Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Under the title An Antidote for Climate Contrarianism at the New York Times Green Blog, Justin Gillis reviews an updated primer on the subject by MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel, focusing on the books value in clarifying the climate change argument. But under eleven grafs of organic compost Gillis buries his discomfiting lede: Emanuel believes that unless were willing to get serious about nuclear energy, its all just talk.
At the journal Earth System Dynamics, M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor have published a paper titled Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming which Anthony Watts describes as a potential bombshell. The authors conducted an exhaustive statistical analysis of data from 1850 through 2007, applying the technique of cointegration, which the authors describe as follows:
That belief is at odds with the scientific community, Pew noted, citing a 2013 report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that concluded “with 95% certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.” The Pew survey was conducted between May 10 and June 6 as a part of an examination of public attitudes about scientific research related to climate change and genetically modified foods. The survey found that only 28% of Americans surveyed believe that climate scientists understand the causes of climate change “very well’- compared to 32% who said that scientists had a "not at all well" understanding of the causes of climate change
It also suggested that despite their skepticism over the cause of climate change, Americans still tend to trust information on it provided by climate scientists over other sources, including the energy industry, the news media, and elected officials. Pew reported that 39% of those surveyed said that they trust climate scientists “a lot to give full and accurate information”, while only 7% answered that they trust energy industry leaders and the news media to do so. Only 4% of survey respondents said they trusted elected officials to provide accurate information on climate change.
The study also found a deep divide between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, with 54% of liberal Democrats saying they believe that climate scientists understand the causes of climate change “very well” - a view supported by only 11% of conservative Republicans. Moderate- to- liberal Republicans and moderate- to- conservative Democrats fell somewhere in between that wide 43% gap. However, roughly two-thirds of those surveyed (67 percent), believe climate scientists should have a major role in making policy decisions about climate change, compared to 56% of Americans who believe that the general public should have a major role.
Pew: Only 27% of Americans Believe There is Consensus That Human Activity Causes Climate Change
Obviously, AlGore, Kerry don't have their thumbs on the pulse of the public...
Pew: Only 27% of Americans Believe There is Consensus That Human Activity Causes Climate Change
December 7, 2016 – A recent survey by the non-partisan Pew Research Center found that a large majority of Americans are skeptical about the prevailing scientific understanding of climate change, with only 27 percent saying they believe there is a consensus that human activity is its main cause.
That belief is at odds with the scientific community, Pew noted, citing a 2013 report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that concluded “with 95% certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.” The Pew survey was conducted between May 10 and June 6 as a part of an examination of public attitudes about scientific research related to climate change and genetically modified foods. The survey found that only 28% of Americans surveyed believe that climate scientists understand the causes of climate change “very well’- compared to 32% who said that scientists had a "not at all well" understanding of the causes of climate change
It also suggested that despite their skepticism over the cause of climate change, Americans still tend to trust information on it provided by climate scientists over other sources, including the energy industry, the news media, and elected officials. Pew reported that 39% of those surveyed said that they trust climate scientists “a lot to give full and accurate information”, while only 7% answered that they trust energy industry leaders and the news media to do so. Only 4% of survey respondents said they trusted elected officials to provide accurate information on climate change.
The study also found a deep divide between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, with 54% of liberal Democrats saying they believe that climate scientists understand the causes of climate change “very well” - a view supported by only 11% of conservative Republicans. Moderate- to- liberal Republicans and moderate- to- conservative Democrats fell somewhere in between that wide 43% gap. However, roughly two-thirds of those surveyed (67 percent), believe climate scientists should have a major role in making policy decisions about climate change, compared to 56% of Americans who believe that the general public should have a major role.
Pew: Only 27% of Americans Believe There is Consensus That Human Activity Causes Climate Change
A freezer malfunction at the University of Alberta in Edmonton has melted part of the world’s largest collection of ice cores from the Canadian Arctic, reducing some of the ancient ice into puddles. “For every ice-core facility on the planet, this is their No. 1 nightmare,” glaciologist Martin Sharp said. The ice cores — long cylinders extracted from glaciers — contain trapped gases and particles that offer a glimpse into atmospheric history. “When you lose part of an ice core,” Sharp said. “You lose part of the record of past climates, past environments — an archive of the history of our atmosphere. You just don’t have easy access to information about those past time periods.”
The university had recently acquired the dozen cores, or 1.4km of ice, drilled from five locations in the Canadian Arctic, and carefully transported them from Ottawa to Edmonton. The samples were moved into the university’s brand new, custom-built C$4 million (US$3 million) facility earlier this month. Days later, one of the freezers tripped a high-heat alarm. “The way in which the freezer failed meant that it started to pump heat into the freezer,” Sharp said. “So it wasn’t just a question of it gradually warming up... It was actually quite rapidly raised to a temperature of 40?C.” Sharp rushed to the walk-in storage freezer to survey the damage and found steaming puddles gathered around the millennia-old ice. “It was more like a changing room in a swimming pool than a freezer,” he said.
About 13 percent of the archive had been exposed to high heat, representing more than 180m of ice. None of the cores were completely destroyed. “There are some which are clearly toast and there are others which are not obviously very much affected,” Sharp said. An ice core from the Penny Ice Cap on Baffin Island lost about a third of its mass, amounting to about 22,000 years of history, while a core from Mount Logan, Canada’s tallest mountain, saw 16,000 years melted away. However, much of the collection was unaffected by the malfunction, thanks to a stroke of luck. A television crew had been documenting the ice core move and had asked that the samples be put in a second freezer because the lighting was better. The university complied, storing nearly 90 percent of the collection in an unaffected freezer. “That’s basically what saved us,” Sharp said.
The question is now whether any research can be carried out on the affected cores. “This incident will affect research, no question,” Sharp said. “It rules out certain studies that we might have wanted to conduct on the cores, such as reconstructing continuous long-term histories where parts of the cores have been lost or contaminated.” As returning to the Arctic to replace the damaged ice cores would be a costly endeavor, the focus is now on regularly monitoring and safeguarding the ice cores that are left. “It’s by no means a write-off from a scientific point of view,” Sharp said. “It’s just disappointing to have this happen at all.”
Freezer failure sees 22,000 years of history evaporate - Taipei Times
The canceled part of the $17 million, four-year study involved the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Amundsen, which was scheduled to sail through the area making scientific measurements and observations.
But the southward flow of Arctic sea ice, caused by climate change, led to unusually severe ice conditions along the northern coast of Newfoundland, where the Amundsen is involved in marine safety operations. That meant the ship could not depart for Hudson Bay, a huge ocean basin in northeastern Canada, in time to meet the research objectives.
A male polar bear walks along the shore of Hudson Bay near Churchill, Manitoba
Forty scientists from five Canadian universities planned to study the impact of climate change on Arctic marine and coastal ecosystems. However, the reminder of the study will continue, and scientists say results so far indicate that climate change already affects environments and communities, not only in the north but also in the south of Canada.
Climate Change Study Canceled Because of Impact of Climate Change
Just another dingleberry with zero credentials in science. Right wing fruitloop.And then comes this:
New Study Finds No Significant Human-Induced Warming
by John Hinderaker @ the Power Line blog
At the journal Earth System Dynamics, M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor have published a paper titled Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming which Anthony Watts describes as a potential bombshell. The authors conducted an exhaustive statistical analysis of data from 1850 through 2007, applying the technique of cointegration, which the authors describe as follows:
Read more @ New Study Finds No Significant Human-Induced Warming | Power Line
