[Al_U_Card]

[Al_U_Card]

Going (for the) green.

Cui bono

"How half of key Climate Change Committee is in the pay of green business"

No institution plays a greater role in dictating green energy policy than the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) – the body set up by Ed Miliband when he was Labour Energy Secretary through his 2008 Climate Change Act.
The Mail on Sunday’s investigation has established that four of its nine members have recently had or still have financial interests in firms that benefit from its rulings.
Last week, the CCC urged the Government not to water down its ‘fourth carbon budget’. This binds the UK to slash emissions of carbon dioxide to half their 1990 level by 2025.
The budget also says that by 2030, the CO2 emitted per unit of electric power must be less than ten per cent of what it is at present – a cut of more than 90 per cent.

[PassedOut]

Like the cigarette companies that in the past spent huge sums to fight the science that showed the harmfulness of their products, we've had companies like Koch Industries and ExxonMobil pay huge sums to obfuscate the facts about climate change. In the past few years, though, they've tried to conceal those sums: New Study Exposes Flood of Dark Money Feeding Climate Change Denial.

Quote

Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are “dark money,” or concealed funding.

The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.

Cockroaches scurry to darkness.

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on 2013-December-27, 13:35, said:

Like the cigarette companies that in the past spent huge sums to fight the science that showed the harmfulness of their products, we've had companies like Koch Industries and ExxonMobil pay huge sums to obfuscate the facts about climate change. In the past few years, though, they've tried to conceal those sums: New Study Exposes Flood of Dark Money Feeding Climate Change Denial.


Cockroaches scurry to darkness.

When they are not busy drinking the kool-aid or spouting the party line...

Conservative groups may have spent up to $1 billion a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change
…This headline on this article was amended on 21 December 2013 to reflect that not all the $1 billion referred to will have funded climate change work.

Any idea how much has been spent on those climate models that can't hindcast, have no skill and were unable to anticipate 17 years of no warming?

[Al_U_Card]

So, just how bad is the situation, climate-wise? Certainly the advocates of catastrophe are anxious to bring to the attention of the general public, all aspects of the global situation?

Sure they are.... which is why we are hearing so much about the "expedition" to expose worsening conditions of the Antarctic ice that could cause significant sea-level rise.

The decision to abandon the latest attempt was made at 9am Australian EST. The SMH story appeared at 4.40pm, and the ABC reported it on “just in” at 5.40pm. Marvelous how “fast” satellite communications and social media can work. No mention on The Guardian Australia site (despite them having a reporter on the boat). No twitters seen on the @GdnAntarctica, or @guardian, @alokjha (their journalist), @loztopham (their documentary maker), or #spiritofmawson or @ProfChrisTurney. (Perhaps those trapped on the boat don’t know?)


Antarctica Live is the Guardian Live blog where you won’t find any live news at the moment.
The Guardian calls it “Antarctica Live” but the latest news is from yesterday. What use is a live blog if extraordinary events happen and you don’t cover them?

A month ago the mission of the $1.5m expedition was “to answer questions about climate change”. Now the ABC describes the Australasian expedition as “a Russian ship stuck in sea ice in Antarctica.” The BBC has a reporter on board, and it only took 8 hours for the news to reach the BBC feed. Who is spinning the message to neutralize an embarrassing story then?
Let there be no doubt, the mission was to document and record scientific changes in Antarctica and to broadcast that to the world. Most scientific missions don’t have a dedicated media team, but this one named a staff of five journalists. There is a journalist and a documentary maker from the Guardian as well as a senior producer from the Science Unit at the BBC world service. (See the media list.) If they’d discovered less sea ice, fewer penguins, or big cracks, we know the images would be all over the mass media and it would be evidence for “climate change”.

But with the MV Akademik Shokalskiy trapped by thick sea ice, the mission apparently is to call it a tourist boat. The BBC now tell us the mission was “to follow the route explorer Douglas Mawson travelled a century ago”. Don’t mention the climate. (Search for the word “climate” on the BBC story for example…). If there is any doubt this was a climate science crusade read about it here: SpiritofMawson –The Science Case. It tells us the full message of doom including that they are studying an ice sheet that would raise global sea levels by 52m (!) if it melted. It doesn’t tell us that there is no sign that could happen. The site doesn’t mention that temperatures on Antarctica have cooled in the last 30 years, nor that sea ice has increased to record highs (I bet the team have noticed that now).


…
The spin is that team has “met heavy ice“. Not “been trapped by unprecedentedly thick sea ice, unlike anything Mawson ever saw, and in record levels”. If they had met thin sea ice, would it have been described as a dangerously thin layer, a risk for penguins, and a stark reminder of how much the climate is changing? Would it have been an undeniable factoid?

It’s not what the ABC says, it’s what they don’t say (a.k.a. “lying by omission”). The headlines could read “Global warming scientists trapped in Antarctica by record sea ice they didn’t predict”. As if. That would be against the religion.

How touristy is this boat? The three leaders are scientists, there are 8 other scientists and 18 PhD students on the boat. There are also 9 scientists back on the shore who presumably modeled the conditions in Antarctica and are world leading experts on sea ice eh? One of those experts is Matthew England who still describes the hopeless IPCC 1990 predictions were “very accurate”.

As per Maybe the "truth" will set them free?

[Al_U_Card]

Or maybe a little help from their "friends"?

http://www.kusi.com/...&clipId=9686594

Because you never know who your real friends are...Not to be "denied"

[PassedOut]

Deniers say one thing, but scientists say another: Global temperatures to rise at least 4°C by 2100

Quote

According to a December 31 news release from the University of New South Wales, scientists estimate that by 2100, global average temperatures will rise at least 4 degrees Celsius if carbon dioxide emissions are not scaled back. Additionally, researchers say that the continued increase in global average temperatures will result in an additional 4 degrees Celsius by 2200.

The findings appear in a recent article in the journal Nature, and may explain one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity: the role of cloud formation, and whether this will have a positive or negative influence on global climate change.

“Our research has shown climate models indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation,” said Steven Sherwood, a professor from the University of New South Wales’ Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science. “When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide.”

The key to this narrower – albeit much higher – estimate is found in the real world observations around the role of water vapor in cloud formation.

Looks like the Koch brothers and Exxon will have to write even larger secret checks...

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on 2014-January-01, 21:20, said:

Deniers say one thing, but scientists say another: Global temperatures to rise at least 4°C by 2100


Looks like the Koch brothers and Exxon will have to write even larger secret checks...

The upshot of this "study" is that the "best" models for cloud effects are those that are the "hottest" (furthest from REAL temperatures). Did you notice that the 2nd draft of the latest IPCC report has now LOWERED their temperature "projections"? Perhaps those big cheques will be needed to defray the costs of that Antarctic excursion stuck in the ice....

[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2014-January-01, 21:20, said:

Deniers say one thing, but scientists say another: Global temperatures to rise at least 4°C by 2100


Looks like the Koch brothers and Exxon will have to write even larger secret checks...

There have always been those marking dire predictions for self-recognition. Witness some of the past failures: Arctic sea ice will disappear by 2013, polars bear populations will decrease markely due to the decling sea ice, the Himalayas will melt by 2030, there is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be attainable, England will run out of coal by 1900, hundreds of millions of people will die in the 1970s due to mass starvation, the world will run out of petroleum by 1992, and natural gas by 1993, by 1985, air pollution will have reduced the sunlight reaching the Earth to one half, plunging us into an ice age, If trends continue, the Earth will be 11 degrees colder by 2000, by 1980 all imprtant animal live in the sea will be extinct, using computer models global warming will raise average temperatures 2 degrees by 2010, by 1995 the heartlands of North America nad Eurasia will be desolation with horrific droughts causing crop failurs and food riots.

I could go on and on about predictions that failed to materailize. Most are main in an attempt to influence policy, then the claimant can attest that his/her work has averted a crisis. I take all these predictions with a grain of salt - preferrably on me margarita.

[Al_U_Card]

Climate change?

[onoway]

Al_U_Card, on 2014-January-18, 07:56, said:

Climate change?

Just saw a headline that some parts of Australia are saying they are in the worst drought ever. Guess it depends on where you choose to measure. Another arctic vortex is supposedly set to hit the North American midwest and east in a couple of days or so, possibly worse than the one a week or so ago. They say dry sand is a good insulator.

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2014-January-18, 07:56, said:

Climate change?

Do you have evidence to suggest that Macquarie Island represents a good proxy for global climate? Do you have the record log for changes in instrumentation and measurement techniques during the observation period?

[Daniel1960]

onoway, on 2014-January-18, 17:38, said:

Just saw a headline that some parts of Australia are saying they are in the worst drought ever. Guess it depends on where you choose to measure. Another arctic vortex is supposedly set to hit the North American midwest and east in a couple of days or so, possibly worse than the one a week or so ago. They say dry sand is a good insulator.

In 2013, the U.S. witnessed more record low temperatures than high for the fist time in 20 years. 2014 is already off to a much colder start. Through Saturday, there have been 1131 new record lows (almost 10% of the entire 2013) compared to just 290 record highs. The next Arctic blast is likely to add to that total. Compare that to the previous trends:

http://www.wundergro...through2008.png

[blackshoe]

Question: If anthropomorphic anthropogenic global warming staves off a coming ice age, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[ArtK78]

Daniel1960, on 2014-January-20, 11:34, said:

In 2013, the U.S. witnessed more record low temperatures than high for the fist time in 20 years. 2014 is already off to a much colder start. Through Saturday, there have been 1131 new record lows (almost 10% of the entire 2013) compared to just 290 record highs. The next Arctic blast is likely to add to that total. Compare that to the previous trends:

http://www.wundergro...through2008.png

We are discussing climate change, not weather.

Besides, as has probably been mentioned several hundred times earlier in this thread, one of the effects of global warming is more extreme weather, both hot and cold.

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-20, 11:56, said:

Question: If anthropomorphic global warming staves off a coming ice age, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Silly question, everyone knows that all results of global warming are automatically bad.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-20, 11:56, said:

Question: If anthropomorphic global warming staves off a coming ice age, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Anthopogenic, not anthorpomorphic.

[Daniel1960]

ArtK78, on 2014-January-20, 12:17, said:

We are discussing climate change, not weather.

Besides, as has probably been mentioned several hundred times earlier in this thread, one of the effects of global warming is more extreme weather, both hot and cold.

Actually, the exact opposite is expected. The warming caused by an increase in atmospheric gases, namely CO2 and water, will lead to moderation in temperature. As been seen in over the past three decades, temperatures have increased most during winter, at night, and in the Arctic. The warmest temperatures have only increased slightly. The result has been a large decrease in extreme cold temperatures. New lows were becoming a rarity during the warming decade of the 90s and stagnately warm decade of the 2000s. Similarly, the most extreme weather events, tornadoes, have been decreased fro several decades. The recent deviation is more indicative of a cooling climate. Granted, this can be more accurately classified as weather, however, this condition has occurred for sufficient time for event the most ardent desbelievers to acknowledge the trend.

[ArtK78]

Daniel1960, on 2014-January-20, 13:59, said:

Actually, the exact opposite is expected. The warming caused by an increase in atmospheric gases, namely CO2 and water, will lead to moderation in temperature. As been seen in over the past three decades, temperatures have increased most during winter, at night, and in the Arctic. The warmest temperatures have only increased slightly. The result has been a large decrease in extreme cold temperatures. New lows were becoming a rarity during the warming decade of the 90s and stagnately warm decade of the 2000s. Similarly, the most extreme weather events, tornadoes, have been decreased fro several decades. The recent deviation is more indicative of a cooling climate. Granted, this can be more accurately classified as weather, however, this condition has occurred for sufficient time for event the most ardent desbelievers to acknowledge the trend.

Sorry to disagree. Changes observed from decade to decade do not constitute a change in climate. That is variance. And, IMHO, it is weather, not climate.

[Daniel1960]

Art,
I would agree that changes over three decades constitutes weather variance. In fact, I would not rule out longer timeframes being just variance. The decrease in tornadic activity correlates quite well with increasing temperatures over the past half century. The record highs/lows also correlates, but to a lesser degree. In the U.S., no state has set a record high temperatures since 1994, and 50% of record highs were recorded in the 1930s. Only one new record low has been set this century, and 50% were set prior to WWII.