The Sun affects our weather??? Oh Noooooo!

[Babbabud]

Im beginning to think we should just close this thread. Doesnt matter what studies are put up or what proof is put out neither side is hearing it .... so perhaps this thread has just run its course. I would guess that if there are anymore personal insults it will just get closed.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

We can all lessen our individual impact in different ways. Unless you don't want to. Carbon caps aren't going to affect us like they'll affect major polluters.

Once their impact is lessened, we'll already have more electric cars, wind and solar farms, etc. More residential and commercial panels means more power for the grid.

I venture even you'll get a kick out of your (future) energy producing panels, grapeman.

 

[ijim]

I wonder how many millions in government grants it took to observe this eye opening phenomena? Tighten your belts.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

In one way or another, we've been studying AGW for more than 100 years. Wouldn't be surprised if it amounts to billions.

 

[bentom187]

10 year studies dont prove much from a global cycle perspective anyway not much does.

 

[grapeman]

M. Mann's tree ring study fatally flawed. But we already knew that.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/...ee-height-shrinks-with-increased-temperature/

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

M. Mann's tree ring study fatally flawed. But we already knew that.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/...ee-height-shrinks-with-increased-temperature/

(Skeptical Science) The skeptics argument...

Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
'Perhaps the most infamous example of this comes from the "hide the decline" email. This email initially garnered widespread media attention, as well as significant disagreement over its implications. In our view, the email, as well as the contextual history behind it, appears to show several scientists eager to present a particular viewpoint-that anthropogenic emissions are largely responsible for global warming-even when the data showed something different.' (David Lungren)

What the science says...

Select a level...

Basic
Intermediate
Advanced

The "decline" refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.


There are a number of misconceptions concerning Phil Jones' email. When one takes the time to read the email and understand the science discussed, the misconceptions are easily put into proper context.
The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature

Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and demonstrates ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.


Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature and hence tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem".



Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
The "decline" has nothing to do with "Mike's trick".

Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline".



Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:

"A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". Mike is Michael Mann, said "hey, trick just means mathematical trick. That's all." My response is I'm not worried about the word trick. I'm worried about the decline."
​

Muller quotes "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline" as if its Phil Jones's actual words. However, the original text indicates otherwise:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
​

It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (in other words, "trick of the trade") by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.


There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. To claim this is some sort of secret, nefarious "trick", or to confuse this with "hide the decline", displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead.


The "decline" has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995

While skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret, the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.


The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a short quote, often misquoted and taken out of context, doesn't change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

If you already have your mind made up, it's still easy to discern the spin.

 

[longearedfriend]

not only does it affect the weather, he affects our moods

 

[grapeman]

not only does it affect the weather, he affects our moods

Happy to be a positive influence in your life!!

Don't live in fear. do a bit of research.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

 

[grapeman]

You liked that eh? LOL

 

[grapeman]

We can all lessen our individual impact in different ways. Unless you don't want to. Carbon caps aren't going to affect us like they'll affect major polluters.

Once their impact is lessened, we'll already have more electric cars, wind and solar farms, etc. More residential and commercial panels means more power for the grid.

I venture even you'll get a kick out of your (future) energy producing panels, grapeman.

BTW - now that even the most liberal among us have read the news and finally understands that the US government is out of money, I would bet that you will be seeing less and less solar deployed.

It's hard to build solar farms and install panels on your roof when the government isn't subsidizing 50% of the cost.
The ROI just isn't there yet. Maybe in a decade or 2.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

BTW - now that even the most liberal among us have read the news and finally understands that the US government is out of money, I would bet that you will be seeing less and less solar deployed.

It's hard to build solar farms and install panels on your roof when the government isn't subsidizing 50% of the cost.
The ROI just isn't there yet. Maybe in a decade or 2.

(bizmology.com)

Global green energy investment hits a record — $211 billion

For green energy skeptics, a recent report is a real eye-opener.
According to the UN-backed report, the global investment in renewable energy in 2010 was a record $211 billion, up 32% over 2009 and 540% greater than in 2004.

The Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2011 report, produced by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management in Germany, and Bloomberg New Energy Finance, also revealed that China accounted for more than 20% of the total increase in 2010. China invested $48.9 billion, up 28% over 2009.

According to the report, 2010 was the first year in which developing countries surpassed developed economies in the amount of capital they invested in renewable energy activities. Investment growth in the Middle East and Africa was up 104% to $5 billion dollars. India grew 25% to $3.8 billion dollars. Latin America had an increase of 39%, to $13.1 billion

The global surge in investment is due to a number of factors, including national clean energy regulations, government subsidies for cleaner power development, and government stimulus money in the wake of the 2008 financial crash. Companies with major investments in renewable energy include Canadian Solar, Iberdrola Renovables, Scottish and Southern Energy, Plambeck Neue Energien, Clipper Windpower, Endesa, Gamesa, EDP Renováveis, and General Electric.

While renewable power (excluding hydroelectric plants) only made up 8% of the world’s power generation capacity in 2010, it accounted for 34% of the additional capacity brought online last year. Wind dominates the renewables sector and accounted for almost half of all investment in 2010, solar power (including a myriad of small-scale installations) is quickly catching up, and there is growing investment in biomass and waste-to-energy projects.

The report makes a bold claim – “The tipping point where renewables becomes the predominant energy option now appears closer than it did just a few years back.”

Tipping point? Really?

Well, per the report’s documentation, in early 2011, 119 countries had policies or targets in place to support the development of renewable energy. The UN has 193 member countries, so in terms of global coverage, renewable energy has arguably reached a tipping point.

However, to put that $211 billion in annual investment in perspective, Exxon Mobil alone reported revenues (primarily from conventional oil and gas) of $388.2 billion in 2010. In addition, Saudi Arabia is burning oil at its power plants to keep up with rising domestic demand for electricity.

Renewable energy still has a long way to go.
http://www.bizmology.com/2011/07/21/global-green-energy-investment-hits-a-record-211-billion/

 

[grapeman]

A UN study?

Come on discoman, how about some real info.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Yes sir, the UN panel is part of the climate science community.

What is it about skeptics that assume they can cherry-pick away the evidence? None of their science pans out so the counterfeiter (Watts) keeps up the noise.

Is there a recognized skeptic website, other than a blog? Something that might be the skeptic equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences. A place where they might keep records of all studies that either failed peer-review or were deemed inconsequential.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/stop-the-environment_n_922022.html

 

[grapeman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/stop-the-environment_n_922022.html

You can't be serious.

Let's see. 3 months ago, the credit agencies warned congress and the prez that they needed to cut 4 trillion in spending or face a credit down grade. It was widely reported.

Prez and Harry Reid refused the cut, cap and balance bill, which was tailor made to do just that. So we ended up with the same ole shit that cuts nothing but raised the debt ceiling.

And the huffington post blamed the tea party for the down grade. Not harry reid or the prez, the tea party. You know the people all across the country that look like your mom and dad but don't get to vote but once every 2 years.

Now that's some serious, honest reporting. The huffington post is just an appendage of the DNC. No honesty there.... never has been. Do you need more flat out, on it's face lies that they report as fact? Let me know. but that's the biggest outright lie ever told in the media in the last 5 years. AWG is a close second.

LOL

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Government isn't gonna buy our new energy technologies. They'll give incentives and conservatives are all about tax breaks.

I know you don't like the idea of changing your setup but wouldn't that be less prone to rebuke than declaring:

agw doesn't exist due to non-scientific-method conclusions...

green tech will never amount to much (when green energy accounted 34% of new energy in 2010)

and nobody will spend the money (when we spent 211 billion globally in 2010 alone.)

In other words, nobody can argue the idea you don't want to change, (never mind the fact that industrialized gasses mean a bleaker future for new grapemen) or it's some kind of politically progressive direction you don't wish to take.

You're not likely to influence opinions that haven't already made up their minds with wattsupwithwatts. Folks of your political persuasion probably already think like you. So why all the wanna-be science?

 

[grapeman]

Chicago Climate Exchange.

Closing 1st quarter of 2012.

Gentlemen, when there is no more money to be made from a business or a scam, the business or scam closes it's doors.

I think this says it all doesn't it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Chicago Climate Exchange.

Closing 1st quarter of 2012.

I think this says it all doesn't it.

Like a cow says it's an ox. It doesn't actually 'say' anything at all. Doesn't make it an ox.

Gentlemen, when there is no more money to be made from a business or a scam, the business or scam closes it's doors.

Like selling a new bucket with a big shovel o' crap in it.

(New York Times) - NEW YORK -- The nation's first experiment in carbon emissions cap and trade has come to an end, but its mark on the climate change industry will be felt for some time to come.

The second commitment period for member companies of the Chicago Climate Exchange ended as of Dec. 31, 2010, and there will be no new cycle to ring in the new year. Exchange trading in the allowances the system generated, known as Carbon Financial Instruments (CFIs), to meet emission reduction commitments ends, as well, although CFI generation will continue as a strictly voluntary greenhouse gas emissions offset system.


Meanwhile, CCX's sister institutions, the European Climate Exchange and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange, will continue as long as there is corporate and state government interest in fighting climate change, even with the failure of cap and trade in the U.S. Congress, CCX officials insist.


And former member companies say they have no regrets about participating in the admittedly flawed system. They praise the lessons they learned ahead of the slow spread of state-driven cap-and-trade initiatives from the Northeast to California and possibly the West.


"We're glad to have had the experience," said Jennifer Orgolini, sustainability director at New Belgium Brewing Co., one of the smallest former members. "I don't regret joining it."


Though celebrated by climate activists at its launch in 2003, CCX became plagued by a flood of credits from offset project generators that collapsed the CFI market, sending exchange prices to a nickel per unit. Highlighting this collapse, many in the U.S. carbon trading community openly questioned the legitimacy of the system itself, putting founder Richard Sandor and his team on the defensive at periodic carbon market conferences held in Washington, D.C., and New York.


So when the new parent company IntercontinentalExchange announced the end of mandatory CFI trading by member companies in October, much of the media reacted with quasi obituaries for CCX itself. Coming as it did on the heels of failed climate legislation in Congress, a fiasco at international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark, and the collapse in the price for allowances under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), CCX's closure seemed to confirm the death of the very concept of cap and trade itself.


Calif. keeps hope alive


But California's recent moves toward mandatory emissions trading is breathing new life into the market. RGGI officials are also in talks to reform their system. And CCX officials say that although they've closed their contractually binding trading platform, they aim to leverage their relationship with some of the nation's largest companies to revitalize the voluntary carbon market, while maintaining their dominant position as the largest host of trading in a variety of environmental commodities.


"The point was to get companies familiar with allowances and trading, and how to do that and how to use offsets and exchange them on a platform. And that has all been accomplished," said Lisa Zelljadt, an analyst at the carbon market research firm Point Carbon. "So with the advent of mandatory programs like RGGI and now California ... the sort of experimental value of CCX as it was is over."


But new participants are still welcome, says Brookly McLaughlin, a CCX spokeswoman.


"They can participate through ... the offsets registry," she said. "The credits will be offset project driven" and will continue to be called CFIs, McLaughlin added.


The central problem hurting mandatory carbon markets globally has been an abundance of allowances at the start of the programs, usually in the face of weak demand.


Prices at the European Union's Emission Trading System nearly fell through the floor after political haggling led governments to overallocate allowances to influential industries. E.U. allowance prices have recovered since the first commitment period but still face downward pressure from a weak economy.


Likewise, RGGI allowances are now at their legal price floor after a shale gas boom in Pennsylvania transformed the energy mix in the 10 Northeastern member states.


Transitioning to offsets only
Carbon market experts say the CFI market suffered the same fate, but for different reasons.


Unlike in other systems, CFIs were both allowances and emissions offsets credits. Offset project developers could generate CFIs in the system even as they faced no obligation to purchase the allowances to meet reduction commitments faced by the 450 member companies.


Thus, demand for the allowances was relatively fixed, while supply was seemingly endless. CFIs once traded as high as $7.50 per metric ton of CO2-equivalent emissions, but as of last Friday, the exchange trading price was just 5 cents, the same price they've been at for more than a year.


"Quite frankly, the market has pretty much collapsed," said James Hugh, who handles CCX transactions for the utility PSEG. "There really isn't all that much to do there."


CCX officials say the picture is skewed because 95 percent of trades occur in so-called over-the-counter (OTC) transactions that don't show up in spot trading data. OTC market prices have held better in recent months, averaging $3.41 as late as October last year.


In fact, the obvious preference for OTC trading is what led IntercontinentalExchange to kill the open exchange platform. Member companies were polled prior to the decision, and most reported back that they preferred that no third commitment period be offered and instead favored the new approach, a transition to just offsets, CCX officials say.


Hugh admits that PSEG will likely be left with more CFIs than it needs when the company fulfills its obligations to CCX and finishes its reporting requirements this year. Member companies were mandated to accomplish a cut of at least 6 percent of their baseline emissions reductions during the second commitment period, but were free to exceed that target.


Company says it values CCX experience


Hugh guesses several companies are in the same situation with regard to their CFIs and will simply do what PSEG plans to -- bank them in the hopes that a future cap-and-trade system will accept them.


"I would expect that people will probably continue to hold onto them if they have them immediately, because honestly, there's not much else to do with them at this point," he said. "To the extent that there's some program in the future that recognizes them, people will hold them for that."


Orgolini at New Belgium Brewing, a small craft beer maker based in Fort Collins, Colo., says she likely will have to turn in all the company's remaining CFIs when it and other companies report in over the next couple months. But she admits that, as one of the smallest CCX members, with a light carbon footprint, her company's trading activity wasn't all that extensive.


"Our emissions were on the scale of just a handful of CFIs," she said. "For several years, we just held onto our credits. We didn't trade them, and then in later years, as our growth kind of overcame our reductions, we applied those credits."


But Orgolini insists that her firm is happy to have been a member. The chance to join the nation's only carbon trading platform back in 2003 was one her environmentally conscious firm couldn't pass up, she said.


Despite the market collapse and lax enthusiasm for continuing the system as is, CCX's new Atlanta-based managers at IntercontinentalExchange say they consider the experiment a success. CCX's creators, who have since moved on to form the advisory service Environmental Financial Products LLC, declined to comment for this report.


CCX says its 450 members achieved reductions of 700 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the seven-year life of the cap-and-trade program, 88 percent through direct industrial emission cuts and 12 percent through offsetting. Its final estimated average price for the CFI throughout the term comes to $3.26 per metric ton, about comparable to other voluntary offsets credits sold in the United States.


"It has provided cost-effective and market-based flexibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through an exchange platform with price transparency and independently verified reductions," the company boasted in a release. "CCX facilitated investment in new businesses, technologies and innovative products and helped companies to build the skills and institutions needed to manage climate risks."


And despite its negligible impact on the larger fight against climate change, all in all, the Chicago Climate Exchange was a worthy endeavor, said Zelljadt.


"Definitely, the businesses that participated in CCX have gained some valuable experience," she said.


"They dealt with actual emissions units, emissions permits, the things you deal with in an emissions trading system. And that's very useful."

Clarification: An earlier version carried a headline stating that CCX was closing; CCX will in fact remain open, though its cap-and-trade system has ended.

Copyright 2011 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/0...closes-but-keeps-ey-78598.html?pagewanted=all

Once again your half-truths, no truths, no science rebuttals have run their course. Skeptics have but a single card they've yet to play. When you can no longer deny the inevitable, you'll just blame the science community itself for global warming, lol.


Doesn't matter the issue, it'll always get this us-vs-them point of view. Us-vs-them has zero solutions. It's purpose is to perpetuate fear of change.