speaking unrelated to climate change, but of great importance nonetheless.

    The Royal Society have issued an important report on population and consumption of the world's resources in preparation for the Rio summit.

    Population per se is less of a problem, but parallel to it is the expectations of growing billions (especially in the BRICS - Brazil, India, China, and South Africa) that they or their children will live a lifestyle equivalent to the American and European middle class of today, with all the food and energy consumption that entails.

    And it looks as if the Earth cannot sustain that. For example, demand for energy resources is growing at 4% per year. Does not seem much, but something growing at that rate will double every twenty years. Which means that by about 2040, they world will need 4 times as much delivered energy as it does today, when oil is peaking and square miles are about to be ravaged by fracking to eke out the last accessible molecules of gas.

    Something's gotta give.

    Here is the BBC website: BBC News - Population and consumption key to future, report says
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #12279
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,764

    An interesting site where citizens of Wisconsin gently record their perceptions of changing climate. A bit like Canadian Simon Donner realising that the winter lake hockey season is getting shorter.

    Here some ice fishermen record their experience.



    Home | Climate Wisconsin
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #12280
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,764

    Professor Richard Alley looks at ice cores.

    "We cannot explain past shifts in temperature without the effects of CO2"

    Today's levels of atmospheric CO2 have not been seen in 400,000 years.

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment