Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:47 PM GMT on August 07, 2012

Share this Blog
11
+

Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings: Models, Water, and Temperature (4)

This is a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature (see Intro). I am starting with models. In this series, I am trying to develop a way to build a foundation for nonscientists to feel comfortable about models and their use in scientific investigation. I expect to get some feedback on how to do this better from the comments. In order to keep a solid climate theme, I am going to have two sections to the entries. One section will be on models, and the other will be on a research result, new or old, that I think is of particular interest.

Doing Science with Models 1.1: In the previous entry of this series I argued that if one considered the types of models used in design and engineering, then we use models all of the time. In fact, when we build or do just about anything, we use some sort of model to get us started. I ended the previous entry with the example of building a simple picnic bench that would hold three, two-hundred-pound men. Not only do the materials need to be of sufficient strength, but the legs of the bench need to be attached in a way that they form a solid and stable foundation. If the bench wobbles and the legs spread apart, then it will be unsafe. If we have experience of some sort, we construct a model from this experience. For example, if we have built or repaired tables and benches we have some ideas of good and bad construction. If we have no direct experience then we can find or ask about plans. These plans might be a schematic, a graphic model of the bench.

For those who do not build benches, but who, say, balance their checkbooks, there are models as well. The forms in a ledger represent models that have proven usable through practice or that have become standard approaches. Information is collected and organized: the check number, the date, the payee, the amount, the purpose and the category of expenditure.

These graphic, tabular, or touchable models are common enough that we develop intuition about their use. Introductory materials to climate models often use the words “mathematical,” “numerical,” and “computational.” These words take us not only away from our intuitive notions of models, but also into subjects that many of us find difficult and obscure. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen the tabular models of checkbook balancing coded as computational products such as Quicken. Design and architecture move to tools such as Computer-assisted Design. Recently, we have seen this combination of the world of digital models and touchable products come full circle with the advent of three-dimensional printing. In three-dimensional printing, solid objects made of plastic and metal are rendered from mathematical descriptions of the objects. I will return to this idea of mathematical descriptions of objects later. The point that I would like to make now is that using computers as tools to represent the real world has in the last two decades become routine. Therefore, in and of itself, the use of computers to make numerical calculations of the real world is common. It might not be as universally intuitive to people as a ledger or a wooden design of a boat, but there is large body of experience that affirms the value of computer-based modeling.

There are a number of steps that need to be taken from here to climate models. So far, I have been talking about models that are in the spirit of a work or a structure used in testing or perfecting a final product. In climate modeling, the final product of the construction is a model. It is the purpose of that model to provide a credible representation of the climate. That representation has a number of attributes. There is the attribute of representing what we have already observed. There is also the attribute of predicting what we will observe, that is, predicting the future. Therefore, the final product of the whole process is the simulation of and the prediction of the climate.

As with many words, there is more than one definition of model in the dictionary. Another relevant definition from my print edition (third) of the American Heritage Dictionary is “A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further studies of its characteristics.” (American Heritage Dictionary online) This definition is directly descriptive of a climate model. But like those introductions to climate models that I referred to above, it quickly goes to words like “system” and “theory” that are not quite as intuitive as I would like. This is where I will start next time.


Interesting Research: Attribution of 2011 Extreme Weather to Climate Change - Some might recall in 2011, I wandered into the contentious subject of the attribution of climate change to humans (collected here) and talking about communicating extreme weather events in the media (Shearer and Rood). The paper I highlight in today’s blog is a compilation of efforts to understand the role of planetary warming in some of the extreme events of 2011. The paper is Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective edited by Tom Peterson and others and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This paper looks at six of the extreme events of 2011 and tries to attribute, in a variety of ways, the role played by human-caused global warming. (nice summary in New Scientist)

I want to focus on the part of the paper that discusses the extreme heat and drought in Texas in the summer of 2011. Much of that discussion is based on evaluating the effect of sea surface temperature, and specifically, the role of El Nino and La Nina. El Nino and La Nina are the names given to recurring patterns of sea surface temperature distributions in the eastern, tropical Pacific Ocean. The approach to this problem is to use models to make many simulations with sea surface temperature distributions similar to the La Nina conditions of 2011. Simulations were made for times in the 1960s and for the year 2008. The simulations provide an ensemble of many plausible outcomes, and it is possible to investigate the odds of a drought of similar extreme attributes as the 2011 drought occurring in the 1960s. The authors conclude that the warming climate made the 2011 drought 20 times more likely to occur now than in the 1960s. The authors point out that they cannot make statements about absolute probability. That is, they cannot state that in the absence of carbon dioxide increases and associated warming, that the drought would not have occurred.

This approach of using probability to discuss the impact of warming is an active area of research as well as an emerging way to communicate the relation between extreme weather and global warming. In the Washington Post, Jim Hansen has an op-ed piece that describes a paper which was released on Monday, August 6 (reference at end). In this paper Hansen revisits his metaphor that compares extreme weather in a warming climate with playing a dice game with loaded dice. That is, the dice are loaded in a way such that what used to be “extreme” will more likely occur. Going back to the Texas drought, that result mentioned in the previous paragraph says that the dice are loaded so that the extreme attributes of the 2011 drought are 20 times more likely. The takeaway message from Hansen is that we have, so far, underestimated how much the dice are loaded and that we have underestimated the probability of extreme events such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and yes perhaps, persistent cold snaps.

r


Hansen, Early Edition, PNAS, Perception of Climate Change

Hansen, Perception of Climate Change, Public Summary

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 363 - 313

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
Daisyworld, according to Dr. Scafetta who actually wrote his 2007 paper, not you, and not Gavin Schmidt, he found that they did not address his 2007 paper, which is one of the misleading statements in the Benestad and Schmidt paper...

Yes, yes. And Nixon said he had no part in Watergate, and Reagan said he had nothing to do with Iran-Contra, and Clinton said he and Ms. Lewinsky didn't... Well, I'd better not go there. You get the point.

Quoting Snowlover123:
[...] So therefore, I repeat, the Benestad and Schmidt paper does not refute Scafetta and West 2007 since it did not address the methodologies in the 2007 and 2008 papers, it only addressed the mathematical methodologies in the 2005 and 2006 papers...

He used the same methodologies in each. If you can't get the math straight, then there's no need to go further.

Quoting Snowlover123:
[...] Therefore, the Benestad and Schmidt paper is not a refutation of Scafetta and West 2007 paper.


Hoo boy... That's a circular argument if I ever heard one. Person A makes statement. Person B refutes that statement. Person A states that Person B is wrong in refuting it. And somehow... that settles it? This is a perfect example of your Non sequitur thinking.

Not falling for it. Nice try. Please deposit one pound for the next five minutes...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Snowlover123,

I have a question for you. I have read reports that suggests evidence concerning cosmic rays and cloud formation. These reports will state that more clouds will have a cooling effect while fewer clouds will have a warming effect. Are you aware of any studies that are based on discovering what the global cloud population, density, type, etc. is for any cosmic ray event and any apparent lag, if any? This would have to be a global study for it to show a global effect. We already know that a cloudy day will quickly warm after the clouds pass. How many times have you welcomed a passing cloud overhead on a hot day and then moan as it passes by you?

I am also aware that clouds require water vapor in order to form. More water vapor allows for further cloud production. Yet, water vapor has a more potent greenhouse effect than does CO2. So while more cloud cover allows for a cooling effect, increased water vapor allows for a more heating effect. My train of thought tells me that increased cloud cover along with increased water vapor will have some degree of cancelling each other out. The more dominate force taking precedence over the other. ... Any thoughts on this? ... Anyone?

Added: Also, any study of a relationship between clouds and cosmic rays conducted on a global scale will need to be several decades long in order to show any long term trends. A 10 to 20 year study would not be long enough to show the trend.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Daisyworld, according to Dr. Scafetta who actually wrote his 2007 paper, not you, and not Gavin Schmidt, he found that they did not address his 2007 paper, which is one of the misleading statements in the Benestad and Schmidt paper.

So therefore, I repeat, the Benestad and Schmidt paper does not refute Scafetta and West 2007 since it did not address the methodologies in the 2007 and 2008 papers, it only addressed the mathematical methodologies in the 2005 and 2006 papers.

Therefore, the Benestad and Schmidt paper is not a refutation of Scafetta and West 2007 paper.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
Daisyworld, please read Dr. Scafetta's comments to the Benestad and Schmidt paper here.

From the Link:

Indeed, their criticism focuses only on Scafetta and West [2005, 2006a]. The other papers used different data and mathematical methodologies.

The Benestad and Schmidt paper does not address the 2007 paper that I posted, since it used different methodologies than the 2005 and 2006 papers that Schmidt and Benestad critiqued on. Therefore, this is not a refutation to their 2007 paper.


...Huh? What is your definition of "refutation"? They very much did address Scafetta and West 2007. Since you're selective in your critical analysis of the papers you read, I've made it easy for you:

From Benestad and Schmidt 2009 abstract (emphasis mine):
"We use a suite of global climate model simulations for the 20th Century to assess the contribution of solar forcing to the past trends in the global mean temperature. In particular we examine how robust different published methodologies are at detecting and attributing solar-related climate change in the presence of intrinsic climate variability and multiple forcings. We demonstrate that naive application of linear analytical methods such as regression gives non-robust results. We also demonstrate that the methodologies used in Scafetta & West [2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008] are not robust to these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported. Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 (plus/minus) 1% for the 20th Century, and is negligible for the warming since 1980."

From the conclusions (emphasis mine):
"We also repeated the analyses of Scafetta and West, together with a series of sensitivity tests to some of their arbitrary choices. These tests showed clearly that the published uncertainty in their estimates was greatly underestimated. In particular, the arbitrary assumption of their equilibrium sensitivity (Zeq) has a dramatic impact on their attribution of 20th century changes to solar forcing. We next showed that their methodologies were not able to robustly retrieve the solar contribution in GCM experiments where the answer was known a priori. In fact, we found that the presence of internal variability and additional forcings greatly confounded their method's accuracy. Even in much simpler cases, examined here using Monte Carlo simulations of synthetic climate time series, we found that their diagnostics had a very wide range in the absence of a true signal, so cannot be considered robust metrics of a solar- induced contribution."

We're finished here. Now please: Shush!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Daisyworld, please read Dr. Scafetta's comments to the Benestad and Schmidt paper here.

From the Link:

Indeed, their criticism focuses only on Scafetta and West [2005, 2006a]. The other papers used different data and mathematical methodologies.

The Benestad and Schmidt paper does not address the 2007 paper that I posted, since it used different methodologies than the 2005 and 2006 papers that Schmidt and Benestad critiqued on. Therefore, this is not a refutation to their 2007 paper.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


Where has the paper you claim as being refuted, been refuted in the scientific literature???

I am absolutely floored here, Birthmark. It is not that hard to provide one link to support your claims.


Snowlover123, the S&W 2007 paper has been refuted here, at the Journal of Geophysical Research via NASA. Now please, let's move on.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I've just been reading a piece about climate change theater - worth a read, IMO.

This paragraph jumped out at me as relevant to the current discussion...

Certainly neither work produced the gasps that greeted the close of Emmott's Ten Billion. We face a future in which billions will starve, he states. Britain, which could come off relatively lightly when 6C rises in global temperature take effect, will be turned into a military outpost dedicated to preventing waves of immigrants reaching our shores. (Disturbingly, senior army officers have recently become a common sight at climate conferences, says Emmott, although this at least suggests that the military perceives the dangers we face, even if politicians do not.)

Link

--

eta:

When the climate change "distractors" toss away the danger with simple-minded statements such as "We'll adapt" they ignore the problem of environmental refugees.

Are we willing to position our military along our boarders and shoot hungry people who are trying to move into our country in order to stay alive?

How will we react if Canada decides that its had enough of its southern neighbors escaping across its boarder and starts shooting us?

More importantly, why are we risking our futures when solving this problem is doable and would give us cheaper energy and transportation for a modest investment?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Some interesting points, Bob.

My question was based on an impulse, without any research, and you have provided some valuable points regarding yet another complex and important issue.

The military/industrial complex is such a huge budget drain and a major player in the political arena in the U.S. that it has to be considered when looking at CC/AGW and issues related to them.

I'll probably do some research and see if I can come up with a reasonably well documented post on the relationships in the web of the military, government, politics, and AGW/CC. Also, the influence of the military on general ("civilian") policies related to AGW/CC and it's potential impacts is worthy of investigation. (Then again, I may get discouraged by the complexity of it all and say "screw it.")
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
The U.S. Military and CC/GW...

Anyone here have any thoughts on why the Military, in spite of it's high percentage of conservative-minded members and incestual relationship with big business ("the military-industrial complex") has accepted the reality of GW/CC and peak-oil/liquid fuel energy problems? Apparently, much money and effort is being spent in response to these problems, in spite of the fact that the corporations in the "complex" spend tens of millions of dollars to deny that CC/GW or peak oil exist!!

Yet I see the military, especially in light of our unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afganistan wars, as a huge waster of fossil fuels and contributor to CO2 emissions and other pollution.

Is there some serious institutional cognitive dissonance going on here, or is it all part of a big strategy aimed at some goal that I can't quite figure out?


I concur with Bob Wallace's response to your query, with a few additional comments.

At the senior-most levels of the military and DoD, there has to be an honest assessment of all threats to national security. I've attended an unclassified threat briefings presented by an Army Brigadier General. At that time (2006/2007), the military was well aware that climate change would cause water shortages which could lead to regional conflicts. The US Navy Post Graduate School has conducted numerous studies regarding ice-melt in the arctic ocean as well as the threat of rising sea-levels. The Navy's chief meteorologist has already stated that every current seaport in the world will not be functional by 2100.

The Center for Analysis & Policy, which is a think tank comprised of retired senior Marine and Navy officers. In 2006, they published a 50+ page report on the national security threats of climate change.

The military's research and efforts to develop alternative energy sources, while laudable, is driven more by their awareness of Peak-Oil than an effort to reduce GHG emissions.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Yet I see the military, especially in light of our unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afganistan wars, as a huge waster of fossil fuels and contributor to CO2 emissions and other pollution.


It was not our military that put themselves into Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait (where all this started).

It was the politicians of the time who sent them there. And they (the military) has to fight with the weapons they have.

Knowing that fossil fuels is a major problem for the military, that delivering fuel to posts gets many of their members killed and puts their operations at risk gives the military good reasons to look for alternatives.

Why haul generator diesel to units day after day after day when you can ship in solar systems that require no fuel? Hauling fuel can cost as much as $300/gallon. The payback time for a solar system is calculated in days, not years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
The U.S. Military and CC/GW...

Anyone here have any thoughts on why the Military, in spite of it's high percentage of conservative-minded members and incestual relationship with big business ("the military-industrial complex") has accepted the reality of GW/CC and peak-oil/liquid fuel energy problems? Apparently, much money and effort is being spent in response to these problems, in spite of the fact that the corporations in the "complex" spend tens of millions of dollars to deny that CC/GW or peak oil exist!!

Yet I see the military, especially in light of our unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afganistan wars, as a huge waster of fossil fuels and contributor to CO2 emissions and other pollution.

Is there some serious institutional cognitive dissonance going on here, or is it all part of a big strategy aimed at some goal that I can't quite figure out?


The US military is somewhat politically conservative, but it makes efforts to keep politics out of its processes.

The US military is tasked with keeping America safe.

Some years back the military stated that global climate change was an emerging security risk for the US. And it is very clear to the military that oil is a risk source, both in terms of being the cause of wars and a potential reason why the US military could lose a war.

I would think that at this point in time the US military sees climate change and oil supply problems as being the largest threat to US security. There is no country that shows adequate hostility toward the US and the military capability to harm us to the extent that climate change and the interruption of oil flow can.

Additionally, it's probably not a good idea to paint all corporations with the global climate change denying of the coal industry. And I'm being purposely specific when I use "coal" rather than "fossil fuel". All the major oil companies have publicly stated that global climate change is happening and that human-produced CO2 is the reason.

If you look, you'll see companies like (conservative) WalMart installing solar panels and wind turbines and delivery companies such as (conservative) FedEx starting to incorporate electric delivery vehicles into their fleets.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. However, S&W (2007) has been thoroughly refuted in the peer-reviewed literature, which is what counts.

What you believe or don't believe is strictly a personal problem and has no bearing on the facts.


Where has the paper you claim as being refuted, been refuted in the scientific literature???

I am absolutely floored here, Birthmark. It is not that hard to provide one link to support your claims.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:
How much longer are you folks going to play with this obviously reality-challenged individual?

You're arguing with someone who has latched on to a small bit of information, used it to create a fantasy world, and is defending that faulty position by throwing up a shield which deflects any facts which don't support his/her/their position.

This is typical tinfoil hat, black helicopter behavior. These people are not subject to rational argument. They are so absolutely convinced that they are correct that anyone who disagrees with them has to be lying.

(Or you are getting jerked around by a very good troll who is playing the village crackpot.)

Climate change deniers and "It ain't the CO2" people are now largely a fringe of people who no longer should be taken seriously. They are now part the "Earth is flat", "vaccines cause autism", "smart meters do something bad", "fluoride in the water is plot by the United Nations to create a one world government" universe.

Serious people should not take them seriously.


Unfortunately, everything you have posted has been refuted by peer reviewed science. Once your claims have been refuted, and I then claim that since your claims have been refuted, the solar hypothesis still stands, you label me as being a troll?

Either you are seriously misguided, or have absolutely no idea about what a "troll" is.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Nah. I gave a reasonably succinct recap of what you are doing. I understand that that might be unpleasant since you really wanted to have the same discussion. lol

No sale. If you want your paper "un-refuted" you'll have to present some new evidence.

And I don't have pre-determined views. In point of fact, I've already changed my view in the last several years. I did it based on the available science, not just bits and pieces --and no crank science at all. I highly recommend that method.


Making up papers to support a belief very likely is an indicator that the belief is predetermined. I have presented much evidence to support my position. In the past two threads you came up with... One imaginary paper.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The U.S. Military and CC/GW...

Anyone here have any thoughts on why the Military, in spite of it's high percentage of conservative-minded members and incestual relationship with big business ("the military-industrial complex") has accepted the reality of GW/CC and peak-oil/liquid fuel energy problems? Apparently, much money and effort is being spent in response to these problems, in spite of the fact that the corporations in the "complex" spend tens of millions of dollars to deny that CC/GW or peak oil exist!!

Yet I see the military, especially in light of our unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afganistan wars, as a huge waster of fossil fuels and contributor to CO2 emissions and other pollution.

Is there some serious institutional cognitive dissonance going on here, or is it all part of a big strategy aimed at some goal that I can't quite figure out?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
How much longer are you folks going to play with this obviously reality-challenged individual?

You're arguing with someone who has latched on to a small bit of information, used it to create a fantasy world, and is defending that faulty position by throwing up a shield which deflects any facts which don't support his/her/their position.

This is typical tinfoil hat, black helicopter behavior. These people are not subject to rational argument. They are so absolutely convinced that they are correct that anyone who disagrees with them has to be lying.

(Or you are getting jerked around by a very good troll who is playing the village crackpot.)

Climate change deniers and "It ain't the CO2" people are now largely a fringe of people who no longer should be taken seriously. They are now part the "Earth is flat", "vaccines cause autism", "smart meters do something bad", "fluoride in the water is plot by the United Nations to create a one world government" universe.

Serious people should not take them seriously.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Coping with climate change

Published: Sunday, August 12, 2012 at 1:00 a.m.


In drought-scorched parts of the country these days, some farmland bears a resemblance to NASA's photos of Mars' barren plains.

Here on Earth, crops are suffering. On Friday, the federal Department of Agriculture cut by 17 percent its estimate for the corn crop and said the U.S. soybean crop is expected to drop, too. Soaring prices are forecast.

The drought stems from a number of causes, science suggests. But some of it appears to be consistent with the kind of long-term drying patterns seen in global-warming climate models.

Furthermore, James E. Hansen, a NASA expert in the field, issued a report last week tying man-made climate change to three severe heat outbreaks from 2003 to 2011.


Encouraging energy news

Although the drought is sobering, news on the energy front is actually heartening. New financing methods and shrinking costs have made it much easier for homeowners and businesses to embrace solar power. Air quality is improving as falling prices for natural gas drive more and more electric utilities to use this cleaner-burning alternative to coal. The U.S. military is investing billions of dollars in renewable energy.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It's warm, and the warming continues unabated as we continue to Pump Gigatonnes of Co2 and other into our Biosphere.

Malloy: climate change affecting Sound
Martin B. Cassidy
Published 10:06 p.m., Friday, August 10, 2012


NEW HAVEN -- Despite some triumphs reining in nitrogen and other environmentally harmful substances entering Long Island Sound, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and others said maintaining that progress will rely on efforts to address the complex consequences that global warming will have on preservation efforts.
Malloy took part in a panel discussion at the Sound School Regional Vocational School of Aquaculture in New Haven on Thursday. It was hosted by U.S. Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and drew more than a dozen federal and nonprofit participants to discuss efforts to preserve Long Island Sound.
"The water is definitely getting warmer, there is no doubt about that," Malloy said. "Climate change is already having an impact on the Sound, and it is getting faster."
Daniel Esty, commissioner of the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, said hundreds of millions in state funds for sewer plant upgrades in coming years will help consolidate progress that has been made since the late 1990s in curtailing nitrogen levels in the Sound.
Esty said, however, that overall conditions are also affected by sewage treatment plants in New York that are not as modernized, an effort that will require billions in investment.
"They need to invest and the level of federal support is not making that any easier," he said.
Officials expressed measured optimism about ongoing sewage plant modernizations and a general trend towards reduced nitrogen levels and better conditions for aquatic life, though are sobered by a continued die-off of lobsters and uncertainty about how climate change and associated factors such as sea level rise and fiercer storms will affect life in the state.
Lieberman, who is not running for re-election, said governmental efforts to grapple with hypoxic conditions in the Sound, along with greater environmental stewardship, has resulted in proactive efforts to curb the flow of sewage discharged from boats and fix outmoded plants that helped nurture hypoxia, the condition when low dissolved oxygen levels in water makes it uninhabitable for marine life.
"There was a time when we were acting as if we could do anything to the Sound and put anything in it and it could still remain as pure and beautiful as it was," he said.
Lieberman noted that even with vigilant efforts from private citizens along with state, local, and federal support, other states need to be committed to helping protect the resource for it to remain an ecologically vibrant estuary.
Of particular concern is the continued decimation of the state's lobster fishery, particularly in the western end of Long Island Sound, he said.
Warmer temperatures have also brought in new species of fish that will change the Sound's ecology, Lieberman said.
"We have reason to feel proud, but the lesson is, there is no rest for those seeking to protect this water body and make sure it remains as good as it can be," Lieberman said. "Unless we help the Sound it will not survive."
State Rep. Terry Backer, who has prominently supported efforts to explore the causes of an ongoing lobster die-off, said the next phase of preservation efforts will require exploiting available technologies for reducing polluted run off and update bans on environmentally harmful substances.
Still, progress on addressing issues is indicative of strong grassroots efforts, despite wide skepticism about whether man-made factors were having negative effects.
"The fact that we continue to find the public will and political will is a testament to the importance of this body of water," Backer said.
Blumenthal said environmental organizations along with the state's Congressional delegation also need to remain engaged to stop periodic proposals for industrial use of Long Island Sound that are environmentally harmful, including placing of underwater power cables through the water body.
Blumenthal is opposed to a possible sale of the federally owned Plum Island, an 840-acre island off eastern Long Island that could be developed into housing or kept as a nature preserve.
"It's very definitely a threat, partly because it is a unique and significant opportunity for use by residents of both Connecticut and New York for recreation and enjoyment but also because it is such a profoundly important habitat for birds and other habitat," he said.
Blumenthal said the continued decimation of the lobster population, whether due to warmer water, pesticides or chemicals in stormwater runoff, or a combination of factors, needs further research to understand and attempt to foresee how the Sound's ecology is changing.
"The lobsters are maybe a warning about something that is happening in the Sound which is very dire and dangerous whether they are dying off from water temperatures, pesticides or some other phenomenon," Blumenthal said. "It is one down note among several that need serious attention, including climate disruption, the potential impacts of fertilizer or pesticide run off, and the quality of the watershed that feeds the Sound."

203-964-2264, martin.cassidy@scni.com, twitter.com/martincassidyst


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Part of this reduction of CO2 emissions is probably due to our reduced amount of gasoline consumption as well. This is witnessed by our using less gasoline than in previous years. ... Being unable to afford gas prices is the new green? ;-)

Gasoline demand is weak

".... Demand for gasoline and other fuels is as low as it's been in a decade, ..."


In 2005 US passenger car average mpg was 30.1. By 2010 it had climbed to 33.9. That's about 12% less gas per mile driven. Light truck mileage increased about 11%.

Sometimes I think we don't celebrate success often enough. We need to recognize what is working so that we can find the energy to do more.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
Oh and Birthmark, a hint about my "disappearing"... People have lives outside of this forum, as much as that may surprise you. Nothing you have been posted, much to your dismay, has adequately debunked the Scafetta and West 2007 paper.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. However, S&W (2007) has been thoroughly refuted in the peer-reviewed literature, which is what counts.

What you believe or don't believe is strictly a personal problem and has no bearing on the facts.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


Nice attempt at a red herring, but ultimately, an unsuccessful attempt.

Why do you feel the need to make up a paper to support your predetermined views? That is just bizarre.

Nah. I gave a reasonably succinct recap of what you are doing. I understand that that might be unpleasant since you really wanted to have the same discussion. lol

No sale. If you want your paper "un-refuted" you'll have to present some new evidence.

And I don't have pre-determined views. In point of fact, I've already changed my view in the last several years. I did it based on the available science, not just bits and pieces --and no crank science at all. I highly recommend that method.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Oh and Birthmark, a hint about my "disappearing"... People have lives outside of this forum, as much as that may surprise you. Nothing you have been posted, much to your dismay, has adequately debunked the Scafetta and West 2007 paper.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Nice change of tactics. Fruitless, but a nice try. And you're wrong.

Look, you seem to think discussion works like this:

-You cite some bizarre paper.
-Someone else cites a refutation
-You disappear
-Time passes
-You reappear and cite same bizarre paper
-You then expect others to jump in the Mobius strip with you.

Others might have an interest in it. I do not. Your paper was refuted.


Nice attempt at a red herring, but ultimately, an unsuccessful attempt.

Why do you feel the need to make up a paper to support your predetermined views? That is just bizarre.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
See post 164 Xullon on why the 97 percent consensus does not reflect an actual consensus of scientists that support human activity as being the primary cause of the warming over the last 100 years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


I'm not trying to manipulate anyone... You really do like making unfounded assumptions, don't you?

I think it is you doing the manipulating. I was curious enough to see what paper you posted in the last thread, and surprise surprise, there was no paper that you posted that allegedly debunked the Scafetta and West 2007 paper.

Nice change of tactics. Fruitless, but a nice try. And you're wrong.

Look, you seem to think discussion works like this:

-You cite some bizarre paper.
-Someone else cites a refutation
-You disappear
-Time passes
-You reappear and cite same bizarre paper
-You then expect others to jump in the Mobius strip with you.

Others might have an interest in it. I do not. Your paper was refuted.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

I've already supported my claim. (You realize, don't you, that in the time you've wasted attempting to manipulate me, you could have easily found the paper in question? That's a pretty good indication that you are interested something other than the paper.)


I'm not trying to manipulate anyone... You really do like making unfounded assumptions, don't you?

I think it is you doing the manipulating. I was curious enough to see what paper you posted in the last thread, and surprise surprise, there was no paper that you posted that allegedly debunked the Scafetta and West 2007 paper.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


No, you need to provide support for your own claims, by your own self. I'm not going to search for the evidence to back up your claims. That's ridiculous.


I've already supported my claim. (You realize, don't you, that in the time you've wasted attempting to manipulate me, you could have easily found the paper in question? That's a pretty good indication that you are interested something other than the paper.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Your right. It wasn't hard at all. Finding it again should be fairly easy for you.

As I said, I'm only obligated to refute your assertions once. I did that (and so did several others) wrt S&W (2007). Your whining will avail you nothing.


No, you need to provide support for your own claims, by your own self. I'm not going to search for the evidence to back up your claims. That's ridiculous.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Nonsense. The particles formed in the CERN experiment were far too small to the job you need done to make the above statement. This is another example of you picking and choosing data nearly randomly to "support" a conclusion that you want to be true.

You are perfectly free to do that, of course, but your process is not scientific. Now, if you want to put "crank" in front "science", I think that that would be an acceptable summation of your position.


The particles initially formed were too small, however, as the Kirkby et. al 2011 paper actually said,

However, the fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to
sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets, as well as the role of organic
vapours in the nucleation and growth processes, remain open questions
experimentally.
These are important findings for the potential
link between galactic cosmic rays and clouds.


In other words, while the particle size is initially too small, they can grow to seed Cloud Droplets. What percentage of the nucleated particles grow into Cloud Droplets, however, remains to be seen.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Oh, sorry. It's just that I tend to laugh at ridiculously funny naked assertions about science from people who are anti-science.


Um, no. I provided that assertion with much support from peer reviewed science. You have yet to do such a thing.

I'll ask again, what specific part of my post did you feel to be so amazingly funny? Please share with us.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


Posting a paper shouldn't be too hard if it actually exists, Birthmark. Besides, I may not know what paper I am looking for.

Your right. It wasn't hard at all. Finding it again should be fairly easy for you.

As I said, I'm only obligated to refute your assertions once. I did that (and so did several others) wrt S&W (2007). Your whining will avail you nothing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

No, you are not doubting that the paper exists. What you are trying to do is manipulate. You fail.

(See: Previous thread if you are interested in the paper...which you are not.)


Posting a paper shouldn't be too hard if it actually exists, Birthmark. Besides, I may not know what paper I am looking for.

I am not going to search for a paper that may not even exist and waste my time. I am not going to search for evidence for your own claims. Stop being lazy, that is your job, not mine.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
DaisyWorld, the CERN paper doesn't prove or disprove anything about Cosmic Rays causing Global Warming. It actually provides one leg of support for the Cosmic Rays forming Clouds, since it has proven the first part of Svensmark's Theory: Cosmic Rays significantly enhance the nucleation rate for clouds.

Nonsense. The particles formed in the CERN experiment were far too small to the job you need done to make the above statement. This is another example of you picking and choosing data nearly randomly to "support" a conclusion that you want to be true.

You are perfectly free to do that, of course, but your process is not scientific. Now, if you want to put "crank" in front "science", I think that that would be an acceptable summation of your position.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


Care to share what you think is so funny about what I wrote?

Oh, sorry. It's just that I tend to laugh at ridiculously funny naked assertions about science from people who are anti-science.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Rookie, I shall respond later to your post once I get the chance.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


No, if this paper allegedly exists, you should have no trouble finding it and posting it once more.

I am starting to doubt that this paper actually exists.

Your last statement confirms that you don't want to talk about Climate Science anymore.

Still no evidence that I am cherry picking papers either it seems.

No, you are not doubting that the paper exists. What you are trying to do is manipulate. You fail.

(See: Previous thread if you are interested in the paper...which you are not.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
DaisyWorld, the CERN paper doesn't prove or disprove anything about Cosmic Rays causing Global Warming. It actually provides one leg of support for the Cosmic Rays forming Clouds, since it has proven the first part of Svensmark's Theory: Cosmic Rays significantly enhance the nucleation rate for clouds.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

LOL!


Care to share what you think is so funny about what I wrote?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

I told you where to find the paper. Making believe that it doesn't exist would be entirely consistent of you.

You are only interested in discussing very small parts of climate science. You are much more interested in discussing a weird hypothesis based on minority papers, bum science, and non-science. None of those are of any import in real science. There will always be odd-ball papers, poor papers, and charlatans.

I agree with Xulonn that the understanding psychology of the denialist is far more interesting and important than anything denialists have to say.


No, if this paper allegedly exists, you should have no trouble finding it and posting it once more.

I am starting to doubt that this paper actually exists.

Your last statement confirms that you don't want to talk about Climate Science anymore.

Still no evidence that I am cherry picking papers either it seems.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


2012s Historic Arctic Ice Melt

Where we've been:
2012 dipped below 1980s average minimum on July 21st.
2012 dipped below 1990s average minimum on July 30th.
2012 dipped below 2000s average minimum on August 8th.

Where we are:
About 14 days ahead of 2008
About 9 days ahead of 2011
About 4 days ahead of 2007

Where are we going this year?
Conditions appear very favorable to set another record low SIE this year:
- Remaining ice is very thin
- SSTs remain anomalously high
- GHG levels continue to rise
- Current weather forecast is favorable for more melting
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:


Sorry GT, the facts speak for themselves.


Ice chunks on Danube River causes chaos in Belgrade
T...four Balkan nations suspended shipping on the Danube today (Feb. 14) because of heavy ice on the river,
Link




Freezing conditions paralyze Danube River shipping
Wednesday - 2/8/2012, 2:34pm ET





Sorry. You are wrong. A cold wave is not the same as a cold winter any more than a few elephants escaping from a zoo means you are in Africa.

A better link would have been the wiki article.

But overall the winter was still warmer than normal and many ski slopes closed from lack of snow and subsequently went bankrupt. I will provide all the links you want.

However, you could easily provide this information yourself but you prefer lying and are, in general, scum.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Reuters report said the snow closed a section of a heavily traveled route between Johannesburg and the east coast city of Durbin, but that Johannesburg itself had avoided the snow. Nonetheless, the South African Weather Service had issued a red alert for cold in Johannesburg Tuesday and Tuesday night according to South Africa’s Independent Online (IOL).
The Cape Times reported the semi-desert town of Beaufort West - in the south central part of the country - received snow for the first time since 1981.
In the small town of Harrismith - about midway between Johannesburg and Durban - the IOL offered this colorful account:
Resembling the scene of an American Christmas movie, many children began rolling up huge snow balls for the bodies of the snowmen.
But instead of the “corn cob pipe, a button nose, and two eyes made of coal”, these frosties wore South African Springbok scarves and beanies.
“There’s no work today, we don’t have power, so we are out here to play with the kids,” resident Suzette Brits said.
The snow in Harrismith was the most there since 1992, the IOL reported.
But the IOL reported a serious side to the snow as well, bringing suffering to shack dwellers in the nearby township of Intabawe, who lack electricity.
It’s quite the year for snow in the Southern Hemisphere. The snow in South Africa comes one week after a crippling snowstorm impacted south Chile.
Related: Cape Town’s Table Cloth and Stunning Surroundings
By Jason Samenow | 10:45 AM ET, 07/26/2011
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:


You are absurd. I live in Europe and it was one of hte warmest winters ever, a few cold snaps aside. Many ski resorts went broke because of lack of snow.


Sorry GT, the facts speak for themselves.


Ice chunks on Danube River causes chaos in Belgrade
Trademark floating restaurant on barge sinks
The Associated Press
Posted: Feb 20, 2012 11:48 AM ET
Last Updated: Feb 20, 2012 11:45 AM ET


Why Did Europe's Danube River Freeze?
A "Russian winter" climate pattern is keeping Europe frozen, with a strong Siberian anticyclone hovering over northern Russia and triggering intense cold and snow, according to NASA
By Brett Israel and OurAmazingPlanet | February 14, 2012 | 21
Just how extraordinary has this winter been in Europe? The Danube river has frozen, for one.
Europeans have been shivering under a blanket of cold air that has sent temperatures plummeting and snows drifting. Across the continent, hundreds have died from exposure to the cold.
The Danube's freezing is just one of many severe winter events in the continent this year. Heavy snowfall has blocked roads and stranded towns in central Italy. A train in Montenegro was stranded on the tracks for three days due to heavy snow. Even Venice's famous canals froze, a rare feat.
At least four Balkan nations suspended shipping on the Danube today (Feb. 14) because of heavy ice on the river,
Link




Freezing conditions paralyze Danube River shipping
Wednesday - 2/8/2012, 2:34pm ET



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:
Besides don't forget the coldest winter in 400 years in Europe, just 6 month's ago.


Oh, you so funny.

Last winter in Europe was fairly toasty. Yes, there was a profoundly deep cold wave. But that intense blast of cold lasted two weeks--and as most anyone unaffiliated with Anthony Watts can tell you, winter lasts a least three months.

FWIW, as the Arctic completes its rapid anthropogenic transition to an ice-free state and all that heat is surrounded to the atmosphere, look for many more such storms and cold blasts. Far worse ones, in fact. No, they will not be evidence against AGWT, but rather evidence in direct support of it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:
Because sometimes we need some good news...

Since 2006, the U.S. has seen the largest reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of any country or region, according to a recent report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The report states that, during this time, U.S. CO2 emissions have fallen by 7.7 percent or 430 million metric tons, primarily due to a decrease in coal use. This decrease in carbon emissions is equal to eliminating the annual greenhouse gas emissions from more than 84 million passenger vehicles or more than 53 million homes.

While America has long been criticized by the international community for not taking a leadership role in reducing carbon emissions, it’s clear now that the work being done to move the country beyond coal is having a significant effect. Coal was responsible for 33 percent of U.S. electricity last month, down from 50 percent just 10 years ago. According to analysis by the Vancouver Observer, CO2 emissions from the average American are now at the same levels that they were in 1964.

What’s more, these reductions put America on track to meet and even exceed the goal President Obama set in the Copenhagen Accord of decreasing U.S. CO2 emissions by 17 percent by 2020.


Link

Bolding eftir mér


Part of this reduction of CO2 emissions is probably due to our reduced amount of gasoline consumption as well. This is witnessed by our using less gasoline than in previous years. ... Being unable to afford gas prices is the new green? ;-)

Gasoline demand is weak

".... Demand for gasoline and other fuels is as low as it's been in a decade, ..."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:


My suggestion would be look inward, at the C&C who
can't walk away fast enough.

Link

Besides don't forget the coldest winter in 400 years in Europe, just 6 month's ago.



As i said before, you are absurd. I live in Europe and it was one of hte warmest winters ever, a few cold snaps aside. Many ski resorts went broke because of lack of snow.

This is typical of the supposed facts you post and is typical of the reasons why everyone here thinks you are full of methane. You should have stayed with the long time wasting type absurd articles that no one outside of the passionate here are going to read. that would have won you more points with the lurkers I suspect.

However, to me you've lost credibility by posting this falsehood already, why should anyone believe anything else you say when you are so quick to lie.

But I'm still waiting for you're response on action. What do you suggest? Is it coincidentally the same as the coal / oil industry? What do you think the American policy should be towards the global warming that you acknowledge exists?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
Rookie, I don't have a problem with the data, what I have a problem with, quite the opposite, it is people's dismissal of the data with no foundation. The lack of evidence for AGW being responsible for most of the warming over the last 150 years is a reason for skepticism. In fact, there is not a shred of observational proof that can only be explained by Carbon Dioxide that suggests a dominant role for the trace gas in the Glonal Warming over the last 150 years. So my question for you is this, why are you so convinced that Carbon Dioxide is the primary driver of climate change over the last 100 years, despite the lack of observational evidence for such a hypothesis?


Let us start at the top -

"I don't have a problem with the data, what I have a problem with, quite the opposite, it is people's dismissal of the data with no foundation."

Fair enough. Let us say, for the sake of this debate, that your claim everyone is dismissing the data you have presented to us is a valid claim. What is your excuse for dismissing all of the data given you that supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change? I will not belittle your intelligence any further. I feel quite certain that you very aware that there is a world of difference between the meaning of a scientific theory as opposed to a personal theory or even a scientific hypothesis.

"The lack of evidence for AGW being responsible for most of the warming over the last 150 years is a reason for skepticism."

You will need to bring the evidence that supports this claim. First we need to come to terms as to what AGW stands for. Plain and simple, it is an acronym that stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming. What does "anthropegenic mean?

Anthropogenic - Caused by humans: anthropogenic degradation of the environment.

Is clear cutting forests anthropogenic?

Is plowing under natural grasses that provide year round ground cover and replaced by seasonal crops anthropogenic? Add to this that the plowed fields are usually left void of ground cover during the absence of growing seasons.

Is the draining of swamp lands for farming and building construction anthropogenic? Wetlands that are now replaced dry land.

Is the removal of trees and ground cover for the purpose of strip mining anthropogenic?

Is the construction of roadways anthropogenic? Roads that are now covering land that was forested or had year round ground cover and provided for the absorption of rain water.

Is the deforestation of the rain forests anthropogenic? - The Disappearing Rainforests - This one is important. Rain forests once covered 14% of Earth's land surface. This has been reduced to 6% of Earth's land area and declining annually. (That is nearly a 58% reduction in our rain forests) Rain forests play a significant part in our global climate. What happens if the tropical land masses become too arid to help support the moisture needed to help tropical storms form? What conduit is then used to transport heat from the tropics towards the polar regions?

While all of the above effect regional climates, once you have changed the climate of enough regions, you have impacted the global climate.

Now, something that is the topic of discussion and is happening on a global scale -

Is the burning of fossil fuels that results in the release of tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere anthropogenic?

Now, how do you substantiate your claim that there is a lack of evidence for AGW being responsible for most of the warming over the past 150 years? After all, all that I show examples of being anthropogenic have happened on the grandest of scales over the past 150 years. Nearly each successive year being more prolific than the previous year. We await your evidence to the contrary.

"In fact, there is not a shred of observational proof that can only be explained by Carbon Dioxide that suggests a dominant role for the trace gas in the Glonal Warming over the last 150 years."

"Proof", is a powerful word. Then you add the caveat of being "observational". Without me being in agreement or disagreement with this statement, what is your "observational proof" that it is not? - If you wish to merely play games, I'll play. ... Uh, the ball has been returned to your side of the court without a play being made on it. Should you return it out of bounds, I will not attempt to make a play for it. A hypothesis or an opinion is out of bounds. ... Just so that you know the rules, we are talking about observational proof.

"So my question for you is this, why are you so convinced that Carbon Dioxide is the primary driver of climate change over the last 100 years, despite the lack of observational evidence for such a hypothesis?"

The primary driver? Well, I could answer this subjectively, with a strong overlap, and claim that CO2 is the primary culprit of the current warming. See my questions to you as to what you think qualifies as anthropogenic. Keep in mind that all of these process either emit CO2 or restrict its natural intake by the environment. Deforestation actually emits CO2 and destroys a natural carbon sink. A double whammy, you might say.

Now, is there any observational evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, even in trace amounts? What I offer to you now is far from what a real scientist would call a scientific experiment. However, it is an interesting demonstration and with reasonable controls in place. - Myhtbusters tests global warming theory

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Methane is also a greenhouse gas. There needs to be far less of a trace of methane in the atmosphere to have the same greenhouse effect as CO2. In other words, it not as much a concern about its concentration as it is its potential to make a change at a given level of concentration. ... Take a hamster, as an example, and place it in a device that you can control everything that hamster needs to stay alive and this is including its atmosphere. We will only alter its atmosphere in terms of its CO2 concentration and in no other way. Temperature, RH and pressure will be maintained at a constant level. All other survival needs will be met. Slowly introduce, in a ppm/minute, CO2 into the hamster's atmosphere. Note the ppm of CO2 needed before the hamster begins to exhibit signs of having any adverse effects. Continue adding a ppm/minute of CO2 and note when the hamster ceases to live. Will the amount of CO2 needed to complete this study be just a trace amount?

Let us take a moment and go back to your devotion to and worship of Apollo. Let us say, for the sake of this debate, that our sun has increased its heat potential and that this potential is being transferred to Earth. The Earth would warm, would it not? But, some of this heat would be radiated back out into space, would it not? What happens when you introduce a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere? Is more of the heat trapped and not radiated back out into space? ..... Welcome to the AGWT! Does it begin to make more sense now?

Would you like to see some examples of what an atmosphere, and its components, of a planet does in terms of a planet being able to retain the heat supplied by our sun? - I hope that you said yes. - Do you want to look at something a little closer to home? Our moon lacks an atmosphere. What happens to its temperatures when the sun ain't a shinin'?

Now, I ask you again. Why do you keep dismissing the data? You are not the victim here. You are trying to impress the uninformed that you are being victimized by us. We are not victimizing you. Your data is!

Throughout your countless and repeated posts of the same data, here is what you have failed to accomplish:

1. Failed to invalidate the AGWT.

2. Failed to scientifically dismiss the AGW.

3. Failed to over turn The Laws of Physics.

4. Failed to over turn The Laws of Thermodynamics.

5. Failed to eliminate Chemistry as a source of information that supports the AGWT.

6. Failed to disprove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (Even in trace amounts. That, by the way, is favored point made by denailists and not by skeptics.)

Get back to me when you are able to succeed at any one of these problems facing you in convincing anyone with any understanding of science with your data.

I will concede to you that science does not have the answers to all that effects our climate. You do not have any data that shows science cannot work with what is known and come to a viable, scientific conclusion.

Secretly, I do wish I was as prolific as you at posting to a blog. If I were as prolific as you at this, I would start my own blog! ;-) .... Perhaps you do have your own blog and your ability to be so prolific with your posts is a result of copying and pasting from your own blog? .. A possibility?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Because sometimes we need some good news...

Since 2006, the U.S. has seen the largest reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of any country or region, according to a recent report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The report states that, during this time, U.S. CO2 emissions have fallen by 7.7 percent or 430 million metric tons, primarily due to a decrease in coal use. This decrease in carbon emissions is equal to eliminating the annual greenhouse gas emissions from more than 84 million passenger vehicles or more than 53 million homes.

While America has long been criticized by the international community for not taking a leadership role in reducing carbon emissions, it’s clear now that the work being done to move the country beyond coal is having a significant effect. Coal was responsible for 33 percent of U.S. electricity last month, down from 50 percent just 10 years ago. According to analysis by the Vancouver Observer, CO2 emissions from the average American are now at the same levels that they were in 1964.

What’s more, these reductions put America on track to meet and even exceed the goal President Obama set in the Copenhagen Accord of decreasing U.S. CO2 emissions by 17 percent by 2020.


Link

Bolding eftir mér
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 363 - 313

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.