Reply With Quote
Nice to see WC is back to denial stupidity.
BigCarbon pays politicians, scientists to LIE about, to DENY AGW, sucker, dupe you rightwingnuts into believing their LIES.
Giant Coal Company Bankruptcy Reveals Secret Ties to Climate Denial, GOP Dark Money Groups
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...-money-groups/
Nice to see WC is back to denial stupidity.
boutox tries to spam it away.
What part is he denying?
Found an interesting paper with an interesting graph:
paper:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo2094.html
Please notice in the graph how the temperature follows the solar activity rather well most the time, and the temperature swings three degrees. For some reason, it dropped around 1750, by around three degrees as well. What if this warming we see mow is just making up for some other cause that created an unusual cooling?
Dumb , the paper is about the north atlantic. You fumbling around with oversimplified energy budgets is always amusing though.Found an interesting paper with an interesting graph:
paper:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo2094.html
Please notice in the graph how the temperature follows the solar activity rather well most the time, and the temperature swings three degrees. For some reason, it dropped around 1750, by around three degrees as well. What if this warming we see mow is just making up for some other cause that created an unusual cooling?
You mean like the part where he is trying to say that heat from 150 years ago is what is causing the increase also between parroting your 17 year hiatus. And again.
Previous analyses of global temperature trends during the first decade of the 21st century seemed to indicate that warming had stalled. This allowed critics of the idea of global warming to claim that concern about climate change was misplaced. Karl et al. now show that temperatures did not plateau as thought and that the supposed warming “hiatus” is just an artifact of earlier analyses. Warming has continued at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and the slowdown was just an illusion.https://www.sciencemag.org/content/3.../1469.abstractMuch study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.
That was published in Science after being held for a long time for peer review. Your oilco overlords have very active watchdog groups on the process.
Welcome to now though.
'Contrarian' climate studies are the product of identifiable errors
A group of researchers set themselves to the task of determining why, although nearly all scientific studies confirm that climate change is indeed happening and that human activity is the prime driver of that change, there continue to be studies purporting to demonstrate the opposite.
Published last week in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, the study examined 38 recent examples of contrarian climate research — published research that takes a position on anthropogenic climate change but doesn’t attribute it to human activity — and tried to replicate the results of those studies.
The studies weren’t selected randomly — according to lead author Rasmus Benestad, the studies selected were highly visible contrarian studies that had all arrived at a different conclusion than consensus climate studies.
Unfortunately, the reviewers found the contrarian results weren't the result of more accurate science or new considerations that more mainstream researchers hadn't thought to consider, but were the result of easily identifiable errors:
The most common mistake shared by the contrarian studies was cherry picking, in which studies ignored data or contextual information that did not support the study’s ultimate conclusions.
In a piece for the Guardian, study co-author Dana Nuccitelli cited one particular contrarian study that supported the idea that moon and solar cycles affect the Earth’s climate.
When the group tried to replicate that study’s findings for the paper, they found that the study’s model only worked for the particular 4,000-year cycle that the study looked at.“However, for the 6,000 years’ worth of earlier data they threw out, their model couldn’t reproduce the temperature changes,” Nuccitelli wrote.
“The authors argued that their model could be used to forecast future climate changes, but there’s no reason to trust a model forecast if it can’t accurately reproduce the past.”
Rather than ill intent, the reviewers suggest that the errors may be the result of more innocent factors.
Many authors of the contrarian studies were relatively new to climate science, and therefore may have been unaware of important context or data.
Many of the papers were also published in journals with audiences that don’t necessarily seek out climate science, and therefore peer review might have been lacking.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...8Daily+Kos%29#
When an article like this you post reference Climate Progress, The guardian, and itself, without linking the paper...
B- ...
You sure believe the charlatans, don't you!
Anyway, I found the paper:
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf...015-1597-5.pdf
Funny how they really don't show evidence. It appears they base their paper on the others failing to agree, and that's all.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summar.../global/201508The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was the warmest August on record, 1.58°F (0.88°C) warmer than the 20th century average, and surpassing the previous record set in 2014 by 0.16°F (0.09°C). August 2015 tied with January 2007 as the third warmest monthly highest departure from average for any month since record keeping began in 1880. The combined global average land and ocean surface temperature for January–August was also record warm.
NOAA
Exxon knew about climate change decades ago, spent $30M to discredit it
The results of an eight-month investigation by InsideClimate News, published Wednesday, show that Exxon scientist warned company executives decades ago about human-caused global warming.
But despite its own 40-year-old research that showed that burning fossil fuels released carbon dioxide that was warming the planet to harmful levels, Exxon – the United States' largest oil company – has spent $30 million to discredit climate science to protect its carbon-based business.
In 1977, senior Exxon scientist James F. Black told company executives, "In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," according to InsideClimate.
"Present thinking," Dr. Black then estimated in 1978, "holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical."
Despite the warnings, the oil giant, which brought in $127 billion in gross profit in 2014, cut back its carbon dioxide research in the late 1980s when – like today – a glut of oil depressed its price, hurting the company's business. In the ensuing decades, Exxon instead focused on casting doubt on global warming warnings and lobbying against international action to control greenhouse gas emissions.
It spent $1 million on climate denial groups in 2014 alone, reports environmental advocacy group Greenpeace.
A few decades ago, things were different. Exxon was at the forefront of climate research. The company’s research and engineering division comprised a team of accomplished scientists and mathematicians who worked with university scientists and the US Department of Energy to develop sophisticated climate models. They spent three years and at least $1 million measuring the levels of CO2 in the air and ocean aboard the company’s Esso
Atlantic tanker, the InsideClimate report explains.
Exxon scientists published their research in peer-reviewed science journals.
By 1982, company scientists reported to management that despite the need for more research, controlling global warming “would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...o-discredit-it
You rightwingnut AGW-deniers have been lied to, DUPED, you ignorant s, by BigOil's multi-decade propaganda campaign to maintain BigOil's profits.
10 Largest Companies ‘Obstructing’ Climate Policy
http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/17/obstruct-climate-policy/
Melting Antarctica Could Drown Coasts Much Sooner Than You Thought
Seas could rise as fast as three centimeters a year if fossil fuel consumption continues at its present rate. Such increases would amount to ten times the current rise of roughly three millimeters annually. But Antarctica's vast ice sheets may substantially melt and accelerate the rise of seawaters should the burning of fossil fuel continue unabated, according to new computer simulations of climate change’s future impact.
Scientists had previously thought that East Antarctica's massive ice sheets were relatively safe, requiring thousands of years to pass before warming global temperatures would begin to melt them. But the new simulations, published inScience Advances on September 11, suggest Antarctica's ice is much more vulnerable—and thus sea level rise could be a lot worse.
"Humanity can indeed melt all of Antarctica's ice, if we were to burn all of the fossil fuels," says Ricarda Winkelmann, a physicist by training who now works on computer models at the Potsdam Ins ute for Climate Impact Research.
"What we do today by emitting greenhouse gases within just a few decades triggers changes that will be felt by many, many generations to come."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...SA_BS_20150918
The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here
Historians may look to 2015 as the year when really started hitting the fan. Some snapshots: In just the past few months, record-setting heat waves in Pakistan and India each killed more than 1,000 people. In Washington state's Olympic National Park, the rainforest caught fire for the first time in living memory. London reached 98 degrees Fahrenheit during the hottest July day ever recorded in the U.K.; The Guardian briefly had to pause its live blog of the heat wave because its computer servers overheated. In California, suffering from its worst drought in a millennium, a 50-acre brush fire swelled seventyfold in a matter of hours, jumping across the I-15 freeway during rush-hour traffic. Then, a few days later, the region was pounded by intense, virtually unheard-of summer rains. Puerto Rico is under its strictest water rationing in history as a monster El Niño forms in the tropical Pacific Ocean, shifting weather patterns worldwide.
On July 20th, James Hansen, the former NASA climatologist who brought climate change to the public's attention in the summer of 1988, issued a bombs : He and a team of climate scientists had identified a newly important feedback mechanism off the coast of Antarctica that suggests mean sea levels could rise 10 times faster than previously predicted: 10 feet by 2065. The authors included this chilling warning:
If emissions aren't cut, "We conclude that multi-meter sea-level rise would become practically unavoidable.
Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea-level rise could be devastating. It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization."
Eric Rignot, a climate scientist at NASA and the University of California-Irvine and a co-author on Hansen's study, said their new research doesn't necessarily change the worst-case scenario on sea-level rise, it just makes it much more pressing to think about and discuss, especially among world leaders. In particular, says Rignot, the new research shows a two-degree Celsius rise in global temperature — the previously agreed upon "safe" level of climate change — "would be a catastrophe for sea-level rise."
Hansen's new study also shows how complicated and unpredictable climate change can be. Even as global ocean temperatures rise to their highest levels in recorded history, some parts of the ocean, near where ice is melting exceptionally fast, are actually cooling, slowing ocean circulation currents and sending weather patterns into a frenzy.
Sure enough, a persistently cold patch of ocean is starting to show up just south of Greenland, exactly where previous experimental predictions of a sudden surge of freshwater from melting ice expected it to be. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist, recently said of the unexpectedly sudden Atlantic slowdown,
"This is yet another example of where observations suggest that climate model predictions may be too conservative when it comes to the pace at which certain aspects of climate change are proceeding."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805
Many Conservative Republicans Believe Climate Change Is a Real Threat
A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change,
the new survey found that 73 percent of all voters and 56 percent of Republicans do believe the climate is changing.
Fewer than a third of Republicans think the climate is changing because of purely natural cycles, and only 9 percent think the climate is not changing at all, the survey found. It also found that 72 percent of Republicans support accelerating the development of renewable energy sources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/us/politics/survey-of-republican-voters-shows-a-majority-believe-in-climate-change.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
Amazing, some Repugs actually believe something that is scientifically proven.
Nothing new.
s for BigCarbon news
Wash. Post Details Anti-Environment Agenda Of Oil-Funded National Black Chamber Of Commerce
The Washington Post is helping pull back the curtain on the National Black Chamber of Commerce's (NBCC) oil industry-funded campaign against environmental safeguards.
In a September 28 article, The Post explained that the NBCC is engaged in a "subtle effort ... to reduce support for [environmental] regulations among blacks, Latinos and even the elderly -- groups not usually regarded as natural allies for corporations fighting air-pollution laws." The Post noted that the NBCC has been heavily funded by Exxon Mobil, and that the list of sponsors for NBCC's 2015 national conference "included a number of major fossil-fuel interests, including Koch Industries, owned by oil magnates and conservative activists Charles and David Koch," adding: "Such donations make up as much as 80 percent of the group's revenue in some years, tax records show, and the NBCC has channeled its money into causes that favor fossil-fuel interests."
While the Post article focused on NBCC's work to undermine Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plan to reduce harmful ozone pollution, the NBCC has also produced a discredited study about the EPA's climate change plan, which establishes the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants. NBCC President Harry Alford has used the NBCC study to attack the EPA climate plan in congressional testimonyand a series of deceptive op-eds.
From The Washington Post:
Since early summer, Alford has delivered the same pitch in multiple cities, blasting a plan to impose limits on ozone, a pollutant that contributes to urban smog and aggravates breathing disorders, particularly among the elderly and very young.
Alford's message -- that the proposed regulations would hurt the economy and stifle job growth -- is nearly identical to the one being broadcast widely by the rules' opponents from business and industry. The National Association of Manufacturers has poured millions of dollars into a television ad campaign criticizing the proposal, which the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to adopt in final form Wednesday.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09...a-of-oi/205845
summary: BigCarbon is Too Big To Divest From
Top Banker: Climate Change Threatens Global Financial Crash
LONDON—A warning that climate change might make the world’s stock markets and banks unstable and lead to a financial crash has come from Mark Carney, chairman of the G20 countries’ Financial Stability Board.
Carney, who is also Governor of the Bank of England, particularly warns about the effects on the market if panic selling occurs and there is a plunge in value of shares in fossil fuel companies and industries that produce a lot of carbon dioxide.
These companies, some of the world’s largest, control one-third of stock market assets. If investors realise these stocks are overvalued and try to sell them all at once, it will cause chaos, Carney said.
The stark warning is a “remarkable intervention” from one of the world’s most conservative and influential bankers, who says he will be advising the world’s richest nations at the G20 summit in November to put policies in place to prevent climate change causing future severe turmoil in the markets.
Unpaid loans
He warned that banks might become unstable because the billions of dollars in loans they have made to fossil fuel companies might not be repaid.
Carney suggests that there will be a switch of investments from carbon-intensive industries to renewables. He says investments in fossil fuel companies might be seen as overvalued because, to avoid dangerous climate change, between one-fifth and one-third of all fossil fuels will need to be left in the ground.
Carney’s warning is in stark contrast to the policies of George Osborne, the UK’s chancellor of the exchequer, who appointed him to his role as Bank of England governor in 2012.
Osborne has this year been demolishing the UK’s on-shore wind and solar subsidy programme, while providing tax breaks to North Sea oil companies to find more reserves and giving the go-ahead for fracking gas over large areas of England.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...+the+Headlines
USA, Australia, UK: conservatives ing up renewable energy while subsidizing BigCarbon.
BigOil, and their scientists and politicians, have been lying to you ignorant, stupid, DUPED rightwingnuts FOR DECADES
What Exxon knew about the Earth's melting Arctic
Back in 1990, as the debate over climate change was heating up, a dissident shareholder pe ioned the board of Exxon, one of the world’s largest oil companies, imploring it to develop a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from its production plants and facilities.
The board’s response: Exxon had studied the science of global warming and concluded it was too murky to warrant action. The company’s “examination of the issue supports the conclusions that the facts today and the projection of future effects are very unclear.”
Yet in the far northern regions of Canada’s Arctic frontier, researchers and engineers at Exxon and Imperial Oil were quietly incorporating climate change projections into the company’s planning and closely studying how to adapt the company’s Arctic operations to a warming planet.
Ken Croasdale, senior ice researcher for Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary, was leading a Calgary-based team of researchers and engineers that was trying to determine how global warming could affect Exxon’s Arctic operations and its bottom line.
Certainly any major development with a life span of say 30-40 years will need to assess the impacts of potential global warming,” Croasdale told an engineering conference in 1991. “This is particularly true of Arctic and offshore projects in Canada, where warming will clearly affect sea ice, icebergs, permafrost and sea levels.”
Between 1986 and 1992, Croasdale’s team looked at both the positive and negative effects that a warming Arctic would have on oil operations, reporting its findings to Exxon headquarters in Houston and New Jersey.
The good news for Exxon, he told an audience of academics and government researchers in 1992, was that “potential global warming can only help lower exploration and development costs” in the Beaufort Sea.
But, he added, it also posed hazards, including higher sea levels and bigger waves, which could damage the company’s existing and future coastal and offshore infrastructure, including drilling platforms, artificial islands, processing plants and pump stations. And a thawing earth could be troublesome for those facilities as well as pipelines.
As Croasdale’s team was closely studying the impact of climate change on the company’s operations, Exxon and its worldwide affiliates were crafting a public policy position that sought to downplay the certainty of global warming.
The gulf between Exxon’s internal and external approach to climate change from the 1980s through the early 2000s was evident in a review of hundreds of internal do ents, decades of peer-reviewed published material and dozens of interviews conducted by Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental Reporting Project and the Los Angeles Times.
Do ents were obtained from the Imperial Oil collection at Calgary’s Glenbow Museum and the ExxonMobil Historical Collection at the University of Texas at Austin’s Briscoe Center for American History.
...
Today, as Exxon’s scientists predicted 25 years ago, Canada’s Northwest Territories has experienced some of the most dramatic effects of global warming. While the rest of the planet has seen an average increase of roughly 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years, the northern reaches of the province have warmed by 5.4 degrees and temperatures in central regions have increased by 3.6 degrees.
Since 2012, Exxon Mobil and Imperial have held the rights to more than 1 million acres in the Beaufort Sea, for which they bid $1.7 billion in a joint venture with BP. Although the companies have not begun drilling, they requested a lease extension until 2028 from the Canadian government a few months ago. Exxon Mobil declined to comment on its plans there.
Croasdale, who still consults for Exxon, said the company could be “taking a gamble” the ice will break up soon, finally bringing about the day he predicted so long ago — when the costs would become low enough to make Arctic exploration economical.
http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/
Two degree Celsius warming locks in sea level rise for thousands of years
A jump in global average temperatures of 1.5°C to 2°C will see the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves and lead to hundreds and even thousands of years of sea level rise
Using state-of-the-art computer modelling, Dr Golledge and his colleagues including researchers from UNSW simulated the ice-sheet's response to a warming climate under a range of greenhouse gas emission scenarios. They found in all but one scenario (that of significantly reduced emissions beyond 2020) large parts of the Antarctic ice-sheet were lost, resulting in a substantial rise in global sea-level.
"The long reaction time of the Antarctic ice-sheet -- which can take thousands of years to fully manifest its response to changes in environmental conditions -- coupled with the fact that CO₂ lingers in the atmosphere for a very long time means that the warming we generate now will affect the ice sheet in ways that will be incredibly hard to undo," Dr Golledge said.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151018213808.htm
LOL...
Pundits spinning away.
I would ask you to read the letter in nature, but it's paywalled. I don't think this graphic is:
Go here please:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/enviro...post1065149880
I don't feel like repeating what I wrote in a different forum.
Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Hit High, Likely to Become 'Permanent Reality'
A new bulletin from the World Meteorological Organization reports that the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached another new record high in 2014 that could become a ‘permanent reality.’
The bulletin explains that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 has reached 397.7 parts per million (ppm) in 2014—close to the (largely symbolic) 400ppm milestone that climate scientists often talk about. In the Northern hemisphere, levels rose above the 400ppm level during Spring 2014.
http://gizmodo.com/greenhouse-gas-co...com-1741402863
BigCarbon, VRWC will us all to , to maintain their profits.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
.jpg?1442518563)
