WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Is Canadian Oil Actually Subsidized?

Is Canadian Oil Actually Subsidized?

Ending fossil fuel subsidies was…

The Start Of Something Big? Iran Changes Oil Contracts

The Start Of Something Big? Iran Changes Oil Contracts

Conservatives in Iran’s parliament have…

Which Climate Conditions give us the Best Indication of Climate Change?

What is the most important climate condition to keep tabs on? We have recently mentioned the record-low Arctic sea-ice extent, but hurricanes this year seem to be getting the most attention because of timing of Hurricane Isaac (I know of no evidence suggesting that the Arctic sea-ice has such a direct impact on U.S. politics!).

It’s important to avoid getting lost into single indicators as the climate system is complex, with many different parts interacting with one another. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) recently put out a statement on climate change, referring to a wide range of different climate indicators (here is a link for the most common ones). The AMS is not alone – the National Academy for Sciences (NAS) is also concerned about our climate and its many aspects: A fairly recent movie called Climate Change: Lines of Evidence provides a comprehensive overview.

Click here to read the full article.



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Mel Tisdale on September 08 2012 said:
    When anyone mentions temperature leading CO2 you can be sure that they have not bothered to study the subject. Once and for all, and for Scottar in particular, in normal movement from glacial to interglacial the temperature leads CO2 because that is the way the change begins.

    The Milancoviec cycles vary the amount of sunlight falling on the polar region. As the sunlight increases, so the temperature rises When anyone mentions temperature leading CO2 you can be sure that they have not bothered to study the subject of climate change. Once and for all, and for Scottar in particular, in the normal change from glacial to interglacial the temperature leads CO2 because that is the way the change begins.

    The Milancoviec cycles vary the amount of sunlight falling on the polar region. As the sunlight increases, so the temperature rises. These variations are very small, but not negligible. The small increase in temperature causes the sea and permafrost to release CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, which cause the temperature to rise further. This obviously leads to the release of more greenhouse gases and so the cycle continues. It is called positive feedback, something that Scottar seems ignorant of. The difference today is that we, as a species, have short-circuited the Milancoviec cycles by releasing the CO2 first. If Scottar cannot understand that, then we can be sure he is a true climate change ‘sceptic’ and no doubt will be awarded a badge by the clowns who orchestrate their increasingly tenuous grasp on reality.

    That Scottar has not bothered to explore the subject in any depth should tell their family just how little they care about their future. That is between them and their family and as such, none of our business. That they are trying to hinder action to combat climate change , however is very much our business. No wonder they hide behind a nom de plume. Courage is not something that one expects from people who are so scared of something that they prefer to hide rather than fight the threat. The annoying thing is that they call themselves sceptics. Scientists are sceptics, climate change sceptics are not the least sceptical and it is small wonder that they are so unscientific. Though perhaps the most dangerous are those sceptical scientists who support them, give presentations to the American Congress while taking the fossil fuel industry’s shilling.

    If ‘sceptics’, such as Scottar, were to take the trouble to understand the science of climate change, and in particular comprehend it enough to understand the action of positive feedbacks, they would see how the miniscule variations of the Milancoviec cycles can lead to such large changes as those that occur when the planet moves from glacial to interglacial. When they can understand that much, they might be as concerned as the rest of us regarding the melting of the methane clathrates and permafrost, which has the potential to put us into a very dire situation. Whilst I doubt that they would actually support action to combat climate change, they might actually know that it is time to shut up, which would be the most preferable for them to do anyway, albeit a few years too late.

    Perhaps the most amazing thing is that some like Scottar can publicly proclaim their ignorant viewpoint in the week when the Arctic sea ice broke, nay smashed, the record for ice loss. A moment’s glance at the graphs tells you that something is going on that cannot by any means be described as natural variation. Anyone wishing to know more about climate change could do worse than visit skepticalscience.com.
  • Scottar on September 07 2012 said:
    This article tries to dispel the skeptic argument that climate from natural causes is complex, too complex to claim that temps are rising mostly due to fossil CO2 emissions. But when you look outside of their box arguments they fall quite short of their claims. It's all about making claims for scaring up more funding.

    And Real Climate has been a consistent shill for the AGW crowd moderating out any anti- view points no mater how relevant.

    Here is an article that shows how temps are preceding CO2 increase in current times:

    http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/which-causes-which-out-of-atmospheric-temperature-and-co2-content/

    Aug 05, 2012
    Which Causes which out of Atmospheric Temperature and CO2 content?

    Organizations like the National Science Foundation has been told not to fund those scientists whose articles don't support the AGW hypothesis as it hurts their funding requests.

    Former President Eisenhower was very prescient in his Farewell address about this threat half a century ago. The speech was remembered more for his comments on the Military industrial complex threat but he saw the same dangers in the world of science. Lookup the whole address. The man was Nostradamus-like on this topic.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News