All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Pittsburgh Pete]

"D" is for Duncan and Denial! You yucksters are the minority and contradict the scientific establishment but you do think you're smarter than the world's scientists! That's funny stuff!

The internet has given support to the deniers by providing all sorts of dreck that perpetuates untruths, half-truths, and lies. Your talents are that you're good at locating it. Well done!

Still stuck on meme's to defend an indefensible position?
Thinking and verifying is too hard?


From your article found at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/45202.html

New York has experienced at least a foot of sea-level rise since 1900,(116 years) mostly due to expansion of warming ocean water. Certain conditions along New York's coast make sea-level rise here somewhat higher than the global average.

By 2100 (84 years), scientists project sea levels 18 to 50 inches higher than today along New York's coastlines and estuaries, though a rise as high as 75 inches could occur.

So,
12 inches divided by 116 years = 0.10 of an inch year - historic data.
18 inches divided by 84 years = 0.21 inches a year, quite an increase, while,
50 inches divided by 84 years = 0.595 inches a year,

With NY saying the current rise of the ocean, or sinking of their island is between 0.21 and 0.6 +/- inches a year,

While NOAA says,
Mean Sea Level Trend - 8518750 The Battery, New York

1850 to 2020 is.........


wait for it..................


OMG how do they publish such rubbish?


The mean sea level trend is 2.84 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
2.84 Millimeters = 0.11181102362 Inches
AND
THE CHANGE IS EQUIVALENT TO 0.93 FEET OVER 100 YEARS!
Yeah
just slightly less than the meme being sold to you.


View attachment 27650
.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750

Good thing your day job does not require you verify information told to you.

Obviously the impact of one foot rise in sea level escapes you. Not surprising.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

The new deal will not, on its own, solve global warming. At best, scientists who have analyzed it say, it will cut global greenhouse gas emissions by about half enough as is necessary to stave off an increase in atmospheric temperatures of 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That is the point at which, scientific studies have concluded, the world will be locked into a future of devastating consequences, including rising sea levels, severe droughts and flooding, widespread food and water shortages and more destructive storms.

But the Paris deal could represent the moment at which, because of a shift in global economic policy, the inexorable rise in planet-warming carbon emissions that started during the Industrial Revolution began to level out and eventually decline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climate-change-accord-paris.html?_r=0

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Look at you!

Post stuff as support of your opinion, that is actually contrary to your opinion.

Your momma should be proud.


Read much?

.

Obviously you didn't read it. BTW, my mother is deceased!

Not rising fast enough for you? The point is that the sea levels in the New York area are rising. How is that contrary to my point? Manhattan won't be underwater next week but that's not the point. It's called looking to the future.

 

[Meandering]

The €1billion 'pretzel' that could save planet Earth: Device which 'recreates conditions inside stars' could make fossil fuels redundant

• The Wendelstein 7-X machine in Germany cost €1billion to construct
• The device recreates conditions similar to those occurring inside stars
• Technology could lead to limitless supplies of clean and cheap energy
• It created one-million-degrees-centigrade plasma for tenth of a second

Published: 18:16 EST, 12 December 2015

Its twisted construction resembles the pretzels of its native Germany. But this €1billion machine could help solve the planet's energy problems – and make harmful fossil fuels redundant.

Scientists celebrated last week after they used the device to make a big leap towards a limitless supply of clean energy created from nothing but water.

The eventual goal is to build a reactor that uses nuclear fusion to create vast amounts of power.

And one British scientist said last night that nuclear fusion as a source of clean energy was 'close enough to be able to taste it'.

Fusion – which happens in our nearest star, the sun – occurs when two atomic nuclei fuse, releasing enormous amounts of energy.

Unlike the fission process in today's nuclear reactors, it creates little if any dangerous waste material. But for fusion to occur, hydrogen gas has to be super-heated to form a 'plasma' at 100 million degrees Centigrade.

The plasma is generated and tightly contained in a sealed container – and if the plasma touches the sides, they will melt.

Until now, most fusion containers have been a symmetrical doughnut design, called a tokamak, which 'cages' the plasma by using supercooled magnets and a powerful current flowing around the loop.

But now scientists have switched on a radical new machine, dubbed Wendelstein 7-X, which uses specially shaped magnets to do away with the need for the current.

The device is a type of 'stellarator' – meaning it recreates conditions similar to those inside stars.

On Thursday, they took a major step forward, heating one milligram of helium gas inside the 50ft-wide twisted pretzel, to create a one-million-degrees-centigrade plasma which lasted a tenth of a second.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3357760/The-1billion-pretzel-save-planet-Earth-Device-recreates-conditions-inside-stars-make-fossil-fuels-redundant.html#ixzz3uA9khinm

Maybe Pete will buy one,
Capture the "green" energy market.

Sure a strong dollar, and weakened Euro, the exchange rate is only
1.00 EUR = 1.09943 USD

Place it right next to the Zaio Zones, and solar panels.


Not sure if it will make fossil fuels redundant. I don't think it'll fit where the gas tank is on most cars though.

Oh well,

Another great sales pitch.


.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH).

Christy's findings are contrary to predictions made by 73 computer models cited in the United Nation’s latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (5AR).

Christy told CNSNews that he analyzed all 73 models used in the 5AR and not one accurately predicted that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996. (See Temperatures v Predictions 1976-2013.pdf)

“I compared the models with observations in the key area – the tropics – where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases,” Christy explained. “I wanted to compare the real world temperatures with the models in a place where the impact would be very clear.” (See Tropical Mid-Troposphere Graph.pdf)

Using datasets of actual temperatures recorded by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia (Hadley-CRU), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, Christy found that “all show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.”

“All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world,” Christy pointed out. “The closest was a Russian model that predicted a one-degree increase."

“October 1st marks the 17th year of no global warming significantly different than zero,” agreed Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. “And those 17 years correspond to the largest period of CO2 emissions by far over any other 17-year period in history.”

The 5AR's "Summary for Policymakers," released last week, acknowledged that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years…is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951,” before concluding that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” (See IPCC 5th Assessment Report.pdf)

“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid 20th century,” the IPCC report noted, adding that “continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.”

However, the same report also acknowledged that there are “differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.”

“It’s a very embarrassing result for the climate models used in the IPCC report,” Christy told CNSNews. “Our own UAH measurement of a 0.1 degree Celsius increase per decade in the upper atmosphere was actually the warmest of all the datasets.”

Reaching the 17-year mark with no significant warming is a milestone because a climate change research team at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory defined it as the minimum length of time necessary to “separate human-caused global warming from the ‘noise’ of purely natural climate fluctuations,” according to a 2011 press release.

Michaels pointed out that 18 separate experiments published since Jan. 1, 2011 show that the IPCC’s climate models are off by 46 percent when it comes to temperature CO2 sensitivity. “The pressure to warm the atmosphere by CO2 has somehow been cancelled out completely by natural forces,” he said. “Surface temperature is simply not as sensitive to changes in CO2 as was assumed by the climate modeling community.”

“Nature bats last,” Michaels added. “And Nature came up in the 9th inning 17 years ago.”

Seventeen years without a temperature increase is also at odds with a report by the United Kingdom’s Met Office that said “global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013." (See Met Office July 2013.PDF)

“The Met Office simply didn’t go back 17 years,” Christy said to explain the two-year discrepancy.

When CNSNews asked Christy how the IPCC could claim “95 percent certainty” that human activity is causing global warming when it failed to predict that global temperatures would remain flat over the past 17 years, he replied: “I am baffled that the confidence increases when the performance of your models is conclusively failing. I cannot understand that methodology.”

When asked how useful the just-released IPCC report will be in predicting future global temperatures, he said: “Not very. When 73 out of 73 [climate models] miss the point and predict temperatures that are significantly above the real world, they cannot be used as scientific tools, and definitely not for public policy decision-making.”

In 2012, Christy testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, telling senators that “the recent anomalous weather can’t be blamed on carbon dioxide.”

"We've had 17 years of no global warming, yet we have an energy policy right now that continues to harm American communities and will lead to much higher electricity prices all based on the 'fact' that the world is warming," Daniel Kish, vice-president of the Institute for Energy Research, told CNSNews.com.

"Yet they cannot explain why all their projections are wrong. They're putting coal miners out of work all based on a 17-year history that doesn't exist."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17

Climate change is real, 97% of scientists say it is, the data cannot be disputed that human CO2 emissions are causing it.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

An important letter to Obama begins life as a simple idea meant to express a political need that the president should address:

Oval office, President Obama: "There's a lot of people that don't think climate change is something I should do anything about. You know what would be good is if a bunch of climate experts sent me a letter demanding action. As a community organizer you know what that means?"

Yes-man flunky: "Yes, sir! You're going to write another letter to yourself and have other people sign it. Good idea, sir!"

Obama writes the letter but the people he wants to sign it send it back. "It needs work," they explain. "This letter reads like it was written by a twelve-year-old girl."

Obama re-writes the letter and sends it to the people he wants to sign it. But it comes back too. "You've got to tone down all the praise of Obama. Most of that doesn't have anything to do with the actual purpose of the letter," the intended signatories say.

So Obama re-writes the letter to himself. It comes back. "We can't sign this letter. We know you want more power but just refer to your power as "tools," not as "dynamite to the system." Also, no Bush. Nobody cares about Bush anymore. Blaming Bush for "the end of the world in flames" is a little over the top. We can't sign that."

Another rewrite. Another rejection: "Mr President, we're not going to sign a letter that calls for the immediate execution of all climate deniers. Can't you come up with some other way to silence climate change deniers?"

Finally after many many rewrites Obama gets it right. The call for action is complete. The presidential prop is signed.


The finished letter:

Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer reviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

Sincerely,

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/the-evolution-of-a-letter-to-obama-t16987.html

Wow! So that's how that happened.

 

[Meandering]

Climate change draft finalized in Paris

Fabius highlighted the key points: a more ambitious goal for limiting the rise in global temperatures to less than two degrees Celsius; a $US100 billion ($137.19 billion) a year floor for funding developing nations beyond 2020; and a five-year cycle for reviewing national pledges to take action on greenhouse gas emissions.

The announcement of the accord follows nearly two weeks of tough haggling between bureaucrats and ministers from around the world. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says the agreement caps a seven-year effort to get the world to act on climate change. Ki-moon said “what was once unthinkable is now unstoppable ... it’s a good agreement and you should all be proud.” “History will remember this day,” he said. “The Paris agreement on climate change is a monumental success for the planet and its people.”

The agreement would seek to revolutionize the world’s energy system by cutting back or potentially eliminating coal and other fossil fuels, replacing them with renewable sources such as solar and wind.

While some climate change activists and US Republicans will likely find fault with the accord — either for failing to take sufficiently drastic action, or for overreacting to an uncertain threat — many of the estimated 40,000 officials and environmentalists who set up camp on the outskirts of Paris say they see it as a long overdue turning point.

Obama announces historic climate change agreement 7:31

President Barack Obama announces a commitment by almost 200 countries to keep global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius. Courtesy WhiteHouse.gov

WHAT’S IN THE CLIMATE DEAL

— A long-term goal to limit temperature rises to “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels — beyond which the worst impacts of climate change are expected — and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C which the most vulnerable countries say is necessary to ensure their survival.

— A goal for greenhouse gases to peak as soon as possible, undertake rapid reductions “in accordance with best available science”, and “achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century”. (And there is the money play, sinks)

Finance for poor countries to develop along a low carbon path and to cope with the impacts of climate change. Developed countries will continue to provide $US100 billion ($A137.19 billion) a year until 2025, and will scale up finance flows after that.

AUSTRALIA’S ROLE IN PARIS CLIMATE TALKS

— Signed onto multi-country initiative called Mission Innovation. Will double investment in clean energy innovation from $100 to $200 million over five years.

— Committed to $1 billion in climate finance in the Pacific, including $200 million already announced for Green Climate Fund. To be directed from aid budget. Doesn’t represent additional spending.

Committed $625,000 to promoting Pacific women into climate change roles. (I'm afraid to even ask)

— Announced $58 million for Great Barrier Reef water quality. * Revealed research project into ‘blue carbon’ storage in mangroves and other sea life.

— Indicated Australia would sign onto New Zealand-led declaration to improve transparency in international carbon markets.

— Ranked third last of 58 countries on Climate Change Performance Index.

— Labelled Fossil of the Day for speech made by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop about coal being crucial to alleviate hunger.

— Eventually joined ‘high ambition coalition’ of around 100 countries.

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe...s/news-story/c3298b0bdb9ab60ebba91d05f7c1ee01

.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Kind of like a geologist claiming to be an expert on climatology

At least a degree in geology gives me the ability to read the actual data and apply the skeptical eye that is necessary when reading popular press interpretations of a science paper by a cub reporter...which is what Al Gore was after dropping out of school.

As for you, you obviously have no ability to read same since your only response in these threads is mere ad hominem attacks. It shows how little a man you really are.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

^^^ +1

 

[Meandering]

You know what?

I was wondering,

Since we're going to make this big push to cut down on CO2,

Are they going to ban pleasure travel?

Like airplane flights to the Caribbean for vacation?

How about race cars? Driving around in circles for no reason.
And motorcycle and dirt bike racing too. Who needs dirt bikes polluting the environment?

And what about Christmas lights??? Maybe they are pushing up utility usages.

And horse racing. Horses eat a high fiber diet, hence are gassy, maybe we should not have any extra horses than are needed for.................Sheriff's Posse!............uhm, are horses less polluting than Sheriffs cars?

How about private airplanes? Shouldn't we all ride together to cut down on pollution?

All vacation resorts should close. No need to waste gas, polluting the air to drive to such things. Stay home and watch the trees grow and absorb all the CO2.

Does this mean we'll stop cutting down trees to put up solar panels?

Nearly 100 Trees Could Be Cut Down For Woodland Solar Panel Project
When The Neighbor's Tree Is Shading Your Solar Panel
Six Flags solar farm sacrifices forest, critics say
Solar Panels Trump Trees