Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

[Pachelbel]

I Am DigitaP wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually I'd grabbed the wrong guy's quote I apologized

Fair enough. My point remains valid. It just may not apply to you specifically.

[Pachelbel]

A peer reviewed paper concerning a key AGW assumption.

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? by Wolfgang Knorr. Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613, 2009.

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html

[letschanceit]

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Science requires that all information be considered. If you limit the information you are willing to consider, you limit your understanding of the subject.
Here's a paper I recommend you read. It is not a rebuttal of global warming, it is an explanation of the solar cycles and the impact such cycles have on climate. This information is being regularly substantiated by a number of solar physicist who are doing similar work. If you find this interesting I can provide references to similar studies.
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007...
Remember, the big talking head that kept saying 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'? Good thing Dorothy had enough brains to do her own investigating.

that's a big article. well written. don't know if I'll finish it tonight. there are some beefs with it. first, and I haven't finished yet but, "They argue that during the last few years there has been a shift in understanding about the dominant role of the sun on
the earth’s climate throughout the last 11,000 years and especially
over the last 60 years. They wrote: The IPCC dismissed any
significant link between solar variability and climate on the
grounds that changes in irradiance were too small. Such an
attitude can no longer be sustained." what the IPCC determined from info from dozens of scientific organizations and individuals was that "the sun has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950's. This means that when modern global warming trend began in the 1970's, the correlation between sun and climate broke down. In fact, the long term trend for solar activity is that of cooling. Not only is the sun not contributing to global warming, it has had a slight, long term cooling effect." http://www.skepticalscience.com/This-just-in-...

possibly more later..thanks for the link.

[letschanceit]

letschanceit wrote:

<quoted text>that's a big article. well written. don't know if I'll finish it tonight. there are some beefs with it. first, and I haven't finished yet but, "They argue that during the last few years there has been a shift in understanding about the dominant role of the sun on
the earth’s climate throughout the last 11,000 years and especially
over the last 60 years. They wrote: The IPCC dismissed any
significant link between solar variability and climate on the
grounds that changes in irradiance were too small. Such an
attitude can no longer be sustained." what the IPCC determined from info from dozens of scientific organizations and individuals was that "the sun has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950's. This means that when modern global warming trend began in the 1970's, the correlation between sun and climate broke down. In fact, the long term trend for solar activity is that of cooling. Not only is the sun not contributing to global warming, it has had a slight, long term cooling effect." http://www.skepticalscience.com/This-just-in-...
possibly more later..thanks for the link.

it's later here's more. your griffith.edu post "DE JAGER
(2005) reported that never during the last 10,000 years has the sun
been as active in ejecting magnetised plasma as during the last few
decades. He noted that the maximum level of solar activity may
have passed recently and that solar activity may continue to
decrease in coming decades." stanford.edu http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth...

and I found this from SOLANKI- a contributor to the griffith.edu page. "These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. "Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research. http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocume...

[RayOne]

Sing to the Monty Python's Spam song.
"Scam, scam, Scam, scam, Scam, scam, Scam, scam, Scam, scam...."

[letschanceit]

RayOne wrote:

Sing to the Monty Python's Spam song.
"Scam, scam, Scam, scam, Scam, scam, Scam, scam, Scam, scam...."

"is this the room for an argument?"

[theworldasweknow it]

Copenhagen is nothing but a fat green bureaucrats dream that will no nothing for the environment and everything for their pockets. Out freedoms are being eroded by these socialist morons

www.twawki.wordpress.com

[Earthling]

Pachelbel wrote:

A peer reviewed paper concerning a key AGW assumption.
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? by Wolfgang Knorr. Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613, 2009.
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html

Even more proof, if it was ever needed, that the science isn't settled.
Too much time, effort and money has been spent on researching Co2 as the major cause of GW and not enough on researching alternatives.
A nonsensical, "consensus" has been reached by scientists who tend to trust each others studies, that in my opinion causes them to lose sight of the real objective, which is to study all possibilites of the cause of climate change, natural and anthropogenic.

[cricket]

"Researchers at Florida State University recently updated their analysis of tropical cyclones and determined that tropical activity continues to decrease and is approaching 30 year lows. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy index (ACE) which is the standard for measuring tropical cyclone activity sits at 525 globally – far below the normal level of 769.

Every tropical cyclone basin when looked at individually is seeing similarly low levels. Close to home to the United States, the North Atlantic hurricane basin as been very quiet and at low levels not seen in 12 years.Researchers at Florida State University recently updated their analysis of tropical cyclones and determined that tropical activity continues to decrease and is approaching 30 year lows. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy index (ACE) which is the standard for measuring tropical cyclone activity sits at 525 globally – far below the normal level of 769.

Every tropical cyclone basin when looked at individually is seeing similarly low levels. Close to home to the United States, the North Atlantic hurricane basin as been very quiet and at low levels not seen in 12 years.

Tornadoes, one of nature’s smaller disasters but also one of the most destructive, are not seeing increases in frequency or intensity. For the 2009 calendar year, tornado activity is approaching the 10th percentile of historical activity since 1954. Over the longer term, according to the National Climactic Data Center the number of strong to violent tornadoes (F3 to F5) is decreasing as well".

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25061-Clim...

[Pachelbel]

BEWARE THE CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISTS

Dennis Byrne

November 10, 2009

Key excerpts follow. Read the entire opinion piece at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ch...

In the next few weeks we'll be relentlessly scrubbed with eyewash, brainwash and hogwash, all designed to cleanse us of any doubts that global warming is a proven menace to mother Earth.

[...]
Too bad, because the alleged "scientific" evidence of a coming man-made apocalypse is incomplete at best and, more likely, manipulated for political reasons.

That's obviously not the conventional wisdom. According to climate alarmists, only "skeptics" or "deniers" would ignore the "scientific consensus" that the planet is doomed without draconian acts of economic self-immolation.[...]

Inconveniently, that study itself has been studied by an independent group of scientists who concluded that the IPCC bible is wrong. They said the IPCC document "is marred by errors and misstatements, ignores scientific data that were available but were inconsistent with the authors' pre-conceived conclusions, and has already been contradicted in important parts by research published since May 2006, the IPCC's cutoff date."

To back up the conclusion, the independent group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), published its own analysis in a tome called "Climate Change Reconsidered." The 856-page, nearly two-inch-thick volume did what all good science requires: check the work of fellow scientists to see if it stands up to a rigorous review of the available research, data and conclusions.

[...]

Climate change alarmists will condemn these findings as unspeakable and unthinkable. They will point to who is doing the research or who is paying for it, while ignoring the substance of the research. They won't bother contacting Chicago-based Heartland Institute, the report's publisher, to get their own copy.

An honest examination of the science will reveal perhaps the only indisputable fact in this entire argument: The science is not settled and claims of a scientific consensus are an exaggeration, if not a deception. A scientific consensus -- if such a thing even exists -- would be surprising for any issue that is as complicated as this, involving so many different branches of science. As a layman struggling to comprehend this avalanche of science, I was struck by one truth: Beware of any "science" that claims to fully describe in single theory any phenomenon as complex as global climate change. Trying to tie it all up in such a neat package, as climate alarmists do, is a trap for the simple-minded.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ch...

[Pachelbel]

Worthy of emphasis.

Beware of any "science" that claims to fully describe in single theory any phenomenon as complex as global climate change. Trying to tie it all up in such a neat package, as climate alarmists do, is a trap for the simple-minded.

Dennis Byrne

November 10, 2009

Chicago Tribune op-ed

[Mothra]

theworldasweknowit wrote:

Copenhagen is nothing but a fat green bureaucrats dream that will no nothing for the environment and everything for their pockets. Out freedoms are being eroded by these socialist morons
www.twawki.wordpress.com

... and don't you wonder if warmists have ever heard of video conferencing?

Why fly? Stay home... hook up the internet... and away you go.

More 'do as I say, not as I do' hypocrisy.

[RayOne]

letschanceit wrote:

<quoted text>"is this the room for an argument?"

Vice President, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore does not let argument or science get in the way.

[NobodyYouKnow]

Mothra wrote:

<quoted text>
... and don't you wonder if warmists have ever heard of video conferencing?
Why fly? Stay home... hook up the internet... and away you go.
More 'do as I say, not as I do' hypocrisy.

You don't get to make the choice between reducing the IMPACT of amenities and services and reducing the amenities.

Nor do I. We need to keep the FREEDOM to travel while at the same time reducing the NEED to travel as video conferencing MAY do in some cases. It will become popular as an alternative to the EXPENSE of travel more than the emissions though.

[Hand of God]

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.

The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: "The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans."

[Hand of God]

The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies.

The IEA said tonight that peak oil critics had often wrongly questioned the accuracy of its figures. A spokesman said it was unable to comment ahead of the 2009 report being released tomorrow.

John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy.

He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. "Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on," said Hemming.

"This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation," he added.

The IEA was established in 1974 after the oil crisis in an attempt to try to safeguard energy supplies to the west. The World Energy Outlook is produced annually under the control of the IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, who has defended the projections from earlier outside attack. Peak oil critics have often questioned the IEA figures.

But now IEA sources who have contacted the Guardian say that Birol has increasingly been facing questions about the figures inside the organisation.

Matt Simmons, a respected oil industry expert, has long questioned the decline rates and oil statistics provided by Saudi Arabia on its own fields. He has raised questions about whether peak oil is much closer than many have accepted.

A report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) last month said worldwide production of conventionally extracted oil could "peak" and go into terminal decline before 2020 – but that the government was not facing up to the risk. Steve Sorrell, chief author of the report, said forecasts suggesting oil production will not peak before 2030 were "at best optimistic and at worst implausible".

But as far back as 2004 there have been people making similar warnings. Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France told a conference: "If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets … in the end that would suit no one."

[Earthling]

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

You don't get to make the choice between reducing the IMPACT of amenities and services and reducing the amenities.

Can you please expand that theory, because it doesn't make much sense?

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

Nor do I.

???

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

We need to keep the FREEDOM to travel while at the same time reducing the NEED to travel as video conferencing MAY do in some cases.

Video conferencing has been available for quite a long time now, so why not use it?
I honestly don't follow your, FREEDOM" versus "NEED" argument, can you explain?

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

It will become popular as an alternative to the EXPENSE of travel more than the emissions though.

Once more,?????

[Pachelbel]

Hand of God wrote:

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.
The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.
In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.
Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.
"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.
A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.
The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: "The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans."

"Peak oil" or "peak energy" for that matter has always been subject to considerations of economics. It is a function of the cost of getting it versus the market price. As cost increases of course the price of reaching profitability also increases. As the market reaches or exceeds that "profitability" point, more energy is feasible and can be produced, thus increasing availability or "peak". Sure, there are other factors, but the economic relationship has always been key.

[Jeffery Wright]

Václav Klaus:‘Largest tax increase in world history’

Despite huge spending, it has not been proved that the human effect on the climate is significant.

The people who had never believed in human freedom, in impersonal forces of the market and other forms of human interaction and in the spontaneity of social development and who had always wanted to control, regulate and mastermind us have been searching for a persuasive argument that would justify these ambitions of theirs.

After trying several alternative ideas — population bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources, global cooling, acid rains, ozone holes — that all very rapidly proved to be non-existent, they came up with the idea of global warming.

Their doctrine was formulated before reliable data evidence, before the formulation of scientifically proven theories, before their comprehensive testing based on today’s level of statistical methods.

Politicians accepted that doctrine at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and — without waiting for its confirmation — started to prepare and introduce economically damaging and freedom endangering measures.

http://snipurl.com/t6se6

[Brian_G]

Hand of God wrote:

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower...

How do we know how much oil is off our coasts, there's been a ban on exploration and drilling for almost thirty years:

...[T]he federal ban on offshore drilling that had kept 75 percent of U.S. coastal waters in the lower 48 states off limits to development for nearly three decades. Another 10 percent of the U.S. coastal waters remains off limits in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Policymakers and consumers alike have many questions about offshore drilling, so API has assembled this primer to foster an informed, constructive public policy debate and to demonstrate how the safe, efficient and environmentally conscious development of America’s vast oil and natural gas resources will help meet our growing energy needs, create new jobs, provide more revenue to federal and state governments and enhance our energy security.

http://www.api.org/policy/exploration/

Oil exploration is very expensive, and in the end you really can't find any oil until you drill. If there is no incentive to drill in banned areas there is no incentive to explore.

End the ban, drill here, drill now, drill everywhere.