Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (27050)	12/15/2009 2:34:38 PM
From: Land Shark	Respond to of 36917

That's shite.... Now your forcing me to debunk that fraud again. Give it a few hours.

To: longnshort who wrote (27050)	12/15/2009 3:21:27 PM
From: Land Shark	Respond to of 36917

Those temperature trends are for central GREENLAND. Temperatures vary GEOGRAPHICALLY. Greenland is not representative of the global situation. You have to combine those temperatures with data from other locations, otherwise you don't have a full picture.

To: longnshort who wrote (27050)	12/15/2009 4:04:28 PM
From: Land Shark	Respond to of 36917

Other sources of paleoclimatological data: Proxy Data Types Borehole Data [ArcIMS \| List ] Climate Forcing [ List ] Climate Reconstructions(Estimates of past climate) [List] Corals & Sclerosponges [Search \| ArcIMS \| List ] Fauna Historical [List] Ice Cores [Search \| List ] Insect [List] Lake Levels [ArcIMS \| List] Loess [List] Paleoclimatic Modeling [Search Output \| Search Input ] Paleofire [Search \| ArcIMS \| List ] Paleolimnology [Search \| ArcIMS \| List ] Paleoceanography [Search \| ArcIMS \| List ] Plant Macrofossils [Search \| WebMapper ] List] Pollen [Search \| WebMapper ] List] Speleothems [ List ] Tree Ring [Search \| ArcIMS \| List ] Other Collections [ List ] ncdc.noaa.gov Ice Borehole data is just part of the picture. Your sites misrepresentation of that data as being "global" is unethical.

To: longnshort who wrote (27050)	12/15/2009 4:11:52 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Breaking news: Unprecedented global warming in past year February 19, 2009 [Please Digg this by clicking here.] From January 2008 to January 2009, the planet warmed a remarkable 0.37°C (see data here). This is 20 times (!) the annual rate of warming in recent decades and 20 times what most climate models have projected we should be experiencing. The N.Y. Times and WSJ have made this stunning news of accelerated human-caused global warming a lead story, and even some previously skeptical “deniers” who had been pushing the myth of global cooling have publicly wondered how they could have been so wrong…. Okay, maybe that last sentence is wishful thinking. But I’m sure you remember how the deniers and the media spun up the global cooling meme a year ago [see "Media enable denier spin 1: A (sort of) cold January doesn't mean climate stopped warming"]. That meme began with a misleading post by retired TV weatherman Anthony Watts, which was based in large part on the coincidence of a (relatively) cool January 2008 following on the heels of the warmest January on record (according to NASA’s dataset). So now we have a quite warm January 2009, which ties with 1998 as the 5th warmest January in NASA’s temperature record, following on the heels of that moderately cool [OK, technically 31st warmest on record] January 2008. And that gives us the huge year-over-year warming, which should be making headlines around the online and traditional media, if they were consistent, which, of course, they are not. I should note that the National Climatic Data Center has this as the 7th warmest January (see here), with year-over-year warming of ‘only’ 0.35°C. Note also that we are still experiencing La Niña conditions, which tend to slightly cool global temperatures. Now what could really make this a genuinely serious emerging storyline is that in the summer of 2007, the Hadley Center made some interesting near-term predictions in Science (see “Climate Forecast: Hot — and then Very Hot“). They pointed out that in addition to the steady increase in anthropogenic warming from greenhouse gases you have to add a smaller variation from climate oscillations linked to the oceans. Those oscillations have been tamping down temperatures a tad, and may keep doing so for the next year or so, but the decade of the 2010s is going to bring a return to record-smashing temperatures: Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record. UPDATE: Figure Caption. Globally averaged annual mean surface temperature anomaly (relative to 1979–2001) forecast by DePreSys starting from June 2005. The CI (red shading) is diagnosed from the standard deviation of the DePreSys ensemble, assuming a t distribution centered on the ensemble mean (white curve). Also shown are DePreSys and ensemble mean NoAssim (blue curves) hindcasts starting from June 1985 and June 1995, together with observations from HadCRUT2vOA (black curve). Rolling annual mean values are plotted seasonally from March, June, September, and December. The mean bias as a function of lead time was computed from those DePreSys hindcasts that were unaffected by Mount Pinatubo (SOM text) and removed from the DePreSys forecast (but not the hindcasts) They further predict the year 2014 will “be 0.30° ± 0.2°C warmer than the observed value for 2004,” which means there is a 50% chance that the warming from 2004 to 2014 will be 3/8 that of the warming of the previous century! And this prediction matches a more recent, albeit more misunderstood, analysis in Nature (see Nature article on ‘cooling’ confuses media, deniers: Next decade may see rapid warming), which suggests: The “coming decade” (2010 to 2020) is poised to be the warmest on record, globally. The coming decade is poised to see faster temperature rise than any decade since the authors’ calculations began in 1960. The fast warming would likely begin early in the next decade. And of course we have NASA’s recent prediction: “Likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years.” Okay, so this post started out only semi-serious and ended up fully serious. The point is there never was “global cooling,” and it remains absurd that the media or anyone else, including the conservative blogosphere, ever pushed that storyline — especially if they aren’t prepared to write about the “re-accelerated” warming that inevitably follows such “cooling” (see “The best climate blog you aren’t reading“).

To: longnshort who wrote (27050)	12/15/2009 4:16:43 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Overwhelming US Public Support for Global Warming Action Poll Confirms Americans Believe Economy, Jobs Helped By Pollution Reduction December 15, 2009 This guest post was written by Daniel J. Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at American Progress. Two new polls issued today confirm that an overwhelming portion of Americans want domestic action and an international agreement to reduce global warming pollution. More than half the respondents want to do a great deal to reduce the threat of global warming, while only one-quarter oppose action. Associated Press/Stanford Univ. poll; conducted 11/17-29 by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media; surveyed 1,005 adults; margin of error +/- 3.1% (release, 12/15). How Much Do You Think The U.S. Should Do About Global Warming? A great deal/quite a bit 52% Some 23 A little/nothing 25 The AP poll also found that by nearly 2-1, respondents felt that reducing global warming pollution would create rather than cost jobs. A near majority felt that steps to cut global warming pollution would help the economy, while slightly more than one-quarter thought that it would hurt the economy – about the same proportion that oppose action. Do You Think That The U.S. Doing Things To Reduce Global Warming In The Future Would Cause There To Be More/Fewer Jobs For People Around The Country? More jobs 40% Fewer jobs 23 Would not affect jobs 33 Do You Think That The U.S. Doing Things To Reduce Global Warming In The Future Would Hurt/Help The U.S. Economy? Help U.S. economy 46% Hurt U.S. economy 27 Would not affect economy 24 The poll asked a number of questions about potential solutions. It found that the public opposed reducing global warming pollution by increasing taxes on electricity, energy or gasoline so that people use less. There was an even split between support and opposition to building new nuclear power plants. Nearly 90% of the respondents supported giving “companies tax breaks to produce more electricity from water, wind, and solar power.” Respondents supported tax incentives to produce electricity from coal fired power plants that capture and store carbon pollution. And by 58% to 37%, respondents supported a “cap and trade” system to reduce pollution (when accurately explained). This support grew to 2-1 when respondents learned that “a similar system has been effective in reducing emissions that cause acid rain.” Significantly, nearly two-thirds of the respondents in the AP believe that inaction on global warming “will hurt future generations a great deal/a lot.” Less than one quarter believe that inaction will have little or no impact. If Nothing Is Done To Reduce Global Warming In The Future, How Much Do You Think It Will Hurt Future Generations? A great deal/a lot 63% A moderate amount 13 A little/not at all 23 A poll released today by USA Today/Gallup found clear majority support for the United States to sign a binding agreement to reduce its greenhouse gas pollution. Conducted 12/11-13; surveyed 1,025 adults; margin of error +/- 3.1%. Subsample of 898 RVs; margin of error +/- 3.3% (release, 12/14). Do you Favor/Oppose The U.S. Signing A Binding Global Treaty At The Copenhagen Meeting That Would Require The U.S. To Significantly Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Favor 55% Oppose 38 Both of these polls found support for action to stem global warming via pollution cuts despite the worst economy in nearly thirty years. And the polls occurred during the feeding frenzy over the stolen emails from the British climate research center that led the mainstream media to give disproportionate air time and weight to climate deniers who represent a tiny minority of scientists. This coverage is reflected in the AP poll finding that two of three respondents believe there is a “disagreement among scientists” about global warming. Even with this uncertainty, Americans still favor action to cut global warming pollution, and it will benefit the economy and create jobs.