Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have a lot of confidence in the opinions of "scientists" (like Roy Spencer) who are Creationists who believe that God created the earth for mankind and gave mankind Dominion over the earth.
I prefer to keep religious myths and science separate - unlike Roy.
So it's the scientist that you don't have confidence in, or the data that he plotted on that graph, that you question?
Actually, Spencer has a very pragmatic approach to global warming. He does believe man made co2 has contributed to warming the planet, but doesn't assign a percentage to how much has been man and how much has been nature over the last 50 years.
As for his creationist view point, it's completely irrelevant to this topic, and his creationist belief doesn't mean he thinks the earth was created 6000 years ago. Many credible scientists are deists.
But if you have a biased towards Dr Spencer, what about a physicist on par with Einstein? Is his advice worth at least listening to? Or is he on the pay roll of the big oil "denial" machine that tries to deny that the "science is settled".
And the meteorological community is evenly divided too
And guess what? Whether you like it or not, mankind will have dominion over the earth until we either kill ourselves off, or some super bug does it. In the meantime, we will continue to use the earth's resources fossil fuels and all....
Rural Chinese and Indians are sick of living in huts without power.... Nations who stupidly abandoned nuclear power have little choice but to use reliable fossil fuels for energy. US switch to shale gas has dropped the global rate of emissions below the 10 year average.
Quote:
CO2 emissions +2.2% in 2012, driven by China and coal
Quote:
Emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and cement production reached a new high in 2012, rising 2.2 percent over 2011 due chiefly to an increase in coal-burning China, scientists said Tuesday.
Output of CO2 from these sources was a record 35 billion tonnes, 58 percent above 1990, the benchmark year for calculating greenhouse-gas levels, according to the annual analysis by an international group called the Global Carbon Project.
"Based on estimates of economic activity in 2013, emissions are set to rise 2.1 percent in 2013 to reach 36 billion tonnes of CO2," it said in a report coinciding with the UN climate talks in Warsaw. The 2012 and 2013 rates are slightly below the average growth of 2.7 percent annually over the last 10 years.
Carbin dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas, and fossil fuels—coal, oil and gas—along with cement production account for nearly all its man-made emissions. Around four billion tonnes of CO2 come from other sources, including changes to land use, the report said. China, the world's number one carbon emitter, accounted for 70 percent of the global increase in 2012, it said.
Chinese emissions grew 5.9 percent in 2012, lower than the average of 7.9 percent per year over the past decade.
Consumption from renewable sources and hydropower in China grew by a quarter in 2012.
But that growth came from a low baseline, and was more than offset by an increase of 6.4 percent in coal, which has a higher baseline. Coal accounted for 68 percent of Chinese energy consumption in 2012. Other significant CO2 increases occurred in Japan (+6.9 percent) and Germany (+1.8 percent), pushed by a switch to coal to offset dependence on nuclear. Indian emissions increased by a whopping 7.7 percent, with those from coal growing 10.2 percent. Emissions by the 28-nation European Union (EU) fell by 1.3 percent, but emissions from coal grew 3.0 percent.
In the United States, the world's No. 2 emitter, CO2 emissions fell by 3.7 percent in 2012, with those from coal decreasing by 12 percent as the country turned to cleaner shale gas.
"If US emissions continue to decline as in the last five years, then China will emit more than the US on a per capita basis in the period 2020-2025," said Glen Peters, with Norway's Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo (CICERO), who contributed to the report.
Per capita emissions are one of the biggest issues in the climate-change arena.
Developing countries, which include China, say rich nations should bear most of the burden for warming, as they initiated the problem and their emissions per person are much higher than those of poorer economies.
But China's per capita emissions are rising fast because of its reliance on coal, which less energy-efficient than other fuels, the report said.
Its emissions are roughly level-pegged with those of the EU, at seven tonnes of CO2 per head.
"China has had rapid economic growth in the last decades, bringing lasting benefits to its citizens, but this has come at a great cost to the environment," said Peters.
"The conventional view is that China still lags behind developed countries, but China is actually comparable to many developed countries in terms of per capita CO2 emissions."
The study involved 49 authors from 10 countries.
In May, levels of CO2 in the atmosphere briefly exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time since measurements began at the Mauna Loa Observatory on Hawaii.
Some experts fear the world is on track for double the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial times—a recipe for worse drought, flood, storm and rising seas.
Greenland’s shrunken ice sheet: We’ve been here before
Clues in the Arctic fossil record suggest that 3-5,000 years ago, the ice sheet was the smallest it has been in the past 10,000 years
By Charlotte Hsu
Release Date: November 22, 2013
BUFFALO, N.Y. — Think Greenland’s ice sheet is small today?
It was smaller — as small as it has ever been in recent history — from 3-5,000 years ago, according to scientists who studied the ice sheet’s history using a new technique they developed for interpreting the Arctic fossil record.
“What’s really interesting about this is that on land, the atmosphere was warmest between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago, maybe as late as 4,000 years ago. The oceans, on the other hand, were warmest between 5-3,000 years ago,” said Jason Briner, PhD, University at Buffalo associate professor of geology, who led the study.
“What it tells us is that the ice sheets might really respond to ocean temperatures,” he said. “It’s a clue to what might happen in the future as the Earth continues to warm.”
The findings appeared online on Nov. 22 in the journal Geology. Briner’s team included Darrell Kaufman, an organic geochemist from Northern Arizona University; Ole Bennike, a clam taxonomist from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland; and Matthew Kosnik, a statistician from Australia’s Macquarie University.
The study is important not only for illuminating the history of Greenland’s ice sheet, but for providing geologists with an important new tool: A method of using Arctic fossils to deduce when glaciers were smaller than they are today.
Scientists have many techniques for figuring out when ice sheets were larger, but few for the opposite scenario.
“Traditional approaches have a difficult time identifying when ice sheets were smaller," Briner said. "The outcome of our work is that we now have a tool that allows us to see how the ice sheet responded to past times that were as warm or warmer than present — times analogous to today and the near future."
The technique the scientists developed involves dating fossils in piles of debris found at the edge of glaciers.
To elaborate: Growing ice sheets are like bulldozers, pushing rocks, boulders and other detritus into heaps of rubble called moraines.
Because glaciers only do this plowing when they're getting bigger, logic dictates that rocks or fossils found in a moraine must have been scooped up at a time when the associated glacier was older and smaller.
So if a moraine contains fossils from 3,000 years ago, that means the glacier was growing — and smaller than it is today — 3,000 years ago.
This is exactly what the scientists saw in Greenland: They looked at 250 ancient clams from moraines in three western regions, and discovered that most of the fossils were between 3-5,000 years old.
The finding suggests that this was the period when the ice sheet’s western extent was at its smallest in recent history, Briner said.
“Because we see the most shells dating to the 5-3000-year period, we think that this is when the most land was ice-free, when large layers of mud and fossils were allowed to accumulate before the glacier came and bulldozed them up,” he said.
Because radiocarbon dating is expensive, Briner and his colleagues found another way to trace the age of their fossils.
Their solution was to look at the structure of amino acids — the building blocks of proteins — in the fossils of ancient clams. Amino acids come in two orientations that are mirror images of each other, known as D and L, and living organisms generally keep their amino acids in an L configuration.
When organisms die, however, the amino acids begin to flip. In dead clams, for example, D forms of aspartic acid start turning to L’s.
Because this shift takes place slowly over time, the ratio of D’s to L’s in a fossil is a giveaway of its age.
Knowing this, Briner’s research team matched D and L ratios in 20 Arctic clamshells to their radiocarbon-dated ages to generate a scale showing which ratios corresponded with which ages.
The researchers then looked at the D and L ratios of aspartic acid in the 250 Greenland clamshells to come up with the fossils’ ages.
Amino acid dating is not new, but applying it to the study of glaciers could help scientists better understand the history of ice — and climate change — on Earth.
The study was funded by the National Geographic Society and U.S. National Science Foundation
Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.
Already debunked many times over. And already debunked yet again early in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Forget it Jake; it's Chinatown. The most you can do is prove them wrong for the benefit of the viewers at home. You'll never change their minds, their opinions aren't fact-based. But you can expose them as, to put it politely, misinformed. Consider the aforementioned Climate-gate thingy. Here are the facts:
In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:
In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology.
They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
How many minds do you think this will change?
Like all conspiracy theorists, they will most likely claim that the EPA and the NSF and Penn State and so on are in on the hoax. One wonders to whom they thought they were complaining, if not all these outfits.
Then they'll go on about liberals and Al Gore and alarmists and, in some cases, Marxists and socialism, not that anyone brings those subjects up. They seem to resent the facts because of their distaste with the way others react to those facts. Or the way they imagine others react to those facts. It's weird.
New York Post: Global Warming 'Proof' Is Evaporating
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Nah these folks would rather sit behind the computers and fling insults about concepts that can't comprehend.
I comprehend warming. It doesn't take an Inuit to recognize that it is warmer today than it was 10,000 years ago.
It also doesn't take a PhD in statistics or math to download the NOAA data set and plot the slope. I've done it and what puzzles me is that the temp increase per century, based on their data, is statistically linear.
The emails concern me because they indicate that they had concerns over their data and the conclusions one could draw from it.
It's warming. Yet their own data also indicates it is more likely normal cyclical variation than man-caused. That doesn't fit their agenda, which is why they attempted to cover it up.
I'm not a warming denier - it's warmer. I do deny there is any scientific basis that man is the root cause. I also deny that carbon trading would solve anything other than making some bankers and politicians richer. By that logic I could sell you some of my thinness. You keep stuffing your face and give me some cash for calorie offsets. Tell me how that works out when you step on the scale in a year.
So it's the scientist that you don't have confidence in, or the data that he plotted on that graph, that you question?
Actually, Spencer has a very pragmatic approach to global warming. He does believe man made co2 has contributed to warming the planet, but doesn't assign a percentage to how much has been man and how much has been nature over the last 50 years.
As for his creationist view point, it's completely irrelevant to this topic, and his creationist belief doesn't mean he thinks the earth was created 6000 years ago. Many credible scientists are deists.
I didn't say Roy was a Young Earth Creationist. But he is certainly not a Deist. He is also believes in Intelligent Design. I don't know if it's his religious beliefs that lead him to ignore or misrepresent data to come up with his simplistic ideas, but I certainly question his ability to reason and his motives for his anti-AGW stance. So yes, I have a problem with his 'data'. And no, Roy doesn't really think humans had anything to do with warming in the past 50 years. He thinks it's mostly cloud feedback.
Roy Spencer is a signatory to the Conservative Christian Cornwall Alliance "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" which states:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history"
"We call on our fellow Christians to practice creation stewardship out of Biblical conviction, adoration for our Creator, and love for our fellow man—especially the poor.
We call on Christian leaders to understand the truth about climate change and embrace Biblical thinking..."
"Earth and all its subsystems—of land, sea, and air, living and nonliving—are the good products of the wise design and omnipotent acts of the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Triune God of the Bible. As such they reveal God’s glory. Mankind, created in God’s image, is the crown of creation.
Human beings have the divine mandate to multiply and to fill, subdue, and rule the Earth, transforming it from wilderness into garden. They act as stewards under God to cultivate and guard what they subdue and rule. Calling them to be His vicegerents over the Earth, God requires obedience to His laws—in Scripture and imprinted in the human conscience—in their stewardship.
Although sin, universal among mankind, deeply mars this stewardship, God’s redemptive act in Jesus Christ’s death on the cross and His instructive activity through Scripture, communicating the nature of creation and human responsibility for it, enable people to create wealth and decrease poverty at the same time that they pursue creation stewardship and, even more important, the true spiritual wealth of knowing their Creator through Jesus Christ.
The Biblical worldview contrasts sharply with the environmentalist worldview—whether secular or religious—in many significant ways..."
chicagogeorge,
Meteorology is a sub discipline (of many) of atmospheric sciences so I'm not sure what your point is? Furthermore, all your link does is prove that it is politically charged.
I comprehend warming. It doesn't take an Inuit to recognize that it is warmer today than it was 10,000 years ago.
It also doesn't take a PhD in statistics or math to download the NOAA data set and plot the slope. I've done it and what puzzles me is that the temp increase per century, based on their data, is statistically linear.
The emails concern me because they indicate that they had concerns over their data and the conclusions one could draw from it.
It's warming. Yet their own data also indicates it is more likely normal cyclical variation than man-caused. That doesn't fit their agenda, which is why they attempted to cover it up.
I'm not a warming denier - it's warmer. I do deny there is any scientific basis that man is the root cause.
So then why is it warmer? What effect does man have on climate change? Why does man have to be the root cause, it could simply be a major cause.
Quote:
I also deny that carbon trading would solve anything other than making some bankers and politicians richer. By that logic I could sell you some of my thinness. You keep stuffing your face and give me some cash for calorie offsets. Tell me how that works out when you step on the scale in a year.
What does carbon trading have to do with anything? It's not the only solution to a global issue. I'm guessing you are just trying to get a jab in.
Prof. Muller who is a global warming believer on the East Anglia "hide the decline" and Mann's hockey stick
Point? Muller doesn't believe they did anything nefarious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
New York Post: Global Warming 'Proof' Is Evaporating
