Stanford University: "Computer simulations by Professor Mark Z. Jacobson have shown that offshore wind farms with thousands of wind turbines could have sapped the power of three real-life hurricanes, significantly decreasing their winds and accompanying storm surge, and possibly preventing billions of dollars in damages." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-20-2014).]
From DLA Piper, the largest law firm in the world "measured by revenue and number of lawyers" Source.
"We asked people across the European real estate industry a series of questions about trends in sustainability, green certification and documentation and the reasons for the increasing importance of sustainable real estate. Our findings are based on a survey of more than 100 real estate investors across Europe including Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, the Netherlands, Russia, Norway, Switzerland and the UK." Source.
The responses are rather interesting and contrary to what the alarmists on climate change regulation/legislation would have you believe:
It isn't about the STATEMENT having changed, and it's not about Anthony Watts. Read the QUESTIONS that have been raised about the IPCC report and so on.
Geez, try working on your reading comprehension.
Oh so we should be surprised that a scientific body is posing questions about a report on Climate Change? Maybe in the denier universe constant questioning and the seeking of new and improved data is news.
Let us know when they have answers to the questions or change their statement on Climate Change.
University of Southern California: Geologic cycles act as a climate control, releasing and absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide in a balance that helps keep the planet not too hot and not too cold
"The researchers noted that rapid erosion in the Andes unearths abundant pyrite — the shiny mineral known as “fool’s gold” because of its deceptive appearance — and its chemical breakdown produces acids that release CO2 from other minerals. These observations motivated them to consider the global implications of CO2 release during mountain formation."
"Like many other large mountain ranges, such as the great Himalayas, the Andes began to form during the Cenozoic period, which began about 60 million years ago and happened to coincide with a major perturbation in the cycling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Using marine records of the long-term carbon cycle, Torres, West, and Li reconstructed the balance between CO2 release and uptake caused by the uplift of large mountain ranges and found that the release of CO2 release by rock weathering may have played a large, but thus far unrecognized, role in regulating the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last roughly 60 million years." Source.
It isn't about the STATEMENT having changed, and it's not about Anthony Watts. Read the QUESTIONS that have been raised about the IPCC report and so on.
I did read the questions, and yet there are no conclusions. The APS hasn't changed their stance on anything. They are evaluating the IPCC's process. kind of a stretch to say
"More cracks in the [APS's] "consensus""
When their current statement says
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."
quote
Geez, try working on your reading comprehension.
You literally just accused FlyinFieros of using personal attacks, and here you go.
Are you so oblivious you don't even notice your own hypocrisy?
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a response to this graph:
Or your response to the fact that your so-called "pause" is a cherry-picked scenario. You also challenged me to post evidence that your sources lack integrity (which I did), and you have nothing to say there, either. Instead you keep copying and pasting blog sites that take scientific work out of context with sensational headlines, and you keep getting ripped apart for it.
Stanford University: "Computer simulations by Professor Mark Z. Jacobson have shown that offshore wind farms with thousands of wind turbines could have sapped the power of three real-life hurricanes, significantly decreasing their winds and accompanying storm surge, and possibly preventing billions of dollars in damages." Source.
LOL
Computer simulations say they could.
If their computer simulations are as bad as the rest of the warmists, this is yet another warmist joke.
THIS is what happens to wind turbines in heavy wind
If their computer simulations are as bad as the rest of the warmists, this is yet another warmist joke.
Legitimate criticism doesn't start with "iffy" language.
Further, your blanket rejection of technology that could save billions in storm damage (Sandy alone, $82 billion), save lives, generate electricity, and pay for itself just shows what a radical you are. Aside from your calls to murder innocent people, of course.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: THIS is what happens to wind turbines in heavy wind
Anglesey wind turbines catch fire in storm wind-watch.org/...catch-fire-in-storm/
To quote your link: "The fire service said it was called to three wind turbines on fire in the area, but did not take any action at the scene."
University of Toronto: “We found the algal record shows a dramatic decrease in [Arctic] ice cover over the last 150 years.”
So where is the corresponding rise in ocean levels?
How much sea level rise do you expect would correspond to a "dramatic decrease" in arctic ice cover over the last 150 years?
Do you know how much of a decrease they are talking about and what thinknesses? What about the sea level rise that has been observed, is that in correspondence?
Originally posted by newf: How much sea level rise do you expect would correspond to a "dramatic decrease" in arctic ice cover over the last 150 years?
Not much. The study he quoted covered sea ice, not glacier ice. Fresh water added to an ocean from melting sea ice decreases salinity and density, increasing volume, with mass remaining constant.
Study: Recent loss of floating ice and the consequent sea level contribution "Altogether, 746 ± 127 km3 yr−1 of floating ice was lost between 1994 and 2004, a value that exceeds considerably the reduction in grounded ice over the same period. Although the losses are equivalent to a small (49 ± 8 μm yr−1) rise in mean sea level, there may be large regional variations in the degree of ocean freshening and mixing." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-21-2014).]
"Not much. The study he quoted covered sea ice, not glacier ice. Fresh water added to an ocean from melting sea ice decreases salinity and density, increasing volume, with mass remaining constant."
So this so called "dramatic" decrease is really inconsequential and meaningless.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-21-2014).]
SkS Hiroshima-Bomb Heat-Clock Fraud …Claim 2.1 Billion Climate Ground-Zeros, Yet Can’t Find A Single One Of Them!
By P Gosselin on 22. März 2014 The alarmists at Skeptical Science put up a “Hiroshima Bomb Heat Clock” claiming that the earth’s climate system has “accumulated” over 2 billion Hiroshima bombs worth of thermonuclear heat since 1998. This heat, they say, will pop out in the future and make us all very sorry.
Yet, despite the hundreds of millions of Hiroshima heat bombs, we have seen 0°C of warming in the earth’s atmosphere during the very same period. Comically, despite the 2 billion plus climate ground-zeros, not a single one of them can be found in our atmosphere:
So where could all that heat possibly have gone? Why hasn’t the global atmospheric temperature gone up with all that accumulated (trapped) heat?
The answer is that a part of this alleged quantity of heat very likely has not been permanently trapped. A significant part likely has been re-radiated back out into space. Things like that happen when it’s a little warmer. Moreover, much of it probably has been absorbed by the oceans, whose sheer mass has a thermal heat capacity that is 100 times that of the atmosphere. Even SkS acknowledges this here.
The problem is that the SkS bedwetters would like to have us believe that the heat absorbed by the oceans is somehow getting packed in a compact suitcase, is getting transported around below the ocean surface for awhile, and that it will later get suddenly belched out back into the atmosphere almost all at once. This is a story that is either the product of astonishing ignorance or a malevolent desire to deceive.
That’s not the way heat behaves, of course.
Think of it as hot water getting introduced into a bath tub filled with cool water. The heat just doesn’t stay together in a clump and swim around waiting to scald you 30 minutes later, rather it quickly gets distributed via conduction and convection throughout the entire bathtub.
In a similar manner, heat absorbed by the ocean gets distributed around the ocean’s vast volume via convection and thermal conduction as well. It just doesn’t stay clumped together, hide for awhile, and later pop out all at once. It’s very complex and it just doesn’t work the way the SkS horror-storytellers say it does. In fact, none of their stories have turned out to be right so far. According to their fairy tales from ten years ago, the atmosphere was supposed to be some 0.3°C warmer today than it actually is.
2 billion Hiroshima bombs would heat the ocean a mere 0.024°C
So how much would 2 billion Hiroshima bombs heat the entire ocean system if it got more or less uniformly distributed? This is easy to compute. The mass of the ocean is about 1.3 x 10exp24 grams. The energy of 2 billion Hiroshima bombs is approx. 130 x 10exp21 Joules. the specific heat of water is 4.186 Joules/g°C. Thus the 2.1 billion Hiroshima bombs of heat would warm the ocean by approx.:
0.024°C
The range of uncertainty in measuring ocean temperature is far greater. There are lots of zeros involved and hopefully I didn’t lose or gain one or two during the number-crunching. Remember, this is assuming that there really is 2.1 billion bombs of heat accumulated.
What we are talking about here is on the same order of magnitude as someone trying to heat his home with a single cigarette lighter…and hoping none of the heat escapes out of the house!
Of course added heat is not distributed throughout the ocean uniformly, but it is certainly not kept in a tidy little package either. Ocean currents are still very poorly understood.
The Hiroshima heat clock is a gimmick
So why has SkS come up with this somewhat idiotic and reality-remote Hiroshima heat-bomb-clock? It’s a gimmick. It’s to distract the readers from the embarrassment of no global atmospheric warming since their silly clock started counting.
We’ll get our natural ENSO heat releases and absorptions and the corresponding heating and cooling in the atmosphere. But at the same time, any external heat absorbed by the ocean will get distributed with much of it is likely not coming back out for a very long time…and only when the atmosphere cools.
climate denier religion and other religions. I see many similarities. All religions are based on FAITH and no amount of logic will sway the believers. At least most modern religions are harmless and preach good moral values. The harm that can occur if we deny climate change can be enormous. Just curious, do any of you climate denier believers ever see ANYTHING at all in climate change that causes you to pause in your beliefs for even a second? Of course I am one of those who puts more faith in science than in corporate propaganda, but I am always willing to change my beliefs if confronted with new irrefutable evidence. That's what science does and I will admit that climate science is not an exact science. There are so many variables that I think climate science will always be adjusting itself. However with out satellites, increasingly powerful computers and programs, and constantly advancing science I expect us to continually come closer and closer to the truth. Fiero Bear and Arns, Have you no doubt at all in the ideas that you post here? Just curious. Are your minds COMPLETELY closed to any alternative ideas?
✓ Requirements for decisions that cannot be made on the basis of complete information ✓ Not to decide = to decide ✓ Thomas Bayes
"Because temperature is not enough"
Climate targets are designed to inform policies that would limit the magnitude and impacts of climate change caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other substances. The target that is currently recognized by most world governments places a limit of two degrees Celsius on the global mean warming since preindustrial times. This would require large sustained reductions in carbon dioxide emissions during the twenty-first century and beyond.
Such a global temperature target, however, is not sufficient to control many other quantities, such as transient sea level rise, ocean acidification and net primary production on land.
Here, using an Earth system model of intermediate complexity (EMIC) in an observation-informed Bayesian approach, we show that allowable carbon emissions are substantially reduced when multiple climate targets are set. We take into account uncertainties in physical and carbon cycle model parameters, radiative efficiencies, climate sensitivity and carbon cycle feedbacks along with a large set of observational constraints. Within this framework, we explore a broad range of economically feasible greenhouse gas scenarios from the integrated assessment community to determine the likelihood of meeting a combination of specific global and regional targets under various assumptions.
For any given likelihood of meeting a set of such targets, the allowable cumulative emissions are greatly reduced from those inferred from the temperature target alone.
Therefore, temperature targets alone are unable to comprehensively limit the risks from anthropogenic emissions.
"Not much. The study he quoted covered sea ice, not glacier ice. Fresh water added to an ocean from melting sea ice decreases salinity and density, increasing volume, with mass remaining constant."
So this so called "dramatic" decrease is really inconsequential and meaningless.
climate denier religion and other religions. I see many similarities. All religions are based on FAITH and no amount of logic will sway the believers. At least most modern religions are harmless and preach good moral values. The harm that can occur if we deny climate change can be enormous. Just curious, do any of you climate denier believers ever see ANYTHING at all in climate change that causes you to pause in your beliefs for even a second? Of course I am one of those who puts more faith in science than in corporate propaganda, but I am always willing to change my beliefs if confronted with new irrefutable evidence. That's what science does and I will admit that climate science is not an exact science. There are so many variables that I think climate science will always be adjusting itself. However with out satellites, increasingly powerful computers and programs, and constantly advancing science I expect us to continually come closer and closer to the truth. Fiero Bear and Arns, Have you no doubt at all in the ideas that you post here? Just curious. Are your minds COMPLETELY closed to any alternative ideas?
LOL the people whose minds are closed, simply believed the propoganda of Gore, NASA and East Anglia and still think there is dramatic anthropogenic global warming, with dramatic consequences, and dramatic weather events. The so called "deniers" look at the data, can't find the evidence and have the temerity to speak out about the false and misleading assertions that have actually been internationally rewarded by scientific organizations. Remember the politician and front man Gore got a million dollar award for his "work".
If you look at the evidence which is factual data, not faith in a theory, it does not support the AGW religion. It has been repeatedly posted on this thread and hotly denied by a few.
The actual ocean rise is not as forecast. The world temperature is not as forecast, and the ice fields of the world have not disappeared.
To argue that AGW is legit is to buy into a cult. The "cult" is supported by Barack Obama, and UN representatives eager to decimate the American economy and cost Americans their standard of living.
I do not endorse any idea that the earth has not gone through some warming in the wake of the last ice age. I do endorse the idea that there is no dramatic warming and no evidence to support it. Hope this helps you out
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 03-24-2014).]
LOL the people whose minds are closed, simply believed the propoganda of Gore, NASA and East Anglia and still think there is dramatic anthropogenic global warming, with dramatic consequences, and dramatic weather events. The so called "deniers" look at the data, can't find the evidence and have the temerity to speak out about the false and misleading assertions that have actually been internationally rewarded by scientific organizations. Remember the politician and front man Gore got a million dollar award for his "work".
Again you mention Gore. Gore is a politician. Gore is not a scientist and does not represent the science.
Deniers look at a single temperature graph that uses an abnormally hot year as a starting point (1998) and then extrapolate this one graph to "prove" there's no warming in the past 17 years. Try using any other year as your starting point and your entire argument falls apart. Not to mention that 17 years is not long enough to draw any conclusions from.
So Arn, from a denier's perspective - since fierobear continues to avoid the question, like everything else - solar activity is at a low point and temperatures are flat. What happens when solar activity returns to normal? (hint: the Earth gets hotter)
This is exactly why the 17 year window is too short to draw conclusions from.
Originally posted by avengador1: So this so called "dramatic" decrease [in Arctic sea ice] is really inconsequential and meaningless [because it contributes almost nothing to sea level rise].
Eons away from a factual statement. The fact you suggest such really shows how misinformed you are.
Ice reduction reduces Arctic albedo. Less ice reflects less light and leads to more warming. Source.
Sea ice loss is leading to melting permafrost, producing the powerful greenhouse gas methane, which leads to more warming. Source.
Sea ice loss is also impacting marine species. Source.
Reminder to the climate deniers: No scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. Source.
That awkward moment for skeptics when IPCC projections are doing better than they are:
"Not only has the IPCC done remarkably well in projecting future global surface temperature changes thus far, but it has also performed far better than the few climate contrarians who have put their money where their mouth is with their own predictions." Source.
"Global average temperature since the last ice age (20,000 BC) up to the not-too distant future (2100) under a middle-of-the-road emission scenario." Source.
