In The News

[knocker]

(in case your wondering, whatever baseline temperature they use should not effect the trend observed in the last 150 years, the argument is just pointless!)

Edited December 3, 2012 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

What would anyone stand to gain from making up worries about the climate? Why would anyone concern themselves with fossil fuels if they did not cause issues?

Why would any group of people stand up to the very industry that allows us the lifestyle we enjoy today if there was not sound reason for their concerns?

I just do not get why folk would start flogging such a dead horse in the first place?

The only reason I could ever find was that we had unwittingly caused issue by it's use. We figured, in the west, that the ground level pollution was leading to smogs which killed folk. We figured later that some of the gasses produced poisoned the rainfall and caused issues. I do not think anyone really thinks that we could forget such studies and go back to those 'old ways'. Sadly Asia have just stumbled into those old ways and are finding why they should invest monies on cleaning up production (odd that they did not take heed of our experience?).

We also know that burning fossil fuels is placing CO2 , locked away from the carbon cycle for millions of years, into the atmosphere (though from the continued increasing emissions you would not think we did??).

The question we need to answer is does CO2 in greater amounts in the atmosphere have any impacts?

NASA tells us that the climate is currently changing 20 times faster than we have seen under natures forcings alone. What is so different that such an imbalance could exist in nature?

Could it be something outside our planet like the sun?

We are told that the sun's variability is slight in terms of the amount of energy we receive here at the surface (from historical data and proxy data) and recent alterations in output (both up and down over the past 150yrs) have not caused such changes when we have seen them before in our records. Neither have we seen such rapid changes without the help of impactors or eruptions to reduce the amount of sun reaching the surface. So what has changed?

Data plotting changes and extremes would seem to render 'denial' of such changes as pointless so we must find a mechanism that would explain what we have seen.

So what else , apart from the rapid build up of GHG's in the atmosphere could drive such global changes?

Edited December 3, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[laserguy]

What would anyone stand to gain from making up worries about the climate?

Nah I give in. Go on,spill the beans.

[songster]

Nah I give in. Go on,spill the beans.

I've never even seen someone get a rhetorical question wrong before.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Going back to the article about livestock deaths, that incident simply sounds like a poorly managed drilling site and not specifically related to fracking at all.

The writer presumably does not have a clue about what is normal procedure when drilling.

When they drill for anything be it oil gas or water the material is brought to the surface as a slurry and there is some contamination with lubricants and such from the cutting head.

In the UK it is normally tankered away for treatment at specialist plants but in the US it must be considered acceptable to store it on site in a bunded lagoon.

In this incident it would seem this was not sufficiently impermeable.

A drilling incident not a fracking incident.

So another alarmist fail unfortunately.

I suppose the millions of litres of those toxic chemicals they pump into the ground and leave there has no effect on anything, couldn't possibly seep into aquifers and the well casings couldn't possibly crack and leak the chemicals into near surface.

If you look at the points made rather than trying to discredit the source because it's a blog (?), there clearly was a sudden decision to start using 14C as the long term average rather than 15C.

Why would that be.

Do we get any clues from the source of the change?

It seems to make it easier to imply warming when you can say the years average was 14,6C so that's 0.6C up rather than 0,4C down on long term average.

Why don't you look up why they made the change? Could have been incorporation of new data, new models, new techniques, data homogenisation etc. Seems a little extreme to shout conspiracy every time you learn something new. But conspiracies like that require ignorance of the topic, like most climate denial.

I think if someone is going to claim that the global warming doomsday cult was involved in fraudulent scientific misconduct that only the angry and emotive blogger was smart enough to spot, they need to give more proof than a couple of snippets from here and there.

I don't have time right now to look up why there may have been a baseline change, but in every case where the sceptic blogs have experienced uproar over there latest conspiracy claim, the actual facts of the case of the case have been much more reasonable and benign.

[Gray-Wolf]

As the evidence of AGW becomes clearer and more unequivical you seem to see the denialist blogs increasingly only serving themselves? Mr Watts even bans contributors who post the science showing why his wild claims are wrong and then the 'inner core' of posters spend pages deriding the now muted poster for being so easily fooled! It appears quite surreal?

The thing that gives the 'game' away is the wish, from every AGW adherent I have had contact with?, to be wrong in their understanding of just what is occurring and what is set to occur whilst the denialist believe that their view is unquestionably right and there is a deep ,dark conspiracy attempting to overthrow their understanding by the use of lies ,forged data and an over riding need for more grant money?

Who would you put most credence in? a person with a mass of science who wishes it was all wrong or a person with a few crafted papers who believes that the majority are fools?

[laserguy]

Who would you put most credence in? a person with a mass of science who wishes it was all wrong or a person with a few crafted papers who believes that the majority are fools?

The latter,every time. Having 'climate scientists' do anything but vilify CO2 is like turkey farmers saying beef would make a better Xmas lunch,or those laughable teevee ads where dentists are apparently hell-bent on putting the entire profession on the dole by saying using toothpaste X will spell the end to dental caries. 'Course,the individual in the ad gets paid handsomely for saying that and knows his words will soon be forgotten anyway.... As for Watts and the like,the AGW bunch spend more time there than me - haven't visited for maybe three years.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Should put a smile of 4wd's face

'Fracking' exploration could affect 60 per cent of UK

More than 60 per cent of the British countryside could be exploited for shale gas, government documents show, as ministers prepare to give the go-ahead for developing the country's most significant new energy source since North Sea oil.

The Independent understands that Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, will soon end the current moratorium on shale gas production, which was put in place after fracking caused two small earthquakes near Blackpool in 2011.

His decision will pave the way for a significant increase in shale gas exploration. The Chancellor, George Osborne, is also expected to announce the creation of a new Office for Shale Gas to co-ordinate and speed up production as part of his autumn statement next week. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the use of pressurised liquid to propagate fractures in rock and release natural gas.

Maps, drawn up by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and seen by The Independent, show the extent of potential development.

They suggest more than 32,000 square miles – or 64 per cent of the countryside – could potentially be exploited for shale gas and is being considered for exploration licences.

It includes vast swathes of the South of England, the North-west and North- east and the Central belt in Scotland.

http://www.independe...as-8372543.html

[knocker]

The latter,every time. Having 'climate scientists' do anything but vilify CO2 is like turkey farmers saying beef would make a better Xmas lunch,or those laughable teevee ads where dentists are apparently hell-bent on putting the entire profession on the dole by saying using toothpaste X will spell the end to dental caries. 'Course,the individual in the ad gets paid handsomely for saying that and knows his words will soon be forgotten anyway.... As for Watts and the like,the AGW bunch spend more time there than me - haven't visited for maybe three years.

Can you define " 'climate scientists'". Are they all of one discipline and thus have the same paymaster?

[Methuselah]

Oh dear! Another nutter? http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/30/bryan-fischer-enormously-insensitive-to-hurt-gods-feelings-by-not-using-oil/

[Polar Maritime]

Oh dear! Another nutter? http://www.rawstory....-not-using-oil/

“You know, God has buried those treasures there because he loves to see us find them.â€...........

[laserguy]

Can you define " 'climate scientists'". Are they all of one discipline and thus have the same paymaster?

No; can you? Second question - you'd think so,wouldn't you? Y'know,with a large and constant dose of psychotropic drugs,and if 'climate scientists' spent as much time and effort singing the virtues of an artificially heated world as the disadvantages I might,just might bat an eyelid. As for the guy Pete kindly brought to our attention - wow,just wow! You get 'em on both sides...

[Gray-Wolf]

Well why don't you enlighten us to the advantages of an overheating planet S.C.? I'd be a much happier bunny if I could see some positives for the majority of inhabitants of our planet?

As I see it the science is showing us that change is happening so fast most creatures impacted do not stand a chance of keeping up with it and appear destined for extinction?

Our major food producing areas are starting to be impacted by extreme weather events reducing yield and driving up prices (whilst leaving very little for food aid for the starving?)

The shifting weather patterns are bringing more damage with it costing the planet record amounts each year. Events like 'Sandy' cannot be a sustainable way of being?

Latest research shows us the extra CO2 is actually reducing crop yields.

Both Greenland and Antarctica are melting ever faster raising the spectre of rapid sea level hikes as we move into the 'collapse phase of the major outlet glaciers from the ice sheets.

Global dimming is now known to have helped slow temperature rises meaning the potential of current GHG loading of the atmosphere has not been achieved. With the continued clean up of Asian polluters this negative temp forcing is set to fall out.

Though still not included in the IPCC AR5 report permafrost is now adding into the atmospheric GHG's at an accelerating rate meaning even if we stop adding GHG's tomorrow Nature will add her contribution over the coming decades.

I could go on , as you well know, but it will give you something to weigh your positives against L.G.?

[paul tall]

Massive overpopulation and further increases in population are a bigger worry than climate change. We'll starve before we burn.

[loafer]

Massive overpopulation and further increases in population are a bigger worry than climate change. We'll starve before we burn.

Whilst true, what is sadder is that this would have far more impact on the environment than encouraging the use of public transport or the generation of "green" energy, but it isn't promoted as it is politically and ethically unacceptable.

[Gray-Wolf]

Sadly climate catastrophes tend to take the very young and very old first? I know we have an accelerating global birth rate but if climate science is only 50% correct in it's current predictions then this is unsustainable in our future world and so 'nature' via drought ,starvation disease will begin to trim down population size before we set to the job with regional conflicts over dwindling resources or closing borders to ecconomic migrants (the starving and disposessed).

I wish L.G. or 4 would hurry up with the 'why I am Wrong' science as the current prospects that I have to believe in are not allowing me a jolly run up to Chrimbo!

EDIT:

Sadly , if the above is a guide, we will be a little light on science disproving the various areas of the climate science and the forced changes now being witnessed there that show an AGW fingerprint?

Edited December 4, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Talking of pollution 60 years ago tomorrow was the start of the Great Smog. Anyone remember it?

The Great Smog of '52 or Big Smoke was a severe air pollution event that affected London during December 1952. A period of cold weather, combined with an anticyclone and windless conditions, collected airborne pollutants mostly from the use of coal to form a thick layer of smog over the city. It lasted from Friday 5 to Tuesday 9 December 1952, and then dispersed quickly after a change of weather.

Although it caused major disruption due to the effect on visibility, and even penetrated indoor areas, it was not thought to be a significant event at the time, with London having experienced many smog events in the past, so called "pea soupers". However, medical reports in the following weeks estimated that 4,000 people had died prematurely and 100,000 more were made ill because of the smog's effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the number of fatalities was considerably greater at about 12,000.

It is considered the worst air pollution event in the history of the United Kingdom, and the most significant in terms of its effect on environmental research, government regulation, and public awareness of the relationship between air quality and health. It led to several changes in practices and regulations, including the Clean Air Act 1956.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog

[PeteG]

Don't remember the 1952 smog but do remember sometime in the 1950s looking out of the front window and being unable to see to houses on the other side of the road which were about 20 yards away because of the thick yellow/brown fog.

[Gray-Wolf]

I remember when i was young in the 60's my Mum would have us wear a scarf with a hanky under it and the hanky would be stained browny yellow by the time we got home? We still had a coal fire back then and I do not believe it was ever 'smokeless' fuel like I've used in coal fires since? We lived in a valley and the whole of Swinton's fog seemed to migrate our way!

When you look at images of areas of China the similarities are striking? How long before the health issues drive them to rapid cleanup of their pollution?

Unlike us they do not have to develop the technology to clean up with as we have already done that job for them, all they need to do is spend the money!

One thing is sure it was far easier to witness how man was altering the environment back then! We just did not know the scale of the problem!

Edited December 4, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

I remember being in Glasgow wearing a white shirt and a jacket. Took the jacket off and there was a nice black V on the shirt. You couldn't see five yards.

[knocker]

Using a new method for estimating greenhouse gases that combines atmospheric measurements with model predictions, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) researchers have found that the level of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, in California may be 2.5 to 3 times greater than the current inventory.

At that level, total N₂O emissions—which are believed to come primarily from nitrogen fertilizers used in agricultural production—would account for about 8 percent of California’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The findings were recently published in a paper titled “Seasonal variations in N₂O emissions from central California†in Geophysical Research Letters. Earlier this year, using the same methodology, the researchers found that levels of methane, another potent greenhouse gas, in California may be up to 1.8 times greater than previous estimates.

“If our results are accurate, then it suggests that N₂O makes up not 3 percent of California’s total effective greenhouse gases but closer to 10 percent,†said Marc Fischer, lead researcher on both studies. “And taken together with our previous estimates of methane emissions, that suggests those two gases may make up 20 to 25 percent of California’s total emissions. That’s starting to become roughly comparable to emissions from fossil fuel CO₂.â€

http://newscenter.lb...-in-california/

[knocker]

Climate Models Project Increase in U.S. Wildfire Risk

12.04.12

Scientists using NASA satellite data and climate models have projected drier conditions likely will cause increased fire activity across the United States in coming decades. Other findings about U.S. wildfires, including their amount of carbon emissions and how the length and strength of fire seasons are expected to change under future climate conditions, were also presented Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

The Whitewater-Baldy Complex wildfire in Gila National Forest, New Mexico, as it burned on June 6th, 2012. Scientists calculate that high fire years like 2012 are likely occur two to four times per decade by mid-century, instead of once per decade under current climate conditions. Credit: Kari Greer/USFS Gila National Forest

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate-fire.html

[4wd]

Excellent, ignoring the pathetic scaremongering and hand-wringing greenies - decision made

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/osborne-to-offer-tax-breaks-for-shale-gas-8373865.html

Edited December 5, 2012 by 4wd

[gagerg]

Excellent, ignoring the pathetic scaremongering and hand-wringing greenies - decision made

http://www.independe...as-8373865.html

While one would be all for the job creation and reduction of gas prices, the situation with climate change at the moment would make one move towards different methods of producing energy which does not add to the warming of the planet, but then again I am saying this before the study on the gas itself is published.

[knocker]

Fire and Ice: Wildfires Darkening Greenland Snowpack, Increasing Melting

SAN FRANCISCO—Satellite observations have revealed the first direct evidence of smoke from Arctic wildfires drifting over the Greenland ice sheet, tarnishing the ice with soot and making it more likely to melt under the sun.

At the American Geophysical Union meeting this week, an Ohio State University researcher presented images from NASA’s Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellite, which captured smoke from Arctic fires billowing out over Greenland during the summer of 2012.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/greensmoke.htm