|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 25, 2014 5:57:01 GMT
Be very afraid of born to wealth ruling class left wing people.
It gives the French revolution a sense of sanity when you see people with heads speaking as if they have no head and all that without the aid of a guillotine.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 26, 2014 0:33:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 29, 2014 15:02:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 29, 2014 15:19:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 30, 2014 23:53:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 11, 2014 8:06:02 GMT
Most likely Al Gore was successful in attracting a lot of capital into constantly diving carbon credit markets. The stalling of the political drive to forced emissions reduction has destroyed the estimated proforma returns for this market. Selling carbon credits short has been a hot position to hold while the greens have been bullish. Folks invested in the lands and assets capable of issuing carbon credits have not been making money and if they weren't independently wealthy to begin with (e.g. in with no leverage on big investments) most are not making debt service and at risk of financial ruin. Tends to make folks grumpy before they jump out the window on Wall St. Like most such schemes "Green Manna" was oversold. The only thing worse than having no money is having lots of it and investing it stupidly.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 11, 2014 14:38:19 GMT
He was the one who wrote Arnold's environmental policy. Him and the NRDC, you know, the ones never held accountable for the MTBE in our water supply. Yet all we heard was how we had to vote for Arnold because he could win and the Dem would be soooo much worse. Not sure why anyone still believes there is a difference in the parties.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 16, 2014 2:05:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 24, 2014 1:07:34 GMT
Code, I have plenty of that ..... sigh.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 26, 2014 3:52:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by drkstrong on Oct 26, 2014 19:29:41 GMT
I see the original claim that the Sun is responsible for global warming. As a solar physicist I can say definitively that is not the case because
1) To be increasing terrestrial temperatures solar activity levels would have had to be increasing over the last 40-50 years by quite a lot to explain the observed increase in global temperatures. It has been decreasing steadily since 1957. So global temperatures should have been falling since then not increasing. We measure the Sun's output and there has been no trend over the last 40 years.
2) the pattern of global warming does not fit the sun. If it were the Sun the equator would be warming faster than the poles, days would be warming faster than nights, and summers warming more than winters. We see the exact opposite in all 3 cases.
3) Where warming is occurring in the atmosphere would be differently distributed. Especially true of the stratosphere which is equally heated from the Sun and Ir emissions from the Earth. If the Sun were causing global warming the stratosphere would warm the fastest. It is actually cooling which can ONLY be explained by a reduction in the IR coming from the Earth which is exactly what extra GHGs would cause.
There are many other reasons we can rule out the Sun but those 3 are enough to be getting on with!
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 26, 2014 19:38:03 GMT
I see the original claim that the Sun is responsible for global warming. As a solar physicist I can say definitively that is not the case because 1) To be increasing terrestrial temperatures solar activity levels would have had to be increasing over the last 40-50 years by quite a lot to explain the observed increase in global temperatures. It has been decreasing steadily since 1957. So global temperatures should have been falling since then not increasing. We measure the Sun's output and there has been no trend over the last 40 years. 2) the pattern of global warming does not fit the sun. If it were the Sun the equator would be warming faster than the poles, days would be warming faster than nights, and summers warming more than winters. We see the exact opposite in all 3 cases. 3) Where warming is occurring in the atmosphere would be differently distributed. Especially true of the stratosphere which is equally heated from the Sun and Ir emissions from the Earth. If the Sun were causing global warming the stratosphere would warm the fastest. It is actually cooling which can ONLY be explained by a reduction in the IR coming from the Earth which is exactly what extra GHGs would cause. There are many other reasons we can rule out the Sun but those 3 are enough to be getting on with! not according to the solar physicists I talk to. The recent warming has coincided quite nicely with the Grand Solar Maximum. solar cycle 22 was a record setter with cycle 23 not far behind it. The recent hiatus started with a weak cycle 24. The late Timo Niroma reported that cycle 24 was below Dalton Minimum numbers and was expecting a Maunder type minimum by 2035. With the Grand solar maximum over we should now be heading into a Grand solar minimum.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 26, 2014 21:31:18 GMT
Point 2 seems to assume there are absolutely no fluid dynamics existing on our planet???
|
|
|
Post by flyfisher7 on Oct 26, 2014 23:49:53 GMT
I see the original claim that the Sun is responsible for global warming. As a solar physicist I can say definitively that is not the case because 1) To be increasing terrestrial temperatures solar activity levels would have had to be increasing over the last 40-50 years by quite a lot to explain the observed increase in global temperatures. It has been decreasing steadily since 1957. So global temperatures should have been falling since then not increasing. We measure the Sun's output and there has been no trend over the last 40 years. 2) the pattern of global warming does not fit the sun. If it were the Sun the equator would be warming faster than the poles, days would be warming faster than nights, and summers warming more than winters. We see the exact opposite in all 3 cases. 3) Where warming is occurring in the atmosphere would be differently distributed. Especially true of the stratosphere which is equally heated from the Sun and Ir emissions from the Earth. If the Sun were causing global warming the stratosphere would warm the fastest. It is actually cooling which can ONLY be explained by a reduction in the IR coming from the Earth which is exactly what extra GHGs would cause. There are many other reasons we can rule out the Sun but those 3 are enough to be getting on with! not according to the solar physicists I talk to. The recent warming has coincided quite nicely with the Grand Solar Maximum. solar cycle 22 was a record setter with cycle 23 not far behind it. The recent hiatus started with a weak cycle 24. The late Timo Niroma reported that cycle 24 was below Dalton Minimum numbers and was expecting a Maunder type minimum by 2035. With the Grand solar maximum over we should now be heading into a Grand solar minimum. I'm curious, point #1 states there has been no trend over the last 40yrs. Is the sun behaving so radically that there isn't a trend? I thought the trending was observable even from a layperson like myself. From all the articles and charts I've seen it appears the trend was in the upward direction, now coming to an abrupt halt.
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Oct 26, 2014 23:52:30 GMT
Arctic Ice Melt Seen Doubling Risk of Harsh Winter in EU By Stefan Nicola Oct 26, 2014 2:00 PM ET The decline in Arctic sea ice has doubled the chance of severe winters in Europe and Asia in the past decade, according to researchers in Japan. Sea-ice melt in the Arctic, Barents and Kara seas since 2004 has made more than twice as likely atmospheric circulations that suck cold Arctic air to Europe and Asia, a group of Japanese researchers led by the University of Tokyo’s Masato Mori said in a study published today in Nature Geoscience. “This counterintuitive effect of the global warming that led to the sea ice decline in the first place makes some people think that global warming has stopped. It has not,” Colin Summerhayes, emeritus associate of the Scott Polar Research Institute, said in a statement provided by the journal Nature Geoscience, where the study is published. The findings back up the view of United Nations climate scientists that a warmer average temperature for the world will make storms more severe in some places and change the character of seasons in many others. It also helps debunk the suggestion that slower pace of global warming in the past decade may suggest the issue is less of a problem. “Although average surface warming has been slower since 2000, the Arctic has gone on warming rapidly throughout this time,” he said. Some 2,000 envoys gathered by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, meet this week in Copenhagen to discuss their most extensive assessment yet of climate science. That report is meant to guide the work of 190 nations meeting in December in Peru to work out a way to cut greenhouse gas emissions after 2020. Climate Science A year ago, the IPCC said the rate of global temperature rises since 1998 has been less than half the pace seen since 1951. Scientists say natural variability in the climate can explain some of the slowdown and studies have shown the oceans, too, are absorbing more heat. The higher frequency of severe winters identified in the Nature Geoscience paper is unlikely to continue because climate warming is expected to outweigh the sea-ice effect toward the end of the 21st century, the researchers said. To reach their findings, they had performed about 200 computer simulations of the global atmospheric circulation using a model based on two distinct settings for Arctic sea-ice concentrations. To contact the reporter on this story: Stefan Nicola in Berlin at snicola2@bloomberg.net To contact the editors responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net Tony Barrett www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-26/arctic-ice-melt-seen-doubling-risk-of-harsh-winter-in-eu.htmlSometimes it's hard explaining stupidity, but I think I just found it.
|
|