NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 234 of 323 < 1 2 ... 232 233 234 235 236 ... 322 323 >
Topic Options
#1115099 - 16/07/2012 16:40 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654



Greenland Melting

Record temps in Greenland and decreasing reflectivity of the Greenland ice sheet is causing massive meltwater outflows.

Watch Video

link



_________________________

Top
#1115100 - 16/07/2012 16:47 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Is warming making Alaska more extreme? Don't count on it.

AlaskaDispatch

I'll just add a few extracts of this story as it is 3 pages long (note - make sure you click the 'pages' at the bottom of the article)

Excuse me, but it's once again time to call B.S. on the venerable New York Times. The old, gray lady of journalism, as it has been called, Sunday featured a front-page story apparently written by some 12-year-old claiming mountaineering is getting more dangerous in Alaska because of changes in the weather.

The evidence for this? A random comment from mountaineering ranger Tucker Chenoweth. Here is what he said, according to The Times:

"The extremes are becoming more extreme,' said Tucker Chenoweth, a mountaineering ranger at Denali National Park and Preserve. Mr. Chenoweth trains search and rescue teams on McKinley from the ranger station here in Talkeetna, which oversees the mountain and its expeditions about 60 miles from base camp.

"In a strange way, Mr. Chenoweth and other experts said, wild places like McKinley are getting wilder, or at least harder to predict."


"The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2011,'' according to the Alaska Climate Research Center at the prestigious Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, "however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations."

In other words, not to pee on the global-warming bandwagon or anything, the fact is Alaska hasn't been warming of late. Average temperatures have basically held steady since the late-1970s in the 49th state. Temperatures in the Mount McKinley jump-off point of Talkeetna, specifically, blipped up in the early 2000s, but since about 2006 they are near smack on where the mean would be for the period 1975 to 2012.
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1115128 - 16/07/2012 20:13 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: snafu]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654


Arctic warming at high rates

The combination of melting sea ice and global atmospheric warming are contributing to the high rate of warming in the Arctic, where temperatures are increasing up to four times faster than the global average, a new University of Melbourne study has shown.

Professor Ian Simmonds from the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Sciences co-authored the study and said the new information showed this combined effect at both ground and atmospheric level played a key role in increasing the rate of warming in the Arctic.

“Loss of sea ice contributes to ground level warming while global warming intensifies atmospheric circulation and contributes to increased temperatures higher in the Arctic atmosphere,” Professor Simmonds said.

Lead author, Dr James Screen of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne said the sea ice acted like a shiny lid on the Arctic Ocean.

“When it is heated, it reflects most of the incoming sunlight back into space. When the sea ice melts, more heat is absorbed by the water. The warmer water then heats the atmosphere above it,” he said.

Professor Simmonds said as temperatures increase across the globe, so does the intensity of atmospheric circulation.

“This circulation transports energy to the Arctic region, increasing temperatures further up in the atmosphere,” he said.

“Water vapour is a very strong greenhouse gas. As the atmosphere warms it can hold more moisture, which acts as a positive feedback signal, increasing the greenhouse effect. However, in the cold Arctic where there is less moisture in the air, this positive feedback is much weaker hence the ‘direct’ greenhouse effect is smaller in the Arctic than elsewhere.

“Even though the Arctic region has a relatively small greenhouse effect, the effect of the melted ice combined with greater transports of heat from the south are more than enough to make up for this modest ‘local’ greenhouse warming.”

The study was published in the prestigious Geophysical Research Letters and featured in Nature as one of ‘The most viewed papers in science’.

link
_________________________

Top
#1115129 - 16/07/2012 20:18 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Better let the Melb Uni know about this then hey.... wink
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1115196 - 17/07/2012 11:44 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: snafu]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
By its actions, the IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Unreliable

Posted on July 16, 2012by Anthony Watts

(1)http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/16/by-its-actions-the-ipcc-admits-its-past-reports-were-unreliable/
(2)http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz20pStqHvE


Foreword: Readers may recall that we covered the InterAcademy Council finding here on WUWT, in IAC slams IPCC process, suggests removal of top officials followed by IPCC’s Pachauri should resign for “failures of leadership” Now, with virtually no notice, the IPCC has implemented a change in response to these findings, essentially admitting their past work was flawed both procedurally and factually. As a sidenote, we have Donna Laframboise to thank for much of the work in uncovering flaws in the IPCC. – Anthony

By Joseph L. Bast

On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had “complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world’s science academies to provide advice to international bodies.”

Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story. The IPCC is the world’s most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as “proof” that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis.



If the IPCC’s reports were flawed, as a many global warming “skeptics” have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement — the environmental movement’s “mother of all environmental scares” — is undermined. The Obama administration’s war on coal may be unnecessary. Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted. Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to “fix” a problem that didn’t really exist.

The “recommendations” issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure. Here are some of the findings of the IAC’s 2010 report.

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25).

Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”

Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:


Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).

How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?

Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony “confidence intervals” and estimates of “certainty” in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34). Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as “80% confident.” Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.

The IAC authors say it is “not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty” (p. 34), a huge understatement. Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called “level of understanding scale,” which is more mush-mouth for “consensus.”

The IAC authors warn, also on page 34, that “conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of ‘very high confidence’ will have little substantive value.” Yes, but that doesn’t keep the media and environmental activists from citing them over and over again as “proof” that global warming is man-made and a crisis…even if that’s not really what the reports’ authors are saying.

Finally, the IAC noted, “the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input” as well as “the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review” (p. 46).

Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all. That’s a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.

So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. — go ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and promises to do better for its next report. Nothing to see here…keep on moving.

Well I say, hold on, there! The news release means that the IAC report was right. That, in turn, means that the first four IPCC reports were, in fact, unreliable. Not just “possibly flawed” or “could have been improved,” but likely to be wrong and even fraudulent.

It means that all of the “endorsements” of the climate consensus made by the world’s national academies of science — which invariably refer to the reports of the IPCC as their scientific basis — were based on false or unreliable data and therefore should be disregarded or revised. It means that the EPA’s “endangerment finding” — its claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and threat to human health — was wrong and should be overturned.

And what of the next IPCC report, due out in 2013 and 2014? The near-final drafts of that report have been circulating for months already. They were written by scientists chosen by politicians rather than on the basis of merit; many of them were reviewing their own work and were free to ignore the questions and comments of people with whom they disagree. Instead of “confidence,” we will get “level of understanding scales” that are just as meaningless.

And on this basis we should transform the world’s economy to run on breezes and sunbeams?

In 2010, we learned that much of what we thought we knew about global warming was compromised and probably false. On June 27, the culprits confessed and promised to do better. But where do we go to get our money back?

Joseph L. Bast (jbast@heartland.org) is president of The Heartland Institute and an editor of Climate Change Reconsidered, a series of reports published by The Heartland Institute for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz20pStqHvE

_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1115254 - 17/07/2012 16:32 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
THE INSIDERS: IF CLIMATE CHANGE WAS A CONSPIRACY, WHERE ARE WHISTLEBLOWERS?

“Human beings are not very good at keeping secrets; individual self-interest is not interchangeable with group interest and the two are often in conflict, most particularly among small groups of plotters…” – James Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency

Jeffery Wigand is a hero.

As Vice President for Research and Development at the tobacco company Brown & Williamson he discovered the company was deliberating adding ingredients to make their product more addictive. He was fired from his role for this discovery.

However, in 1996 he stated this truth in a 60 Minutes interview that definitively proved to the public what many had been saying: the tobacco industry had not only been lying about the harm of their products, but actively working to make them more addictive.

Wigand appeared on television despite repeated death threats.

Peter Buxtun is another hero.

In 1972 he exposed the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. It was a horrific experiment overseen by the US Public Health Service in which the disease to run rampant amongst poor black men. The intent was to better understand the course of the disease if left untreated. The men thought they were receiving free medical treatment and financial benefits, while never told they had syphilis.

No secret – no matter how closely guarded its holders believe it to be – is safe.

It is human nature to confess, or disclose.

Disputes amongst like-minded conspirators will drive some to leak documents or crucial facts to the media. This is especially so in the age of Wikileaks, Twitter and 24 hour news.

Which is why we can say with absolute certainty climate change is not a conspiracy orchestrated by scientists or communists.

What is remarkable for a science that has been understood since the early 1800s is the lack of whistleblowers; there are no climate science equivalents like that of Wigand or Buxton.

There are no scientists coming forth and saying “Look, we faked this temperature data”.

Not a single environmentalist has stepped forward to showcase a treasure trove of documents demonstrating the workings of a cabal dedicated to taking over the world.

Indeed, we have the very opposite: there is increasing certainty about the science. Every national science academy in the world affirms and supports the word of thousands of scientists.

The work of 97% of those actively researching climate change supports the view human activities are changing the climate.

There are literally millions of scientists, engineers, software programmers, policy makers, activists, writers and members of the world’s military and business community working on climate change and related environmental issues. They have been toiling away on the research and policies for years.

And yet somehow we are expected to believe these millions have managed to maintain a vast conspiracy of silence over decades. Just how probable is that?

How could this enormous conspiracy, spanning the globe and generations, still exist without at least one conspirator breaking ranks and coming forth with the damning evidence?

Perhaps we should follow the dictates of Occam’s Razor and look for the simplest, most rational answer: climate change is real.


link


_________________________

Top
#1115263 - 17/07/2012 17:13 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
You crack me up CeeBee. Did you take the time to read the article directly above yours:

Quote:
So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. — go ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and promises to do better for its next report.

On June 27, the culprits confessed and promised to do better.


Who's the biggest whistleblower?

It's the IPCC themselves... poke
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1115264 - 17/07/2012 17:14 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2336
Loc: Mt Barker - SA
Lol re read climategate emails..even our BOM gets a mention!
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1115266 - 17/07/2012 17:36 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Anthony Violi]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2270
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Anomalies Errors in ACORN_SAT Data

Ed Thurstan

July 14, 2012

Ever since the documentation for ACORN-SAT was released, I have had doubts about the ability of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to honour their published intention to release all software that generated the ACORN-SAT data. ( I might amplify that thought later.)

In March 2012 the BOM released the report

“Techniques involved in developing the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) dataset CAWCR Technical Report No. 049 Blair Trewin

This specifies in great detail both the background to the development of the database, and the checks applied to the data. As Blair Trewin writes in the Abstract of this report:

“The purpose of this data set is to provide the best possible data set to underlie analyses of variability and change of temperature in Australia, including both analyses of annual and seasonal mean temperatures, and of extremes of temperature and other information derived from daily temperatures.”

I decided to take that document as a Program Specification, and write code to perform those data checks.

The very first check specified in section 6.1 of the above report is

“1. Internal consistency of daily maximum and minimum temperature

Since the temperature recorded at the time of observation (09:00 under current practice) is an upper bound for minimum temperature on both the day of observation and the following day (i.e. Tnd ≤ T0900,d and Tnd+1 ≤ T0900,d), and a lower bound for maximum temperature on both the day of observation and the preceding day (i.e. Txd ≥ T0900,d and Txd-1 ≥ T0900,d), daily maximum and minimum temperatures must satisfy the relationships:

Txd ≥ Tnd

Txd ≥ Tnd+1

If one or both of these relationships was violated, both maximum and minimum temperatures were flagged as suspect unless there was strong evidence that any error was confined to one of the two observations.”

In testing my code for the first of the two conditions specified above (which says simply that the maximum temperature recorded on any day must be greater than the minimum temperature recorded for that day), I found violations of this condition in the BOM data.

The following are extracts from the full violation log. The errors occur in many different sites and are spread across many decades:


http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/boms-ne...max/#more-22725



Our BOM manages to list over one thousand instances where the Max daily temp is lower than the Min ? and we are supposed to believe them when they tell us it is warming.

Top
#1115271 - 17/07/2012 18:28 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: marakai]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
There are other obvious issues with ACORN... and that is the obvious adjustments. As people look closer at the data-set, other obviously wrong temps will fall out. For example:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn/sat/data/acorn.sat.minT.023090.daily.txt

The above is the Min temps for Adelaide from ACORN. If you look there, these are the temps for Jun / Jul 1933.

19330620.....4.8
19330621.....3.3
19330622.....1.9
19330623.....3.6
19330624.....3.3
19330625.....4.8
19330626.....8.0
19330627.....8.0
19330628....10.8
19330629.....6.0
19330630.....1.6
19330701.....5.5
19330702.....5.2
19330703.....1.7
19330704.....9.5
19330705.....8.3
19330706....10.2

Which of course is rather interesting as there was a newspaper headline highlighting that the lowest temp for that year happened on 3 July!

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/46984954?zoomLevel=4

Why make a headline out of a temp that is just 0.3C lower than that on 22 June and actually higher than that on 30 June?

And - if you convert the "lowest air reading was 37.4 degrees" to Celcius... you get 3.OC.

Pointed out at Warwick Hughes http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1661

Where there also is a coomparison of the ACORN and "RAW" figures for the site.

These are the types of adjustments that make those who dig into real data - suspicious that there is a manufactured trend.
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1115282 - 17/07/2012 19:11 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Arnost]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
I think the data has been Mannhandled myself, It has also probably be enHansened a fair bit too.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/16/kiwi-weather-station-data-shenanigins-going-to-court/ May also be of interest to some.
_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1115291 - 17/07/2012 21:07 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
(1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/ne...-homgenization/

New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homgenization




Posted on July 17, 2012by Anthony Watts


From the told ya so department, comes this new peer reviewed paper recently presented at the European Geosciences Union meeting.

Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].

Here’s the part I really like: of 67% of the weather stations examined, questionable adjustments were made to raw data that resulted in:


“increased positive trends, decreased negative trends, or changed negative trends to positive,” whereas “the expected proportions would be 1/2 (50%).”

And…


“homogenation practices used until today are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments, and are rarely supported by metadata. It can be argued that they often lead to false results: natural features of hydroclimatic times series are regarded as errors and are adjusted.”

The paper abstract and my helpful visualization on homogenization of data follows:

Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization

Steirou, E., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2012, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 14, Vienna, 956-1, European Geosciences Union, 2012.

We investigate the methods used for the adjustment of inhomogeneities of temperature time series covering the last 100 years. Based on a systematic study of scientific literature, we classify and evaluate the observed inhomogeneities in historical and modern time series, as well as their adjustment methods. It turns out that these methods are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. In many of the cases studied the proposed corrections are not even statistically significant.
From the global database GHCN-Monthly Version 2, we examine all stations containing both raw and adjusted data that satisfy certain criteria of continuity and distribution over the globe. In the United States of America, because of the large number of available stations, stations were chosen after a suitable sampling. In total we analyzed 181 stations globally. For these stations we calculated the differences between the adjusted and non-adjusted linear 100-year trends. It was found that in the two thirds of the cases, the homogenization procedure increased the positive or decreased the negative temperature trends.

One of the most common homogenization methods, ‘SNHT for single shifts’, was applied to synthetic time series with selected statistical characteristics, occasionally with offsets. The method was satisfactory when applied to independent data normally distributed, but not in data with long-term persistence.

The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.

Conclusions
1. Homogenization is necessary to remove errors introduced in climatic time series.

2. Homogenization practices used until today are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. It can be argued that they often lead to false results: natural features of hydroclimatic time series are regarded errors and are adjusted.

3. While homogenization is expected to increase or decrease the existing multiyear trends in equal proportions, the fact is that in 2/3 of the cases the trends increased after homogenization.

4. The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is smaller than 0.7-0.8°C.

5. A new approach of the homogenization procedure is needed, based on experiments, metadata and better comprehension of the stochastic characteristics of hydroclimatic time series.


Full text:
■Presentation at EGU meeting PPT as PDF (1071 KB)
■Abstract (35 KB)

h/t to “The Hockey Schtick”

=============================================================

_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1115293 - 17/07/2012 21:08 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
__PG__ Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 08/02/2010
Posts: 706
The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States
Originally Posted By: McCright and Dunlap, Global Environmental Change, Volume 21, Issue 4, October 2011[/quote

We examine whether conservative white males are more likely than are other adults in the U.S. general public to endorse climate change denial. We draw theoretical and analytical guidance from the identity-protective cognition thesis explaining the white male effect and from recent political psychology scholarship documenting the heightened system-justification tendencies of political conservatives. We utilize public opinion data from ten Gallup surveys from 2001 to 2010, focusing specifically on five indicators of climate change denial. We find that conservative white males are significantly more likely than are other Americans to endorse denialist views on all five items, and that these differences are even greater for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well. Furthermore, the results of our multivariate logistic regression models reveal that the conservative white male effect remains significant when controlling for the direct effects of political ideology, race, and gender as well as the effects of nine control variables. We thus conclude that the unique views of conservative white males contribute significantly to the high level of climate change denial in the United States.

Top
#1115295 - 17/07/2012 21:24 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: __PG__]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
I'm safe then.....I'm a white Aussie...from Or-stray-li-a... grin
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1115296 - 17/07/2012 21:25 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: __PG__]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
I can only derive from your repeat on that article _PG_ that you are a green skinned hermaphrodite who believes that the People's Paradise of North Korea is your choice of a socialistic heaven on earth where the leadership pronounces what you have to believe and all your fellow green skinned hermaphrodites bow on bended knee and say "Kooommm"! or whatever green skinned hermaphrodites always say on bended knee!

A bit shorter than your quote above but of a similar level of the veracity.
You really do like to indulge your green skinned self in some weirdos _PG_ !

Top
#1115306 - 17/07/2012 22:23 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: ROM]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics

Carbon prices fall to new record low — $4 per ton (Australians will pay $23 — that’s 500% more!)

(1) http://joannenova.com.au/ Currently lead story on Jo Nova - graphs etc click on the link.

So much for that global “free” market.

Scott the trader writes to explain that the EU “CER” credits are the ones people can buy and exchange for Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) but they have sunk to $4. The more expensive $9 EUA units that most commentators mention, are not exchangeable in the Australian market:

“The EU CER price is equivalent to about A$3.80 per tonne… Almost $20 below Australia’s fixed price. These are the products most comparable to Australia’s $23/Tonne as it will be CERs that we can surrender instead of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) to satisfy an Australian Clean Energy Scheme liability. It is incorrect as most media commentators are doing in Australia to compare to EUAs which are at about $9 Australian. Australia cannot access EUA’s to satisfy our carbon liabilities. The only comparison is $3.80/T for a CER and $23/T for an ACCU.”

So most commentators are comparing the wrong type of carbon credits, and the Australian market is even more overpriced than people recognize. Australians will be paying 500% more than the largest carbon market in the world.

The Australian scheme is the most expensive, and most ambitious in the world. On top of that we are a distant market based heavily on fossil fuels.



[Source: eeX CER prices 2010 - Jul 2012]


LONDON, July 16 (Reuters Point Carbon) – CER prices sank to a new low on Monday within touching distance of 3 euros as traders continued to offload the offsets amid plentiful supply of cheaper ERUs, which can also be used for compliance in the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme.

The benchmark December 2012 secondary CER contract closed at 3.18 euros, the day’s high, but down 2 percent on Friday’s close as traders continued to unwind long positions.

In afternoon trade the U.N. offset slid to a record low of 3.08 euros.

“The feeling is that with increased ERU supply coming into the market, there’s not much reason to hold onto CERs, particularly because of oversupply in the carbon market as a whole,” said one trader, adding that 3 euros was a critically- important support level.

(Paywall protected)

Natural gas prices are falling, so electricity producers are switching to the cheaper and lower emission fuel, which means they don’t need to buy as many carbon permits.

As I’ve said all along, those who call for a “free market” solution are the ones who don’t know what a real free market is.



H/t Scott the trader.

UPDATE: This AAP article July 1, 2012 explains that Australian’s who buy cheap CER units have to “top up” the amount to the government approved price of $15 per unit:

“Traders are also awaiting final rules on how to implement the floor price on international units. An Australian emitter that buys a foreign carbon offset, such as UN-backed Certified Emission Reductions (CER), below the floor price will have to pay money to the government to ensure it did not get the offset cheaper than $A15.”

The Climate Spectator confirms that it is the CER price that the Australian and New Zealand schemes are tied to.

“While the Australian Government will not recognise all types of CERs, for the most part these credits can be used as a one for one replacement with Australian permits. Therefore the price of Australian permits has the potential to be heavily tied to the price of CERs just as occurs under the New Zealand emissions trading scheme.”
_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1115316 - 17/07/2012 23:02 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
That's why we're known as the 'clever country'... cool
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1115319 - 17/07/2012 23:40 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: snafu]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
or should that be the 'lucky country'?........one to many TED's I think... cheers
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1115320 - 17/07/2012 23:59 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: __PG__]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2270
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Quote:
Originally Posted By: __PG__
The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States
[quote=McCright and Dunlap, Global Environmental Change, Volume 21, Issue 4, October 2011

We examine whether conservative white males are more likely than are other adults in the U.S. general public to endorse climate change denial. We draw theoretical and analytical guidance from the identity-protective cognition thesis explaining the white male effect and from recent political psychology scholarship documenting the heightened system-justification tendencies of political conservatives. We utilize public opinion data from ten Gallup surveys from 2001 to 2010, focusing specifically on five indicators of climate change denial. We find that conservative white males are significantly more likely than are other Americans to endorse denialist views on all five items, and that these differences are even greater for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well. Furthermore, the results of our multivariate logistic regression models reveal that the conservative white male effect remains significant when controlling for the direct effects of political ideology, race, and gender as well as the effects of nine control variables. We thus conclude that the unique views of conservative white males contribute significantly to the high level of climate change denial in the United States.
[/quote][/quote]

Sad... very, very sad. Not only model based but also a sign of the political diatribe used to inflict a sense of self worthiness over those they see as non conformist. IE, the reason you do not agree with us is because you are white and are conservative.
Now if I was to examine whether Black people who voted for the greens were more likely to support the belief in AGW than White people who voted for the greens I wonder what sort of reception I would get and how long before the lawsuits would follow?

(Sarc) We utilize public opinion data from ten Gallup surveys from 2001 to 2010, focusing specifically on five indicators of climate change belief. We find that progressive black males are significantly more likely than are other Australian's to endorse Warmist views on all five items, and that these differences are even greater for those progressive black males who self-report understanding global warming very well.(Sarc/)

Snip

(Sarc)We thus conclude that the unique views of progressive black males contribute significantly to the high level of belief in climate change in Australia.(Sarc/)

Quite stupid really and adds nothing at all to the debate.


Edited by marakai (18/07/2012 00:02)

Top
#1115321 - 18/07/2012 01:48 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: marakai]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2270
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Throw this into the mix of adjusted raw data as well.

Quote:
New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homgenization
Posted on July 17, 2012 by Anthony Watts

I’m going to make this a top post for a day, new posts will appear below this one. Dr. Richard Muller and BEST, please take note prior to publishing your upcoming paper (I’ve sent them a notice).- Anthony

From the told ya so department, comes this new peer reviewed paper recently presented at the European Geosciences Union meeting.

Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/ne...ion/#more-67591


When you put all this into context you really have to ask just what is it that the current Global temperature is being measured against ?

Apparently Alice springs records themselves are responsible for 7-10 % of our continents temperature average.



If this is representative of what is seemingly going on worldwide then is it even warming as we are told?

The satellites tell us so but they have been adjusted to match the models, Argo told us that it was cooling but then they were adjusted to match the models as were the satellites. GHCN told us it was cooling until that was adjusted and all other global temperature records are based on GHCN data.

Just today legal action has begun in N.Z against NIWA, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research by a skeptic group holding the government agency to account for adjusting earlier records down and thereby showing a steep current rise in temperature that just is not there in raw the raw data.

BOM itself was apparently looking at serious FOI request's and auditing before announcing the ACORN series due to similar errors and adjustments but avoided such investigation .

Quote:
A team of independent auditors, bloggers and scientists went through the the BOM “High Quality” (HQ) dataset and found significant errors, omissions and inexplicable adjustments. The team and Senator Cory Bernardi put in a Parliamentary request to get our Australian National Audit Office to reassess the BOM records. In response, the BOM, clearly afraid of getting audited, and still not providing all the data, code and explanations that were needed, decided to toss out the old so called High Quality (HQ) record, and start again. The old HQ increased the trends by 40% nationally, and 70% in the cities.

So goodbye “HQ”, hello “ACORN”. End result? Much the same.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/threat-...s-same-results/

The result as noted above is beyond the joke when it comes to any sort of serious interpretation or historical comparison when trying to note any sort of change be it warming or cooling. And the same must in turn be said for any scientific paper attempting to or which has based any serious science on the adjusted BOM records. Just the discrepancies noted in the last few pages alone between the raw data and HQ and Acorn records should be cause for an independent audit.

If the record cant even match the highs and lows consistently what good is it for scientific comparison and what use is it as a record at all?

Top
Page 234 of 323 < 1 2 ... 232 233 234 235 236 ... 322 323 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 42 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Blinky_Bill, Blue Sky, cmonrain, hydzy79, Simon Clarke, V8R
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529242 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image