No worries, the trees are doing just fine. It's just part of the natural forest cycle.
There is no climate change.
As reported in Forbes, it's just scientists falsifying data. Forbes is a respected business publication. I'll take that source for info any day over supposed "data" from supposed "scientists".
Only a few more more months and all the scare tactics about the cycle natural events somehow being negatively influenced by man's economic activities goes away. It's about time, too. I'm sure we can all agree that we have had way too much of that nonsense for way too long.
Do tell ..since when is Forbes staffed by climatologists?
I don't know about climatologists, but I do believe it is well staffed by business oriented journalists of varying ability. That's my point. With legion of "scientists" around the world involved in a well documented global conspiracy perpetuating a gigantic climate change hoax, who better to get the truth of the matter from than the market place? And who better to publicly present and discuss the opinion of the market place than Forbes?....along with a slew of other business info sources also too.
You need to listen to more Lord Mockton on Dennis Miller's show on Fox. That'll get your thinking headed in the right direction. You'll sleep better too knowing there is nothing to worry about and certainly nothing to do. Situation normal. Carry on.
Climate Change May Create Price Volatility in the Corn Market
ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2012) — By the time today's elementary schoolers graduate from college, the U.S. corn belt could be forced to move to the Canadian border to escape devastating heat waves brought on by rising global temperatures. If farmers don't move their corn north, the more frequent heat waves could lead to bigger swings in corn prices -- "price volatility" -- which cause spikes in food prices, farmers' incomes and the price livestock farmers and ethanol producers pay for corn.
Researchers from Stanford and Purdue universities found that climate change's impact on corn price volatility could far outweigh the volatility caused by changing oil prices or government energy policies mandating biofuels production from corn and other crops.
The study, based on economic, climatic and agricultural data and computational models, finds that even if climate change stays within the internationally recognized target limit of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels, the temperature changes could still make damaging heat waves much more common over the U.S. corn belt.
"Severe heat is the big hammer," Diffenbaugh said. "Even one or two degrees of global warming is likely to substantially increase heat waves that lead to low-yield years and more price volatility." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120422134957.htm _________________ Card carrying member of the Scientific-Technological Elite and bent on world domination!
And a nod to the way back machine..(way back to Nov. 2011, that is )
Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection
Filed under: Climate modelling Climate Science Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record — group @ 2 April 2012
Guest commentary from Geert Jan van Oldenborgh and Rein Haarsma, KNMI
Sometimes it helps to take a step back from the everyday pressures of research (falling ill helps). It was in this way we stumbled across Hansen et al (1981) (pdf). In 1981 the first author of this post was in his first year at university and the other just entered the KNMI after finishing his masters. Global warming was not yet an issue at the KNMI where the focus was much more on climate variability, which explains why the article of Hansen et al. was unnoticed at that time by the second author. It turns out to be a very interesting read.
They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake. Obviously climate science was a mature field even then: the concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much. Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.
Next they attribute global mean temperature trend 1880-1980 to CO2, volcanic and solar forcing. Most interestingly, Fig.6 (below) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. At a time when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s, they confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. They assume that no action will be taken before the global warming signal will be significant in the late 1990s, so the different energy-use scenarios only start diverging after that.
The first 31 years of this projection are thus relatively well-defined and can now be compared to the observations.
Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed. They only underestimated the observed trend by about 30%, similar or better in magnitude than the CMIP5 models over the same period (although these tend to overestimate the trend, still mainly due to problems related to aerosols).
To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/
But, but, but what about those damning e-mails, climategates 1-37.. I cured AIDS dammit!!??? Now I'll need a new tinfoil hat thiisss biggg! _________________ Card carrying member of the Scientific-Technological Elite and bent on world domination!
Will the Republican 2012 platform acknowledge anthropogenic climate change, as the 2008 platform did?
Although it was somewhat elliptical about it, the 2008 Republican party platform asserts that humans are responsible for climate change, e.g.:
The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.
Unless the climate for accepting global warming changes drastically in the GOP, I don't see how any candidate who wants to hang on to support from the the party's base can do anything but climb on and stay on the bandwagon for climate change as anything other than a gigantic hoax being perpetuated by a global conspiracy of elites, corrupt scientists, and other fellow travelers who hate America.
Warm Ocean Currents Cause Majority of Ice Loss from Antarctica
ScienceDaily (Apr. 25, 2012) — An international team of scientists led by British Antarctic Survey (BAS) has established that warm ocean currents are the dominant cause of recent ice loss from Antarctica. New techniques have been used to differentiate, for the first time, between the two known causes of melting ice shelves -- warm ocean currents attacking the underside, and warm air melting from above. This finding brings scientists a step closer to providing reliable projections of future sea-level rise.
Researchers used 4.5 million measurements made by a laser instrument mounted on NASA's ICESat satellite to map the changing thickness of almost all the floating ice shelves around Antarctica, revealing the pattern of ice-shelf melt across the continent. Of the 54 ice shelves mapped, 20 are being melted by warm ocean currents, most of which are in West Antarctica.
"What's really interesting is just how sensitive these glaciers seem to be. Some ice shelves are thinning by a few metres a year and, in response, the glaciers drain billions of tons of ice into the sea. This supports the idea that ice shelves are important in slowing down the glaciers that feed them, controlling the loss of ice from the Antarctic ice sheet. It means that we can lose an awful lot of ice to the sea without ever having summers warm enough to make the snow on top of the glaciers melt -- the oceans can do all the work from below.
"But this does raise the question of why this is happening now. We think that it's linked to changes in wind patterns. Studies have shown that Antarctic winds have changed because of changes in climate, and that this has affected the strength and direction of ocean currents. As a result warm water is funneled beneath the floating ice. These studies and our new results therefore suggest that Antarctica's glaciers are responding rapidly to a changing climate."
FauxLord Monckton replies:
"Clearly, all 4.5 million measurements from the ICESat satellite were manipulated by nefarious scientists in league with NASA and other alarmist factions. Also, errr.. hockey stick, hysteria, damning e-mails, it's the sun, Al Gore dpp's, birth certificates and gabba gabba hey.."
_________________ Card carrying member of the Scientific-Technological Elite and bent on world domination!
Come on man, you're stepping on my lines. I thought I got to do the Monckton response. Here I spent all that time getting my inner-Monckton warmed up to cool down climate change hooey, and here you are spouting my lines. geeeeesh, no wonder nobody likes you science types.
Meanwhile, back at the ol' grindstone, a moss-less rock got this comment out of Pres. Obama on the issue:
James Hansen, NASA's leading climate scientist, has said this about the Keystone pipeline: that if the pipeline goes through and we burn tar sands in Canada, it's "game over" for the planet. What's your reaction to that statement?
James Hansen is a scientist who has done an enormous amount not only to understand climate change, but also to help publicize the issue. I have the utmost respect for scientists. But it's important to understand that Canada is going to be moving forward with tar sands, regardless of what we do. That's their national policy, they're pursuing it. With respect to Keystone, my goal has been to have an honest process, and I have adamantly objected to Congress trying to circumvent a process that was well-established not just under Democratic administrations, but also under Republican administrations.
The reason that Keystone got so much attention is not because that particular pipeline is a make-or-break issue for climate change, but because those who have looked at the science of climate change are scared and concerned about a general lack of sufficient movement to deal with the problem. Frankly, I'm deeply concerned that internationally, we have not made as much progress as we need to make. Within the constraints of this Congress, we've tried to do a whole range of things, administratively, that are making a difference – doubling fuel-efficiency standards on cars is going to take a whole lot of carbon out of our atmosphere. We're going to continue to push on energy efficiency, and renewable energy standards, and the promotion of green energy. But there is no doubt that we have a lot more work to do.
Part of the challenge over these past three years has been that people's number-one priority is finding a job and paying the mortgage and dealing with high gas prices. In that environment, it's been easy for the other side to pour millions of dollars into a campaign to debunk climate-change science. I suspect that over the next six months, this is going to be a debate that will become part of the campaign, and I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we're going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way. That there's a way to do it that is entirely compatible with strong economic growth and job creation – that taking steps, for example, to retrofit buildings all across America with existing technologies will reduce our power usage by 15 or 20 percent. That's an achievable goal, and we should be getting started now.
Normally I find climate change denial articles about as interesting as watching turnips fall off of a truck, but this is a very well written piece that is worth reading. Not just because it debunks another ludicrous media favorite, but also because it highlights flaws that permeate the whole denialist spiel.
Serious errors and shortcomings void climate letter by 49 former NASA employees Posted on April 25, 2012 by Brian Angliss under Environment & Nature, Science & Technology
On March 28, 2012, 49 former NASA astronauts, scientists, engineers, and administrators sent a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden Jr. The letter requested that NASA in general and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in particular stop publishing the scientific conclusions about the human-driven causes of global climate disruption. The letter was filled with no less than six serious errors regarding the science, data, and facts of climate science. The errors, in turn, exposed that the signers had confused their fame and/or their expertise in unrelated fields with expertise in climate science. And in response, NASA’s chief scientist politely suggested that the letter’s authors and signers should publish any contrary hypotheses and data in peer-reviewed scientific journals instead of trying to censor the publication of scientific conclusions from NASA climate scientists.
Humanmade Pollutants May Be Driving Earth's Tropical Belt Expansion: May Impact Large-Scale Atmospheric Circulation ScienceDaily (May 16, 2012) — Black carbon aerosols and tropospheric ozone, both humanmade pollutants emitted predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere's low- to mid-latitudes, are most likely pushing the boundary of the tropics further poleward in that hemisphere, new research by a team of scientists shows.
While stratospheric ozone depletion has already been shown to be the primary driver of the expansion of the tropics in the Southern Hemisphere, the researchers are the first to report that black carbon and tropospheric ozone are the most likely primary drivers of the tropical expansion observed in the Northern Hemisphere.
Led by climatologist Robert J. Allen, an assistant professor of Earth sciences at the University of California, Riverside, the research team notes that an unabated tropical belt expansion would impact large-scale atmospheric circulation, especially in the subtropics and mid-latitudes.
Black carbon aerosols are tiny particles of carbon produced from biomass burning and incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Most of the world's black carbon production occurs in the Northern Hemisphere, with Southeast Asia being a major producer. The same is true of tropospheric ozone, a secondary pollutant that results when volatile organic compounds react with sunlight. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120516140004.htm
Factors underlying northerly spread of the tropics
The tropical climate zone has been expanding for several decades. Stratospheric ozone depletion has been identified as a factor in the expansion to the south, but the mechanisms responsible for expansion in the Northern Hemisphere have remained unclear. Now Allen et al. report that increases in black carbon and tropospheric ozone as a result of atmospheric heating and a shift in the tropospheric jet are the most likely cause of the expansion to the north. Greenhouse gases are a secondary influence. In terms of climate-mitigation policy, this work suggests that emission controls on black carbon and ozone precursors would not only help to mitigate global warming, but could also lessen the impacts of changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7398/full/nature11097.html _________________ Card carrying member of the Scientific-Technological Elite and bent on world domination!
Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to ignore sea level predictions based on global warming
Business interests along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be factored into the state's development plans for the coast.
The best part-
"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson, chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but computers and speculation."
May 2012 Global Temperatures Second Warmest On Record
ScienceDaily (June 18, 2012) — The globally-averaged temperature for May 2012 marked the second warmest May since record keeping began in 1880. May 2012 also marks the 36th consecutive May and 327th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.
Global temperature highlights: May
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May was second warmest on record for May, behind 2010, at 59.79°F (15.46°C) or 1.19°F (0.66°C) above the 20th century average. This was the warmest monthly departure from normal since November 2010. The margin of error associated with this temperature is ±0.13°F (0.07°C).
May marked the 36th consecutive May and 327th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average temperature May was May 1976 and the last below-average temperature month was February 1985.
The global land surface temperature for May was 2.18°F (1.21°C) above the 20th century average of 52.0°F (11.1°C), the all-time warmest May on record. The margin of error is ±0.25°F (0.14°C).
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!