In pre-war America, it was mostly wood with some coal. Now it is mostly electricity with a good shot of Natural Gas.
Natural Gas generally produces very low amounts of carbon. Electricity, if produced by coal has a carbon footprint. If produced by nuclear, it doesn't have near as much.
Then look at lighting, both commercial and home. True that in the pre-war years neon was not as prevalent, but, it was mostly coal fired source. In the meanwhile lighting has gone way up since. Most of that lighting in Canada is nuclear driven. Back before Edison, lighting was all oil fired.
It is pretty hard to say definitively either way, but, moving from the coal and steam age to the electrical age is a huge difference.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, the amount of carbon produced by people is less than .03% of the total greenhouse gas amounts, which we have discussed at length. It does not drive the atmospheric changes.
Arn (yay! I own page 3)
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-04-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:52 PM
DIY_Stu Member
Posts: 2337 From: Republic of TX Registered: Jun 2007
To add in the irony we have Tree Huggers and then we have Global Warming Activists. I'm pretty sure we have many people who believe they are BOTH. Well I'm here to tell them they can't be. The two groups should be battling it out. They should HATE each other. Global warming Activists Want to end CO2 while the tree huggers want their trees to be large full and healthy. So we first eliminate CO2 The trees suffocate due to the gas they need to live being depleted. Then what, Where do we get O2? Ironic huh.
Here's the research that I believe needs to be done. Why do they take and look back at the quantity or vegetation vs CO2 levels. Maybe if we quit poisoning out lands with Aluminum Oxide and Barium we'd have healthier and more vegetation that could convert this CO2 to O2 for us. I for one have noticed that since I have lived in my house my Pecan tree produced the first year, the third year, then hasn't for the past four years. This year it tried, but they were in no condition to eat, even if picked from the tree. The Ground PH is becoming less and less acidic. Aluminum Oxide and Barium count has risen though.
So now the contention is that fossil fuel emissions have decreased?
The earth is bigger than North America, huge population rise and deforestation of the planet alone would probably make levels rise without the increased usage of fossil fuels.
Is it the contention of some here now that fossil fuel usage has gone down since the industrial revolution???
To add in the irony we have Tree Huggers and then we have Global Warming Activists. I'm pretty sure we have many people who believe they are BOTH. Well I'm here to tell them they can't be. The two groups should be battling it out. They should HATE each other. Global warming Activists Want to end CO2 while the tree huggers want their trees to be large full and healthy. So we first eliminate CO2 The trees suffocate due to the gas they need to live being depleted. Then what, Where do we get O2? Ironic huh.
Here's what the science says:
About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions. http://www.skepticalscience...ons-intermediate.htm
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-04-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:18 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions. http://www.skepticalscience...ons-intermediate.htm
Here is what some MORE science says about paleo CO2. You can also read the LONG discussion under the article for some interesting additional information. Note the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperatures...
Here is what some MORE science says about paleo CO2. You can also read the LONG discussion under the article for some interesting additional information. Note the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperatures...
So the scientist says one thing and the commenters on a denier blog site says another and that's science??? That sounds about right, believe the opinion of the internet experts over the scientists in the related field.
You also posted the same pointless graph twice.
IP: Logged
09:12 PM
Jan 5th, 2011
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by newf: So the scientist says one thing and the commenters on a denier blog site says another and that's science??? That sounds about right, believe the opinion of the internet experts over the scientists in the related field.
It's not a "denier blog", and many of the responders are scientists.
You're really stuck on this whole "opinion" thing. You should get over it.
quote
You also posted the same pointless graph twice.
Editing error. Fixed.
IP: Logged
03:57 AM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Let's take the example of the kitchen stove.
In pre-war America, it was mostly wood with some coal. Now it is mostly electricity with a good shot of Natural Gas.
Natural Gas generally produces very low amounts of carbon. Electricity, if produced by coal has a carbon footprint. If produced by nuclear, it doesn't have near as much.
Then look at lighting, both commercial and home. True that in the pre-war years neon was not as prevalent, but, it was mostly coal fired source. In the meanwhile lighting has gone way up since. Most of that lighting in Canada is nuclear driven. Back before Edison, lighting was all oil fired.
It is pretty hard to say definitively either way, but, moving from the coal and steam age to the electrical age is a huge difference.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, the amount of carbon produced by people is less than .03% of the total greenhouse gas amounts, which we have discussed at length. It does not drive the atmospheric changes.
I want to qualify the statement that "natural gas produces very low amounts of carbon".
What exactly is "very low amounts of carbon"..?
Natural gas emits almost 30 percent less carbon dioxide than oil, and just under 45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal for the equivalent amount of energy.
So, less carbon dioxide than oil or coal--but natural gas still has a substantial carbon footprint.
The reference (below) presents a table of fossil fuel emission levels for natural gas, coal and oil, with lines for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulates and mercury.
How does natural gas stack up against nuclear power in terms of carbon emissions? Nuclear has a considerably smaller carbon footprint:
quote
Nuclear power, at 66 gCO2/kWh emissions is well below scrubbed coal-fired plants, which emit 960 gCO2/kWh, and natural gas-fired plants, at 443 gCO2/kWh ...
And, not to put too fine a point on it, the amount of carbon produced by people is less than .03% of the total greenhouse gas amounts, which we have discussed at length. It does not drive the atmospheric changes.
RealClimate was a website constructed by Betsy Ensley of Environmental Media Services which was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund.
Again the cart is before the horse. Increase CO2 always generates more plant growth which in turn uses more CO2. CO2 naturally increases during warming periods, such as we had before the current cooling period. CO2 does not go unused in the atmosphere. Plants grow bigger and faster and use up any surplus. This has been the case for millenia.
Particularly, if the Global Warming enthusiasts are even partially right, the greater warmth will generate greater plant growth and the CO2 will be wanted by nature.
This is all part of the lie used to generate business for the cap and trade companies and to provide a tool to justify taking your money and giving it to other countries.
Arn
IP: Logged
10:26 AM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
It would certainly be convenient if we could count on an acceleration of plant growth worldwide, driven by elevated levels of atmospheric CO2, to put the brakes on global warming.
I think this is overly optimistic.
A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback – a cooling effect – in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming.
The problem is that this cooling effect--of less than one degree Celsius-- won't be large enough.
And aside from this new NASA report, it's not even clear that elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 will result in a significant increase of plant growth worldwide.
quote
Some biologists had theorized earlier that rising greenhouse gas levels would encourage plant growth over the long term because of the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But plant physiologists from UC Davis may have dashed those hopes.
They've shown that too much carbon dioxide, which plants need for energy, actually can inhibit a plant's ability to assimilate nitrates — nitrogen-based nutrients pulled from the soil that plants use to make enzymes and other essential proteins.
It's new reports like these that lead me to believe that it is unrealistic to predict that accelerated plant growth will remedy the warming effects of elevated levels of atmospheric CO2.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-05-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:49 AM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by rinselberg: A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback – a cooling effect – in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming.
Although this is good news, it's still based on computer modeling, which isn't proof. But at least *they* think it could be positive. That's gotta be the first time I've seen them admit a positive from warming.
quote
The problem is that this cooling effect--of less than one degree Celsius-- won't be large enough.
Actually, it would. The IPCC has been grossly overestimating the amount of warming we might get.
quote
And aside from this new NASA report, it's not even clear that elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 will result in a significant increase of plant growth worldwide.
It's new reports like these that lead me to believe that it is unrealistic to predict that accelerated plant growth will remedy the warming effects of elevated levels of atmospheric CO2.
Well, that's interesting, but the article doesn't seem to go into much detail about the experiment. Greenhouse growers have been using CO2 to enhance plant growth, and they seem to be getting good results.
So now we rely on rocket scientists to predict botanical scientific results, and using one of their "computer models". Hmm......
The article which spawned the LA Times article is allegedly about how an individual plant responds to stimulus. What it does not talk about is the increased numbers of germinated seeds, and the expansion of ground cover. Warmer air with higher CO2 helps germination and extends the growing season. Also, did you notice the sponsor? A Carbon Capture company
To see how plants respond to stimulus you need to ask a botanist. The link that Fierobear posted to http://www.advancegreenhous..._in_a_greenhouse.htm is just that. Botanists talking about plants and CO2. I think we need to pay more attention to them than a rocket scientist or a CO2 salesman.
Arn
IP: Logged
04:06 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
This article is not about CO2 harming plants. It is about the effectiveness of Nitrate based fertilizer vs. Ammonium based fertilizer and the varying response by different plant species. That is it. It is not talking about decimating plants.
Arn
IP: Logged
12:34 PM
Formula Owner Member
Posts: 1053 From: Madison, AL Registered: May 2001
Originally posted by newf: I choose to trust the majority of scientists with expertise in the field but could they be wrong? Sure, it's a complex issue but I'll trust them before I do the lone wolves and internet mouthpieces or so called "experts". If you guys don't want to hear an opposing or different veiw point start a blog or submit your theories.
My problem with both sides is that I don't trust either of them to put forth unbiased facts. They may present facts, but they will be cherry picked to support their predetermined conclusion. The "majority of scientists with expertise in the field" have a vested interest, and are therefore suspect in misrepresenting the info. There's almost no way to have info gathered and analyzed by someone with no vested interest. At least, I've never found such an article. All of the studies require funding, and the funding ALWAYS comes from someone with an agenda.
My problem with both sides is that I don't trust either of them to put forth unbiased facts. They may present facts, but they will be cherry picked to support their predetermined conclusion. The "majority of scientists with expertise in the field" have a vested interest, and are therefore suspect in misrepresenting the info. There's almost no way to have info gathered and analyzed by someone with no vested interest. At least, I've never found such an article. All of the studies require funding, and the funding ALWAYS comes from someone with an agenda.
Must be hard to trust anyone then. Trusting a doctor would be hard if he prescribes something or want to do a procedure using that logic. Think of all the drug companies funding research. Not saying that there is not exaggeration or unscrupulous people out there but you have to trust the experts at some point. Not that I don't get your point, and it's a valid concern. Having said that, most of the science is peer reviewed and has even held up to court procedures from what I have read.
I think it's a good thing to be skeptical but when the evidence (IMO) is so overwhelming and the benefits of cutting dangerous emissions so great I will trust the science. What anyone else believes up to them. I get bothered when I see statements about "how dumb you must be to believe in climate change" or "how it must be a massive conspiracy to steal your money" or "how the weather today was cold so it's all BS" and so on and so on but that's some peoples opinion and no matter what the facts and evidence seems to show they will believe whatever they want. Fine with me but when one professes to know "for sure" and claim to be an "expert" on such matters I will often challenge those opinions.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-06-2011).]
IP: Logged
06:19 PM
Formula Owner Member
Posts: 1053 From: Madison, AL Registered: May 2001
Originally posted by newf: Must be hard to trust anyone then. Trusting a doctor would be hard if he prescribes something or want to do a procedure using that logic. Think of all the drug companies funding research.
Actually... I DO have trouble trusting doctors, too. I consented to some surgery in the past that, now, I think, was done more for the benefit of the doctor's bank account than my health. My wife, who used to be in the health industry, calls it a "wallet biopsy", and claims that it's not that unusual. And my family doctor is constantly wanting to prescribe antibiotics for everything, even viruses. When I ask "Aren't antibiotics ineffective against viruses?", he concedes that, yes, they are ineffective. My dad nearly died from cancer after his doctor failed to diagnose it properly, and refused to perform more testing after his treatments were ineffective. So... why should I trust doctors?
quote
Originally posted by newf: Not saying that there is not exaggeration or unscrupulous people out there but you have to trust the experts at some point. Not that I don't get your point, and it's a valid concern. Having said that, most of the science is peer reviewed and has even held up to court procedures from what I have read.
Maybe you can, but I haven't found many "experts" I've found worthy of trust.
quote
Originally posted by newf: I think it's a good thing to be skeptical but when the evidence (IMO) is so overwhelming and the benefits of cutting dangerous emissions so great I will trust the science. What anyone else believes up to them. I get bothered when I see statements about "how dumb you must be to believe in climate change" or "how it must be a massive conspiracy to steal your money" or "how the weather today was cold so it's all BS" and so on and so on but that's some peoples opinion and no matter what the facts and evidence seems to show they will believe whatever they want. Fine with me but when one professes to know "for sure" and claim to be an "expert" on such matters I will often challenge those opinions.
But many "climate change experts" claim that warmer summers support the "science" of global warming... and so does colder summers, as well as: - colder winters - warmer winters - advancing glaciers - retreating glaciers - just about ANY climate phenomena.
But their critics are typically funded by oil companies or their interests. So, who do you trust?
But many "climate change experts" claim that warmer summers support the "science" of global warming... and so does colder summers, as well as: - colder winters - warmer winters - advancing glaciers - retreating glaciers - just about ANY climate phenomena.
But their critics are typically funded by oil companies or their interests. So, who do you trust?
I think I understand where you are coming from and you make some good points. One thing that is hard to distinguish at times IMO is what the scientists are willing to say as a group and what the media latches on to from quotes from specific scientists or other "experts". It definitely tends to confuse the issue which is why I'm sure some people have tuned it out.
IP: Logged
07:49 PM
Jan 7th, 2011
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
But their critics are typically funded by oil companies or their interests. So, who do you trust?
Says who? The people pushing global warming? That's one of their favorite tactics, try to discredit what they say by accusing them of being in the employ of big oil.
I'm a skeptic, and I don't get a dime from any oil company. I don't even own any of their stock.
Says who? The people pushing global warming? That's one of their favorite tactics, try to discredit what they say by accusing them of being in the employ of big oil.
I'm a skeptic, and I don't get a dime from any oil company. I don't even own any of their stock.
Hello Pot have you met the Kettle
IP: Logged
03:06 AM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Oh, dude, STFU. Same old newf crap, different day.
You were speaking of the tactics of discrediting what they say by accusing them of being bought weren't you??
quote
Originally posted by fierobear in the AGW thread --It was the fox investigating the henhouse. The investigations were conducted by the agencies on THEMSELVES. Given that climate science brings in millions of grant money for these universities and other agencies, the conclusion was foregone. Given the circumstances, I expected nothing other than a whitewash, and that's what we got.
--That's it's about socialist redistribution of wealth, and not climate.
--Global warming and carbon credits...scam, scam, scam...
--The only goddamn desperation is by the warmist scientists who fear their cash cow is slipping away.
--They're just repeating the same bullshit they have been, continuing the push to get cap and tax passed. There's a lot of money invested in this - millions for climate scientists to keep employed, billions of dollars in potential tax revenue and funds to be redistributed from the United States to other countries, and trillions from a new market for carbon trading. These folks aren't going to give up their cash cow.
--etc..etc...etc...
Pesky forum keeping archives of threads..... well that and the pesky truth stuff too.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-07-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:00 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by newf: You were speaking of the tactics of discrediting what they say by accusing them of being bought weren't you??
Wow. Are you freaking serious? You ACTUALLY don't see the difference between a University investigating ITSELF with allegations that anyone who is skeptical of AGW is employed or otherwise paid by oil companies? REALLY?
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-07-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:44 AM
Formula Owner Member
Posts: 1053 From: Madison, AL Registered: May 2001
Originally posted by fierobear: Says who? The people pushing global warming? That's one of their favorite tactics, try to discredit what they say by accusing them of being in the employ of big oil.
I'm a skeptic, and I don't get a dime from any oil company. I don't even own any of their stock.
And you don't publish "studies" with predetermined conclusions. I wasn't talking about individuals who support one side or the other. I was talking about groups, universities, think tanks, etc, that make the news with their "findings".
I'm an engineer, and I deal with the science of things all the time. Mostly microwave circuits, but I can't investigate a problem with predetermined conclusions. I have to set up tests to find the actual root cause of a problem, then fix it. Admittedly, the scope of the problems I investigate are not on the same scale as global climate. But in any event , intellectually dishonest science is offensive to me. An unbiased study SHOULD show data supporting both sides, because there IS data supporting both sides. But the only thing I find are "studies" with cherry picked data to support their agenda.
IP: Logged
11:32 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
And you don't publish "studies" with predetermined conclusions. I wasn't talking about individuals who support one side or the other. I was talking about groups, universities, think tanks, etc, that make the news with their "findings".
That post was directed at newf, not you.
quote
I'm an engineer, and I deal with the science of things all the time. Mostly microwave circuits, but I can't investigate a problem with predetermined conclusions. I have to set up tests to find the actual root cause of a problem, then fix it. Admittedly, the scope of the problems I investigate are not on the same scale as global climate. But in any event , intellectually dishonest science is offensive to me. An unbiased study SHOULD show data supporting both sides, because there IS data supporting both sides. But the only thing I find are "studies" with cherry picked data to support their agenda.
Exactly. Isn't it interesting how EVERYTHING about warming is bad? Or how no matter what happens, warming caused it? Nothing disproves it, no matter what happens? If a scientific theory is not falsifiable, it's not a scientific theory.
Wow. Are you freaking serious? You ACTUALLY don't see the difference between a University investigating ITSELF with allegations that anyone who is skeptical of AGW is employed or otherwise paid by oil companies? REALLY?
Is this a new arguement now? Or are you talking about one specific incident? You were arguing the favorite tactics of those "pushing GW" as accusing the other side of being bought weren't you?
I just wanted to show that you use the exact same arguement to try and satisfy your own opinion.
Newf you have posted on many occasions your belief that a particular scientific report was invalid or suspicious due to being funded by "big oil" or something similar. No throwing stones when in a glass house sir.
The issue of the old boys club at East Anglia investigating itself is a separate issue which, when you read their report, shows they defend the methodology of the science and not validity of the alleged facts (which were falsified).
You have multimillion dollar companies on both sides of the issue. The leftist media tends to go along with the leftist UN agenda and the leftist Obama agenda, and the leftist Gore agenda.
The facts fly in the face of that point of view.
There are no drowning and starving polar bears There was no horrendous hurricane season in 2009 The oceans have not been exponentially rising The polar caps have not been melting The actual global temperature is not advancing as the "hockey stick" graph alleged.
You have to be a zealot for the leftist agenda to believe the above listed unrealized crocks.
Once again, let's look at the "depleted" Arctic Ice as it is today
Notice the graph showing the seasonal upswing. And notice how going into February, 2011 they are seeing a potential factor of 1 less than the median between 1979 and 2000. Now look at the bottom. The natural variance is +/- 2. Clearly it is still within the natural variance.
Now the Gore folks are going to say that there are starving and drowning polar bears because there is not ice for them to crawl up on.
This is the current satellite view
If you looked at any of my posts over the past few months you'll see that the ice has continued to grow since the summer and will continue to grow until probably April. It will then recede to its summer levels, however, you have to remember that the Northwest Passage has been closed in now for several summers. You see that that current ice is 12 Million Square Kilometers.
Now I think a bear might be able to find a foothold somewhere there. And, by the way, they hang around the edges where they can swim and catch seals for dinner.Yeah, they swim to go hunting and then get back out of the water when they want to.
Now isn't all this melting polar cap and drowning bears a whole lot of hoohah?
Newf you have posted on many occasions your belief that a particular scientific report was invalid or suspicious due to being funded by "big oil" or something similar. No throwing stones when in a glass house sir.
Arn
That wasn't my intention, I'm guilty of disbelieving or disregarding sites or reports due to what I consider a lack of credibility for sure.
Once again, let's look at the "depleted" Arctic Ice as it is today
Notice the graph showing the seasonal upswing. And notice how going into February, 2011 they are seeing a potential factor of 1 less than the median between 1979 and 2000. Now look at the bottom. The natural variance is +/- 2. Clearly it is still within the natural variance.
Now the Gore folks are going to say that there are starving and drowning polar bears because there is not ice for them to crawl up on.
This is the current satellite view
If you looked at any of my posts over the past few months you'll see that the ice has continued to grow since the summer and will continue to grow until probably April. It will then recede to its summer levels, however, you have to remember that the Northwest Passage has been closed in now for several summers. You see that that current ice is 12 Million Square Kilometers.
Now I think a bear might be able to find a foothold somewhere there. And, by the way, they hang around the edges where they can swim and catch seals for dinner.Yeah, they swim to go hunting and then get back out of the water when they want to.
Now isn't all this melting polar cap and drowning bears a whole lot of hoohah?
Arn
Good God you seem to be ignoring context again Arn. The standard deviation is for the grey line indicated by the light grey not the light blue 2010. "Clearly it is still within the natural variance."???? Ummm.... No clearly this years Ice Extent for December is the Lowest on Record.
The ice is growing???? Ummmm.... yeah as it does every year and to a record LOW for this time of year. READ THE SITE YOU LINK FOR THIS INFO.
I notice you didn't show this graph.
Figure 3. Monthly December ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 3.5% per decade.
Why is it you use this site for your data but ignore what they say???
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-07-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:17 PM
PFF
System Bot
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
Once again, let's look at the "depleted" Arctic Ice as it is today
I don't know whether the data you presented here is valid or not, but it definitely does not support the conclusions you draw from it. In fact, it shows exactly the opposite.
Yes, the extent of sea ice in the northern hemisphere grows from October to February every year, but the graph shows that the current year is more than two standard deviations below the 1979-2000 mean. (Given a normal distribution of data values, 95% of all observations will fall within +/- 2 standard deviations. Observations outside that range are statistically anomalous.)
In the map, the Dec 2010 extent of sea ice has retreated substantially from the "median ice edge" line over much of the map, most notably in the Davis Strait and Labrador Sea west of Greenland, Hudson Strait, and the eastern third of Hudson Bay. In no place does the current sea ice appear to lie outside the median line. It's not clear to me whether the "median" line represents an annual average, a seasonal average, or a December average.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-07-2011).]
Notice the deviations at the January mark on the graph are approximately the same dimension as 2 marks on the left side of the graph. It is within standard deviation.
And the point still stands. The Northwest Passage has closed up on schedule, the bears are not dying and the polar ice has not melted. There was no extreme hurricane season. There was no extreme ocean level rise. Cities are not sinking into the sea.
But, if you read up on it, and to be fair, it says
" Conditions in context
The low ice conditions in December occurred in conjunction with above-average air temperatures in regions where ice would normally expand at this time of year. Air temperatures over eastern Siberia were 6 to 10 degrees Celsius (11 to 18 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal in December. Over the eastern Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin Bay/Davis Strait and Hudson Bay, temperatures were at least 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. Southern Baffin Island had the largest anomalies, with temperatures over 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than normal. By sharp contrast, temperatures were lower than average (4 to 7 degrees Celsius, 7 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit) over the Alaska-Yukon border, north-central Eurasia, and Scandinavia.
The warm temperatures in December came from two sources: unfrozen areas of the ocean continued to release heat to the atmosphere, and an unusual circulation pattern brought warm air into the Arctic from the south. Although the air temperatures were still below freezing on average, the additional ocean and atmospheric heat slowed ice growth.
But the movement of the higher temperatures in some areas is offset by the lower temperatures in other areas, and this is due in large measure to the jet stream. Remember that while there is slightly warmer temps in areas like Siberia, and the Canadian Archipelago, there have been much colder temps on the main part of the continents like US/Canada and Europe.
There are literally people dying of cold in Europe. This is not evidence of Global Warming. And yes, in general the ice fields have been and should have been retreating gradually after the last ice age.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-07-2011).]
And the point still stands. The Northwest Passage has closed up on schedule, the bears are not dying and the polar ice has not melted. There was no extreme hurricane season. There was no extreme ocean level rise. Cities are not sinking into the sea.
I think you are still reading the graph incorrectly but I will defer to Marvins explanation of that.
Unless you are trying to make a point that these things are not happening as of January 2011.
Can you point out where the scientists or anyone have been stating these claims you are attributing to them? I've yet to see it in any context but you seem to have knowledge of it. Please share when you have a moment.
No, no I know about that website and your ability to take their information out of context.
I was wondering if you have links to the claims of the catastrophic events that you are claiming....you know the Northwest passage being open all year, and the polar ice caps being melted by now and so on. Please show me where the scientists have been saying that or if that's who ever you are accusing of saying it. I honestly don't know anyone who thinks those things are immanent but more a worse case scenario for the future if nothing is done.
IP: Logged
06:38 PM
Mar 10th, 2011
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
I was incorrect. As of 2009, wind power contributes "only" about 19% of Denmark's annual electricity consumption. I have edited my original post to reflect that.
I prefer to cite less obviously biased sources. See Wind Turbines in Denmark, published by the Danish Energy Agency (Danish government), for a comprehensive and authoritative discussion of the subject.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-10-2011).]
