September is fourth month this year to set record for warmth:
"Despite the cold winter across the eastern United States, 2014 has been a warm year so far, globally. In its September 2014 global climate summary, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center announced that the month was the warmest September on record for the planet. If the surface temperature remains elevated at the same level for the remainder of the year, 2014 will set a new record for the warmest annual average temperature since records began in 1880." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 10-28-2014).]
“BP believes that climate change is an important long-term issue that justifies global action.” Source.
“At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change.” Source.
“At ConocoPhillips… We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.” Source.
“ExxonMobil believes that it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks to society associated with increasing GHG emissions.” Source.
“…CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change.” - Shell Source.
Study: Upper limit for sea level projections by 2100 "An upper limit for global sea level rise of 190 cm is assembled by summing the highest estimates of individual sea level rise components simulated by process based models with the RCP8.5 scenario."
The sun has set over the central Arctic Ocean and Arctic sea ice extent is now increasing. Sea ice extent in Antarctica appears to have passed its seasonal maximum. The peak Antarctic value recorded so far of over 20 million square kilometers (7.7 million square miles) sets a new record over the period of satellite observations.
No more worries about global warming, mates. Expanding sea ice in the Antarctic Ocean will help us all keep our cool. It's like the Earth has its own emergency Southern Hemisphere refrigerator.
Dr Paul Holland works with the British Antarctic Survey (BAS): "Sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is going up by about one-fifth the speed that the Arctic is going down. And the volume of Antarctic sea ice is going up by about one-tenth the speed that Arctic volume is going down, and the volume is the more important number.
"My point is that the Antarctic is essentially flat; the increase in extent is to some degree a red herring.
"The more interesting question is why the Antarctic is not going down like the Arctic, and not enough people are asking that question."
Various ideas have been put forward to explain the differences, but "as to a single, underlying, silver-bullet cause - there just isn't one," he added.
His BAS colleague, Prof John Turner, highlighted the big up-turn in sea-ice growth around the Antarctic in only the past fortnight - the result of more storms in the region.
"Southerly winds have pushed the ice out to greater northerly latitudes, and that means the cold winds coming off the continent then freeze the open water left behind."
Principally, this is seen in the Ross Sea area of Antarctica. Indeed, more than 80% of the growth trend is focussed on this one region.
Prof Turner said he thought the persistent behaviour of a low-pressure system known as the Amundsen Sea Low (ASL) was probably at the root of the observed Antarctic trend, but as to why that was the case - no-one could yet explain.
Earliest measurable snowfall on record in Knoxville, TN tonight. Now how does one interpret this? Normal variation? Global warming causing a polar express? Ooops?
The liberal media machine has spent decades bulldozing anyone who tells you global warming is a sham.
They even came up with a clever little title — “deniers.”
Every time a heat wave hits, every time a picture of a lone polar bear gets taken . . . the left pounds the table for environmental reform, more policy, more money to combat climate change. But how much has the world really warmed?
Their message is simple: Get on the man-made global warming bandwagon . . . or you’re just ignorant.
But how much has the world really warmed?
It’s an important question, considering the U.S. government spends $22 billion a year to fight the global warming crisis (twice as much as it spends protecting our border).
To put that in perspective, that is $41,856 every minute going to global warming initiatives.
But that's just the tip of a gargantuan iceberg.
According to Forbes columnist Larry Bell, the ripple effect of global warming initiatives actually costs Americans $1.75 trillion . . . every year.
That's three times larger than the entire U.S. federal budget deficit.
So, has anyone stopped to ask . . . how much has the globe actually warmed?
Well, we asked, and what we found was striking.
According to NASA’s own data via Remote Sensing Systems(RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).
Hardly anything to panic about; however, that does mean the world is warmer, right?
The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING!
As can be seen in this chart, we haven’t seen any global warming for 17 years.
Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.
This is quite the opposite of what the global warming faction warned us.
In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his global warming initiative, Al Gore made this striking prediction, “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.”
Al Gore could not have been more wrong.
However, despite this clear evidence that the temperatures are not increasing, the global warming hysteria only seems to be increasing.
For example: President Obama himself tweeted on May 16, 2014: “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.
Since then, it has become clear that this statistic was inaccurate.
The Wall Street Journal went as far as to say, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” Forbes headlined “Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97% Consensus’ Claims.”
Come to find out, the study President Obama was citing was botched from the start.
A host of other problems for the global warming crowd are emerging, such as . . .
Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.” Claude Allegre, the founding father of the man-made global warming ethos, recently renounced his position that man has caused warming. Proof is emerging that Al Gore and even President Obama have financially benefited from fueling the global warming hysteria (click here for an internal report on this).
It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting warmer . . . instead, the world is getting cooler.
Which makes one wonder — why are we still spending $22 billion a year on global warming initiatives, and where is the money going?
Of course not. I challenge you to cite anywhere I've ever said such a thing. (Ignoring for the moment that it's not clear whether you're actually talking about heat or about temperature; they are two related but different quantities, and you can't directly compare them. In your line of work I would expect you to already understand the difference.)
Two years ago I was in Oklahoma City when they set an all-time record high temperature ... 114° F. I did not then, nor would I ever, suggest that such an isolated weather event constituted evidence that supported (or refuted) global warming or climate change. Weather is not climate, and isolated data points cannot be extrapolated to global trends.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-02-2014).]
Every once in a while I check in on this thread. I am depending on science to form my opinion and while I still have concerns about what is the right response to climate change I do believe the scientific evidence. My question is this. Has anyone here ever altered their opinion on this subject due to relevant facts presented or are we all locked into an opinion that is unalterable? My mind is made up, don't try to confuse me with facts. Just kidding. I think that I have an open mind.
Every once in a while I check in on this thread. I am depending on science to form my opinion and while I still have concerns about what is the right response to climate change I do believe the scientific evidence. My question is this. Has anyone here ever altered their opinion on this subject due to relevant facts presented or are we all locked into an opinion that is unalterable? My mind is made up, don't try to confuse me with facts. Just kidding. I think that I have an open mind.
I used to deny it; "No way can humans have an influence." A couple things that happened that changed my mind. I finished my BSME; I saw how thorough one had to be in their collection of data and how precautionary they had to be with their conclusions. As the adage goes, 'science is hard'. Second thing, I worked (for four years) directly with scientists in the nuclear physics industry. Scientists do work not to push a political agenda, but for the understanding, pushing the boundaries of knowledge. A scientists wet dream is earning a nobel prize for discovery. There's no nobel prize for doing side work on a concept thats widely accepted. One would stand a better change at earning a nobel prize for proving MMGW false. Finally, I began to read and understand the research. There's still tons I don't understand and won't pretend to, but unless there's some magical mini-sun hiding on the bottom of the ocean, there's nothing else that can better explain what's happening.
Cite an example of my doing so. Otherwise ... rave on, dude.
I didn't accuse you specifically of doing it, just saying that it has been done by several in this thread (or do you stand separate from the 'others'?). But I guess it only applies to the one side only...
...but it is ok to condemn those that speak out against it and saying that they all have an agenda and are paid for by big oil???
Some folks have obvious motives, such as oil executives and backwards organizations like the Heartland Institute. Others obviously don't like the political ramifications of global warming and use this as an excuse to dismiss the science.
The difference is that scientists are largely motivated by the science, not profits. You fail to grasp this.
There is no data to support the hockey stick graph. There are no increased hurricanes, the polar bears have record numbers, the arctic ice cap is still there and so are the glaciers
BTW as I posted above, the Antarctica shows all bets are off.
Some folks have obvious motives, such as oil executives and backwards organizations like the Heartland Institute. Others obviously don't like the political ramifications of global warming and use this as an excuse to dismiss the science.
The difference is that scientists are largely motivated by the science, not profits. You fail to grasp this.
It is obvious you have NO idea how the system works. A scientist puts together a proposal and sends it out for funding. This money/grant that they get covers any equipment that they need to buy plus pays for all their wages (themselves and "helpers"). Sure many are not getting "rich" from doing this, but some (the ones at the top of their field) are making a pretty good living doing so - AND - then there are the exceptions like Dr. David Suzuki, who is living a pretty good life for being "motivated by the science" (owns a couple multimillion dollar homes, and good for him).
SO don't tell me that they are barely making ends meet, do you seriously think they would be doing it if they couldn't make a living doing so?
Then we have FlyinFieros continuously posts how there are a lot of these major oil corporations (which are run by these so called evil "oil executives" as you put it) that are on the side saying we need to reduce emissions, etc and are putting money towards research for clean energy, so I guess these are also evil "obvious motives" then too?
Just because someone/organization does not agree with your view point, you are automatically labeling them as backwards, etc.
Edit:
BUT, since you are so hung on the fact that the evil scientists are getting rich, lets look at some numbers (using the Heartland Foundation since you brought them up):
David Suzuki Foundation: is a science-based environmental organization headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki_Foundation) $81 million the Suzuki Foundation took in from 2000 to 2010. http://fairquestions.typepa...an-100-thousand.html
I don't know where you went to school, but where I did, $81 million is a far cry higher then $6 million - now what was that again about Heartland getting rich?
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 11-05-2014).]
What I like about you Moose, no matter how little rope we give you, you still manage to hang yourself with it.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Heartland... annual budget of $6 million.
...$81 million the Suzuki Foundation took in from 2000 to 2010.
I don't know where you went to school, but where I did, $81 million is a far cry higher then $6 million - now what was that again about Heartland getting rich?
81 million over 11 years is 7.3 million annually.
"I don't know where you went to school, but..."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-06-2014).]
It is obvious you have NO idea how the system works. A scientist puts together a proposal and sends it out for funding. This money/grant that they get covers any equipment that they need to buy plus pays for all their wages (themselves and "helpers"). Sure many are not getting "rich" from doing this, but some (the ones at the top of their field) are making a pretty good living doing so - AND - then there are the exceptions like Dr. David Suzuki, who is living a pretty good life for being "motivated by the science" (owns a couple multimillion dollar homes, and good for him).
SO don't tell me that they are barely making ends meet, do you seriously think they would be doing it if they couldn't make a living doing so?
I never said they are "barely making ends meet". That has nothing to do with it.
I'm saying a scientist generally doesn't go through 12 years of incredibly difficult education to do something he/she doesn't like. Again, all about motives - and scientists, by default, are not the easily corruptible entity that you keep making them out to be.
quote
Then we have FlyinFieros continuously posts how there are a lot of these major oil corporations (which are run by these so called evil "oil executives" as you put it) that are on the side saying we need to reduce emissions, etc and are putting money towards research for clean energy, so I guess these are also evil "obvious motives" then too?
An oil executive isn't necessarily evil, but they do have motives to keep their corporation relevant and profitable.
quote
Just because someone/organization does not agree with your view point, you are automatically labeling them as backwards, etc.
No. But an organization like the Heartland Institute is clearly "backwards" and they have an obvious agenda.
I have nothing invested in the fact that global warming is a real problem. I would rather it be the opposite. But i'm still waiting for some legitimate data showing this to be the case. The anecdotal statements that "polar bears aren't extinct" (despite global warming being considered their top threat), or "new york isn't underwater yet" (despite nobody predicting this until almost a century from now), or "its snowing outside" aren't convincing.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 11-06-2014).]
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: All talk of "no warming since X" ignores 90% of the evidence: Source.
How much is 1022 joules, I dont usually hear about things measured by that. One other question, does the ocean normally heat up before the air or land?
Originally posted by 2.5: How much is 1022 joules, I dont usually hear about things measured by that.
You're not alone!
The good folks over at Skeptical Science converted that amount of energy into something we can understand easier: Detonating four Hiroshima atomic bombs per second Experiencing two Hurricane Sandys per second Enduring four 6.0 Richter scale earthquakes per second Being struck by 500,000 lightning bolts per second Exploding more than eight Big Ben towers, with every inch packed full of dynamite, per second Source.
quote
Originally posted by 2.5: One other question, does the ocean normally heat up before the air or land?
Yes. The atmosphere only has so much heat capacity. Land is a poor heat conductor. Ice will even reflect light.
But the oceans cover most of Earth's surface and eat it all up. Source.
Article: Science chief warns on acid oceans "Sir Mark Walport warns that the acidity of the oceans has increased by about 25% since the industrial revolution, mainly thanks to manmade emissions.
CO2 reacts with the sea water to form carbonic acid.
He told BBC News: “If we carry on emitting CO2 at the same rate, ocean acidification will create substantial risks to complex marine food webs and ecosystems.”
He said the current rate of acidification is believed to be unprecedented within the last 65 million years – and may threaten fisheries in future."
