Greenland melting breaks record 4 weeks early

[ScienceRocks]

Greenland melting breaks record 4 weeks early

There already was a suspicion that this year would become a record year for Greenland ice melt, after all the real-time information we received from Dr. Jason Box with regards to the reflectivity of the Greenland Ice Sheet (see Dark side of Greenland), the extremely high temperatures in much of Greenland leading to above freezing temperatures at the 3200 m high Summit Camp in the middle of the Greenland Ice Sheet, leading to 97% of the ice sheet showing signs of melting at one point (see Unprecedented Greenland ice sheet surface melt), and huge amounts of water coming down the hill in Kangerlussuaq on the west coast of Greenland (see Wet side of Greenland).

Melting over the Greenland ice sheet shattered the seasonal record on August 8 – a full four weeks before the close of the melting season, reported Marco Tedesco, assistant professor of Earth and atmospheric sciences at The City College of New York.
The melting season in Greenland usually lasts from June – when the first puddles of meltwater appear – to early-September, when temperatures cool. This year, cumulative melting in the first week in August had already exceeded the record of 2010, taken over a full season, according to Professor Tedesco’s ongoing analysis.

“With more yet to come in August, this year’s overall melting will fall way above the old records. That’s a goliath year – the greatest melt since satellite recording began in 1979,” said Professor Tedesco.

Greenland melting breaks record 4 weeks early - Arctic Sea Ice

 

[Truthmatters]

I guess the koch brothers study is right about GW

 

[ScienceRocks]

I guess the koch brothers study is right about GW

True,

There's no calling the arctic ice melt throughout the arctic a fraud. It is just a fact. I could post satellite imagines(visible) proving this is so. Sure, they can say what they want about global temperature, but it appears that we have gotten to a point that it doesn't really matter.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And that's because of the 2PPM of CO2 that was added between last year and this or is it ocean acidification this time?

 

[Old Rocks]

And that's because of the 2PPM of CO2 that was added between last year and this or is it ocean acidification this time?

re.....tard.........

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, at least those deep in denial will be able to diss Hansen and the IPCC once again. Obviously, they got it wrong, back in 2007. Things are melting way faster than the 'Alarmists' predictions. And the consequences of that melt are being felt decades ahead of the predictions.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well, at least those deep in denial will be able to diss Hansen and the IPCC once again. Obviously, they got it wrong, back in 2007. Things are melting way faster than the 'Alarmists' predictions. And the consequences of that melt are being felt decades ahead of the predictions.

And the obvious implication would be Ray???


Well...ok........a rhetorical ? but the real question is, what do we do with this information??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And that's because of the 2PPM of CO2 that was added between last year and this or is it ocean acidification this time?

re.....tard.........

fail

science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And that's because of the 2PPM of CO2 that was added between last year and this or is it ocean acidification this time?

re.....tard.........

 

[RollingThunder]

Well, at least those deep in denial will be able to diss Hansen and the IPCC once again. Obviously, they got it wrong, back in 2007. Things are melting way faster than the 'Alarmists' predictions. And the consequences of that melt are being felt decades ahead of the predictions.

but the real question is, what do we do with this information??

Well, sane people might try to act on it and support a hefty tax on carbon emissions and subsidies for clean energy..... but you, the kookster, will probably do what I assume you always do with "information" - smear it with ranch dressing and shove it up your butt. Certainly no actual "information" ever penetrates your brain (what there is of it).

 

[skookerasbil]

The one ? none of the alarmist environmentalists ever want to address is..................


What do we do with this information if we ALL assume its accurate and true??



Time to go back to wodden ships, candles and OJ cans with strings attached???




You people are such morons, I sit here and laugh my balls off, sometimes to the point of hurting my sides................



EVERY POINT YOU ASSHOLES MAKE ON HERE IS..............MOOT

 

[skookerasbil]

Well, at least those deep in denial will be able to diss Hansen and the IPCC once again. Obviously, they got it wrong, back in 2007. Things are melting way faster than the 'Alarmists' predictions. And the consequences of that melt are being felt decades ahead of the predictions.

but the real question is, what do we do with this information??

Well, sane people might try to act on it and support a hefty tax on carbon emissions and subsidies for clean energy..... but you, the kookster, will probably do what I assume you always do with "information" - smear it with ranch dressing and shove it up your butt. Certainly no actual "information" ever penetrates your brain (what there is of it).

Damn right it doesnt penetrate.............because I navigate in a world outside Oz.


Except for a percentage of the 21%ers, NOBODYsupports hefty taxes on carbon emmissions and nobody ever will. 100% certainty. Go check the internet asshole.............its DEAD!!! Even in nutty-ass Europe!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Who lives in the Land of Oz?

1) People who think that politically, we can defund the military

2) People who think that politically, we can do away with Social Security tomorrow.

3) People who think that politically, banning guns is possible.

4) People who think that politically, hefty taxes on carbon emmissions are possible.



Why?


Because the people who make the laws of the land like to keep their jobs!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Which is why I show up in here very day...............a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tibLjnn_Nf4]Midget - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RollingThunder]

but the real question is, what do we do with this information??

Well, sane people might try to act on it and support a hefty tax on carbon emissions and subsidies for clean energy..... but you, the kookster, will probably do what I assume you always do with "information" - smear it with ranch dressing and shove it up your butt. Certainly no actual "information" ever penetrates your brain (what there is of it).

Damn right it doesnt penetrate.............because I navigate in a world outside Oz.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL....."outside Oz" but totally inside the rightwingnut/denier-cult Bizarro-world. Face it kooster, you're a deluded retard with nothing backing up your insane delusions except cartoons. Let's prove that....

Except for a percentage of the 21%ers, NOBODYsupports hefty taxes on carbon emmissions and nobody ever will. 100% certainty. Go check the internet asshole.............its DEAD!!! Even in nutty-ass Europe!!!

Sooooooo retarded. What you actually are saying is that "NOBODY" like you with their head shoved all the way up their ass "supports hefty taxes on carbon emissions". Let's take a look at your "nobody".

B.C. introduces carbon tax
February 22, 2008
(excerpts)

VICTORIA -- Driving and other fuel-dependent activities are about to get more expensive as British Columbia becomes the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a consumer-based carbon tax. The carbon tax will apply to virtually all fossil fuels, including gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, propane, and home heating fuel. B.C.'s carbon tax, the provincial government claims, will be the most comprehensive in the world. However, Finance Minister Carole Taylor vowed Tuesday that all money collected through the new tax will be returned through a package of tax cuts and credits. "We have to find a way that we can work towards improving our environment, but at the same time do it in a way that keeps our economy strong," said Taylor, as she presented a budget that, aside from the carbon tax, commits $1 billion over four years to fight climate change.

BC 'carbon tax shift' a success, says think-tank report
By Adam Pez
June 28, 2012
(excerpts)

B.C.'s carbon tax has worked to cut down the fossil fuels use of British Columbians to the lowest in Canada with little economic damage to show for it, according to a new report. The study, entitled British Columbia's Carbon Tax Shift, weighed the B.C. carbon tax's impact on provincial fuel use against the performance of the provincial economy. And the results give the first clear evidence that the tax has helped reduce emissions while producing tangible economic benefits, said economist and Sustainable Prosperity senior director Alex Wood. As a result of the carbon tax, he said, “you're starting to see in B.C. a separation between economic growth and fossil fuel use.” That “decoupling,” he added, would lead to a more “resilient” economy insulated from oil price shocks.

The report, put out by Ottawa-based think-tank Sustainable Prosperity, found that provincial per capita sales of petroleum products -- like propane and gas -- dropped nearly 15 per cent in B.C. over the last four years since the carbon tax started, while fuel sales across the rest of Canada edged up just over one per cent. That decrease has allowed B.C. to slip into first place for least per capita fuel sales, just ahead of Ontario, at a time when B.C.'s population has continued to expand and its economic growth has outpaced much of the rest of the country, said Wood.

Carbon Tax - The Most Sensible Tax of All
The New York Times
By YORAM BAUMAN and SHI-LING HSU
Published: July 4, 2012
(excerpts)

ON Sunday, the best climate policy in the world got even better: British Columbia’s carbon tax — a tax on the carbon content of all fossil fuels burned in the province — increased from $25 to $30 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, making it more expensive to pollute. This was good news not only for the environment but for nearly everyone who pays taxes in British Columbia, because the carbon tax is used to reduce taxes for individuals and businesses. Thanks to this tax swap, British Columbia has lowered its corporate income tax rate to 10 percent from 12 percent, a rate that is among the lowest in the Group of 8 wealthy nations. Personal income taxes for people earning less than $119,000 per year are now the lowest in Canada, and there are targeted rebates for low-income and rural households.

The United States should jump at the chance to adopt a similar revenue-neutral tax swap. It’s an opportunity to reduce existing taxes, clean up the environment and increase personal freedom and energy security. Let’s start with the economics. Substituting a carbon tax for some of our current taxes — on payroll, on investment, on businesses and on workers — is a no-brainer. Why tax good things when you can tax bad things, like emissions? The idea has support from economists across the political spectrum, from Arthur B. Laffer and N. Gregory Mankiw on the right to Peter Orszag and Joseph E. Stiglitz on the left. That’s because economists know that a carbon tax swap can reduce the economic drag created by our current tax system and increase long-run growth by nudging the economy away from consumption and borrowing and toward saving and investment.

Of course, carbon taxes also lower carbon emissions. Economic theory suggests that putting a price on pollution reduces emissions more affordably and more effectively than any other measure. This conclusion is supported by empirical evidence from previous market-based policies, like those in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act that targeted sulfur dioxide emissions. British Columbia’s carbon tax is only four years old, but preliminary data show that greenhouse gas emissions are down 4.5 percent even as population and gross domestic product have been growing. Sales of motor gasoline have fallen by 2 percent since 2007, compared with a 5 percent increase for Canada as a whole. What would a British Columbia-style carbon tax look like in the United States? According to our calculations, a British Columbia-style $30 carbon tax would generate about $145 billion a year in the United States. That could be used to reduce individual and corporate income taxes by 10 percent, and afterward there would still be $35 billion left over.



Australia passes landmark carbon price laws
Reuters
By James Grubel
CANBERRA|
Tue Nov 8, 2011
(excerpts)

(Reuters) - Australia passed landmark laws on Tuesday to impose a price on carbon emissions in one of the biggest economic reforms in a decade and injecting new impetus into December's global climate talks in South Africa. Tuesday's vote in the upper house Senate made Australia the second major economy behind the European Union to pass carbon-limiting legislation. Tiny New Zealand has a similar scheme.


China mulls tax on carbon emissions

16 January 2012

Following more encouraging sounds from the Chinese government at the UN climate change conference in Durban, South Africa, on reducing carbon emissions, a proposal to levy a carbon tax is moving up the policy agenda. One recent report reveals that the time for China to introduce a levy on carbon dioxide is near the end of the 12th five year plan (2011-2015). The Chinese government has reportedly expressed an interest in the study.

The report from researchers at the Institute of Financial Science under the Chinese Ministry of Finance, was originally submitted in early 2011 but only recently entered the public domain. It suggests that the tax rate should be 10 yuan (£1) per tonne of carbon dioxide. While China, the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter, is studying the feasibility of a carbon tax, the world's largest per capita emitter, Australia, has just passed a bill introducing a controversial carbon tax. The other major scheme that places a levy on carbon emissions is the EU emissions trading system, which compels big polluters to buy permits per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, which can then be traded.


How South Africa's carbon tax may affect businesses
South African politicians have proposed a carbon tax in an attempt to counter the country's significant carbon dioxide emissions.
African Business Review
Written by Ella Copeland
17 Aug 2012
(excerpts)

South Africa is among the top 20 polluters in the world, emitting approximately 500 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gas in 2010. Currently in the process of a carbon boom, the majority of South Africa’s energy is produced by burning fossil fuels, meaning the top 40 largest companies in the country were responsible for 207 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, directly emitting 20 percent of South Africa’s carbon output.

In a white paper released in February 2012, the South African government proposed a crackdown on big polluters with a new Carbon Tax, which would see companies taxed on the amount of carbon they emit. According to experts, this forward thinking plan is what South Africa needs to save itself from potentially catastrophic changes in its climate, such as rising temperatures, droughts and extreme rainfall.

 

[techieny]

I guess the koch brothers study is right about GW

The ONLY thing that goes through cycles is your BS right???

 

[RollingThunder]

I guess the koch brothers study is right about GW

The ONLY thing that goes through cycles is your BS right???

Your moronic ignorance is obviously not going anywhere.

 

[mamooth]

The northeast USA already has a CO2 cap-and-trade system, in place since 2009. Look up "Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative". (I don't have the post count yet for URL-posting.)

Strangely, energy prices there have _not_ skyrocketed, despite the denialist-cult-prophecy that such a thing would have had to happen.

So, once again, the real world demonstrates how denialists were completely wrong in their predictions. I look forward to the creative excuses denialists will now come up with as to why they can ignore this real world example.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well, sane people might try to act on it and support a hefty tax on carbon emissions and subsidies for clean energy..... but you, the kookster, will probably do what I assume you always do with "information" - smear it with ranch dressing and shove it up your butt. Certainly no actual "information" ever penetrates your brain (what there is of it).

Damn right it doesnt penetrate.............because I navigate in a world outside Oz.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL....."outside Oz" but totally inside the rightwingnut/denier-cult Bizarro-world. Face it kooster, you're a deluded retard with nothing backing up your insane delusions except cartoons. Let's prove that....

Except for a percentage of the 21%ers, NOBODYsupports hefty taxes on carbon emmissions and nobody ever will. 100% certainty. Go check the internet asshole.............its DEAD!!! Even in nutty-ass Europe!!!

Sooooooo retarded. What you actually are saying is that "NOBODY" like you with their head shoved all the way up their ass "supports hefty taxes on carbon emissions". Let's take a look at your "nobody".

B.C. introduces carbon tax
February 22, 2008
(excerpts)

VICTORIA -- Driving and other fuel-dependent activities are about to get more expensive as British Columbia becomes the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a consumer-based carbon tax. The carbon tax will apply to virtually all fossil fuels, including gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, propane, and home heating fuel. B.C.'s carbon tax, the provincial government claims, will be the most comprehensive in the world. However, Finance Minister Carole Taylor vowed Tuesday that all money collected through the new tax will be returned through a package of tax cuts and credits. "We have to find a way that we can work towards improving our environment, but at the same time do it in a way that keeps our economy strong," said Taylor, as she presented a budget that, aside from the carbon tax, commits $1 billion over four years to fight climate change.

BC 'carbon tax shift' a success, says think-tank report
By Adam Pez
June 28, 2012
(excerpts)

B.C.'s carbon tax has worked to cut down the fossil fuels use of British Columbians to the lowest in Canada with little economic damage to show for it, according to a new report. The study, entitled British Columbia's Carbon Tax Shift, weighed the B.C. carbon tax's impact on provincial fuel use against the performance of the provincial economy. And the results give the first clear evidence that the tax has helped reduce emissions while producing tangible economic benefits, said economist and Sustainable Prosperity senior director Alex Wood. As a result of the carbon tax, he said, “you're starting to see in B.C. a separation between economic growth and fossil fuel use.” That “decoupling,” he added, would lead to a more “resilient” economy insulated from oil price shocks.

The report, put out by Ottawa-based think-tank Sustainable Prosperity, found that provincial per capita sales of petroleum products -- like propane and gas -- dropped nearly 15 per cent in B.C. over the last four years since the carbon tax started, while fuel sales across the rest of Canada edged up just over one per cent. That decrease has allowed B.C. to slip into first place for least per capita fuel sales, just ahead of Ontario, at a time when B.C.'s population has continued to expand and its economic growth has outpaced much of the rest of the country, said Wood.

Carbon Tax - The Most Sensible Tax of All
The New York Times
By YORAM BAUMAN and SHI-LING HSU
Published: July 4, 2012
(excerpts)

ON Sunday, the best climate policy in the world got even better: British Columbia’s carbon tax — a tax on the carbon content of all fossil fuels burned in the province — increased from $25 to $30 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, making it more expensive to pollute. This was good news not only for the environment but for nearly everyone who pays taxes in British Columbia, because the carbon tax is used to reduce taxes for individuals and businesses. Thanks to this tax swap, British Columbia has lowered its corporate income tax rate to 10 percent from 12 percent, a rate that is among the lowest in the Group of 8 wealthy nations. Personal income taxes for people earning less than $119,000 per year are now the lowest in Canada, and there are targeted rebates for low-income and rural households.

The United States should jump at the chance to adopt a similar revenue-neutral tax swap. It’s an opportunity to reduce existing taxes, clean up the environment and increase personal freedom and energy security. Let’s start with the economics. Substituting a carbon tax for some of our current taxes — on payroll, on investment, on businesses and on workers — is a no-brainer. Why tax good things when you can tax bad things, like emissions? The idea has support from economists across the political spectrum, from Arthur B. Laffer and N. Gregory Mankiw on the right to Peter Orszag and Joseph E. Stiglitz on the left. That’s because economists know that a carbon tax swap can reduce the economic drag created by our current tax system and increase long-run growth by nudging the economy away from consumption and borrowing and toward saving and investment.

Of course, carbon taxes also lower carbon emissions. Economic theory suggests that putting a price on pollution reduces emissions more affordably and more effectively than any other measure. This conclusion is supported by empirical evidence from previous market-based policies, like those in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act that targeted sulfur dioxide emissions. British Columbia’s carbon tax is only four years old, but preliminary data show that greenhouse gas emissions are down 4.5 percent even as population and gross domestic product have been growing. Sales of motor gasoline have fallen by 2 percent since 2007, compared with a 5 percent increase for Canada as a whole. What would a British Columbia-style carbon tax look like in the United States? According to our calculations, a British Columbia-style $30 carbon tax would generate about $145 billion a year in the United States. That could be used to reduce individual and corporate income taxes by 10 percent, and afterward there would still be $35 billion left over.



Australia passes landmark carbon price laws
Reuters
By James Grubel
CANBERRA|
Tue Nov 8, 2011
(excerpts)

(Reuters) - Australia passed landmark laws on Tuesday to impose a price on carbon emissions in one of the biggest economic reforms in a decade and injecting new impetus into December's global climate talks in South Africa. Tuesday's vote in the upper house Senate made Australia the second major economy behind the European Union to pass carbon-limiting legislation. Tiny New Zealand has a similar scheme.


China mulls tax on carbon emissions

16 January 2012

Following more encouraging sounds from the Chinese government at the UN climate change conference in Durban, South Africa, on reducing carbon emissions, a proposal to levy a carbon tax is moving up the policy agenda. One recent report reveals that the time for China to introduce a levy on carbon dioxide is near the end of the 12th five year plan (2011-2015). The Chinese government has reportedly expressed an interest in the study.

The report from researchers at the Institute of Financial Science under the Chinese Ministry of Finance, was originally submitted in early 2011 but only recently entered the public domain. It suggests that the tax rate should be 10 yuan (£1) per tonne of carbon dioxide. While China, the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter, is studying the feasibility of a carbon tax, the world's largest per capita emitter, Australia, has just passed a bill introducing a controversial carbon tax. The other major scheme that places a levy on carbon emissions is the EU emissions trading system, which compels big polluters to buy permits per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, which can then be traded.


How South Africa's carbon tax may affect businesses
South African politicians have proposed a carbon tax in an attempt to counter the country's significant carbon dioxide emissions.
African Business Review
Written by Ella Copeland
17 Aug 2012
(excerpts)

South Africa is among the top 20 polluters in the world, emitting approximately 500 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gas in 2010. Currently in the process of a carbon boom, the majority of South Africa’s energy is produced by burning fossil fuels, meaning the top 40 largest companies in the country were responsible for 207 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, directly emitting 20 percent of South Africa’s carbon output.

In a white paper released in February 2012, the South African government proposed a crackdown on big polluters with a new Carbon Tax, which would see companies taxed on the amount of carbon they emit. According to experts, this forward thinking plan is what South Africa needs to save itself from potentially catastrophic changes in its climate, such as rising temperatures, droughts and extreme rainfall.

Thats right..........carbon taxes are the rage all over the world!!! Especially here in America!!! The globe is clearly embracing green energy as the preferred energy source!!!!


August 20, 2012

Merkel's Green Shift Is Powered by Coal

Nicola & Andresen, Bloomberg


Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government says RWE AG (RWE)’s new power plant that can supply 3.4 million homes aids her plan to exit nuclear energy and switch to cleaner forms of generation. It’s fired with coal.

The startup of the 2,200-megawatt station near Cologne last week shows how Europe’s largest economy is relying more on the most-polluting fuel. Coal consumption has risen 4.9 percent since Merkel announced a plan to start shutting the country’s atomic reactors after last year’s Fukushima disaster in Japan.

Germany’s largest utilities RWE and EON AG (EOAN) are shunning cleaner-burning natural gas because it’s more costly, while the collapsing cost of carbon permits means there’s little penalty for burning coal. Wind and solar projects, central to Germany’s plans to reduce nuclear energy and cut the release of heat- trapping gases, can’t produce electricity around the clock.

“Angela Merkel’s policy has created an incentive structure which has the effect of partially replacing nuclear with coal, the dirtiest fuel that’s responsible for much of the growth in the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions since 1990,” Dieter Helm, an energy policy professor at the University of Oxford, said by phone Aug. 17. Building new coal stations means “locking them in for the next 30 years” as a type of generation, Helm said.

Germany’s increasing coal consumption is part of a global return to the fossil fuel that’s cheaper than most alternatives. The amount of coal burned worldwide rose 5.4 percent to account for 30 percent of total energy use last year, the highest proportion since 1969, according to BP Plc (BP/) data.


Merkel














Like I always say............"costs" are never a consideration in the discussion of anything with the k00ks. The rest of the world thinks its pretty important however!!!


Oh.........and ps..........anybody looking to see the REALITY on energy moving forward need only to go over to REALCLEARENERGY and do a bit of reading. Only the uber-nuts like Eugene Robinson, E. Rosenthal, Robert Rapier............all committed progressive nutters............are telling us that oil, coal and natural gas are a few years from going under and the world is going to end. Just go over there and you find out that the k00ks on here are OCD snake oil salesmen.