That funny line came from a Seinfield episode. Dr Singer discusses the result of the BEST research by Dr Muller. The results did show that there was a warming in the land based temperatures from the 1950s till 2000. However the ocean based temperatures and atmosphere showed no warming. Zero, none, nada, zilch.
"What the BEST result shows is that surface thermometers from the land area of the globe (about 29% of the earth's surface) show a warming trend. But this is not global warming. And BEST director Professor Rich Muller explicitly disclaims that his trend results indicate a human cause.
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 1:18pm
If you look at the ocean temperature data, there are no temperature increases found. If you look at the satellite temperature data, there are not temperature increases. If you look at the land temperature data, the global temperatures have not increased since 1998. It appears now that the Artic is recovering its ice and is at normal levels, the Antartic never was a problem. The sea levels are going down not up. The only thing showing global warming are the climate modeling. The actual data does not show it.
Yet we continue to waste money and effort on global warming. The EPA continues to insist that we regulate CO2 emissions. Why?
I realize our government has good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would like the madness to stop.
Submitted by scharrison on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 10:41am
On a recent Diane Rehm Show focused on the impacts of approaching Climate Change, the host was driven to ask "Why?" Why does a certain subset of individuals (and scientists) refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that atmospheric carbon levels have surpassed the danger point and are affecting climate on a global scale?
The answer to that question doesn't lie in the scientific data, it's in our heads. Both psychological and sociological triggers come into play, and we'll take a look at each.
Submitted by wade norris on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 3:30pm
In September of 2009, just after back to back earthquakes in Samoa and Indonesia, I wrote an article entitled "Climate Change: A whole lot of shaking going on" where scientists have theorized that earthquakes are increasing due to an unlikely cause: Climate Change.
The theory is that while earthquakes on different tectonic plates do not cause others to occur, for instance the Samoan and Indonesian quakes happened within one day of each other, they can be correlated to other quakes and seismic activity, specifically to 'glacial quakes' caused by fast melting and moving multi-ton glaciers on Greenland.
Water is rising three times faster on the N.C. coast than it did a century ago as warming oceans expand and land ice melts, recent research has found. It's the beginning of what a N.C. science panel expects will be a 1-meter increase by 2100.
Storms, Young said, are "the hammer" of rising seas. As storm surges pound ashore on a higher base of water, their damage multiplies. The Outer Banks, some scientists predict, could disintegrate into a string of high spots - Avon, Buxton, Ocracoke - reachable only by boat.
And almost completely ignored by the media is the continued warming of the 21st Century:
Submitted by persondem on Fri, 09/10/2010 - 11:26pm
With apologies to Harlan Ellison, I shall begin this post by stating that what follows is very much speculation. The future is not set in stone.
Collisons can be very scary, and so are those moments just prior to the crunch of metal, moments when tires squeal, brakes burn and stomachs lurch. A collision is coming, and I just might know when.
An island of ice more than four times the size of Manhattan is drifting across the Arctic Ocean after breaking off from a glacier in Greenland. Potentially in the path of this unstoppable giant are oil platforms and shipping lanes - and any collision could do untold damage.
Few images can capture the world's climate fears like a 100-square- mile chunk of ice breaking off Greenland's vast ice sheet, a reservoir of freshwater that if it collapsed would raise global sea levels by a devastating 20 feet.
Of course, it is not a clear-cut comparison because some people voted against the flawed resolution to make a point about process or simply to support the science. It is significant to note that we have 10 more votes in favor of reducing carbon emissions than we did the last time climate change was discussed on the Senate floor two years ago.
Submitted by OrganicGeorge on Sun, 02/28/2010 - 10:29am
..."Nearly eight years and a reported $250 million in venture-capital investment later, Sridhar has a working product that’s been in field trials for the past two years and is about to go on the global market, at a price he says will be competitive with existing energy options. As for results: in an ongoing trial at the University of Tennessee, a five-kilowatt Bloom box (the size of a large coffee table and capable of powering a 5,000-square-foot house) has proved twice as efficient as a traditional gas-burning system and produced 60 percent fewer emissions."....
It's been a while--a couple busy months for me. I'm going to try to get back in the habit of posting stuff at least somewhat regularly now. I'll start by finishing up the climate change series I was working on before.
In part 1 and 2, I discussed the threats posed to humanity by global warming, and some policy tools being implemented to stop it. In this part, which I think is the coolest, and most encouraging, part, I'll discuss technologies that will enable us to pollute less while maintaining our energy-intensive lifestyles.
BlueNC is a labor of love. Views expressed by any particular community member are simply that: the views of that particular member. If you have questions or concerns about the content you see here, please contact us.