Climate Propaganda, Climate Science Process

Climate De-Bait and Switch

103 Comments

Dealing with facile arguments that are supposedly perfect refutations of the climate skeptics’ position is a full-time job akin to cleaning the Augean Stables.  A few weeks ago Kevin Drum argued that global warming added 3 inches to Sandy’s 14-foot storm surge, which he said was an argument that totally refuted skeptics and justified massive government restrictions on energy consumption (or whatever).

This week Slate (and Desmog blog) think they have the ultimate killer chart, on they call a “slam dunk” on skeptics.  Click through to my column this week at Forbes to see if they really do.

103 thoughts on “Climate De-Bait and Switch”

  1. We skeptics don’t even deny that CO2 causes some warming. In my case I accept Michael Mann’s old number of about 1C of warming (before feedbacks) from a doubling in CO2.

    ###########################

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

    CO2 and H2O are both GHG’s with co2 being the non condensing gas and h20 is the condensing gas. CO2 regulates the amount of h2o in the atmosphere.
    Since humans have increased the co2 in the atmosphere by 40%, this will also increase the h2o in the atmosphere. Since 1970 h2o in the atmosphere has increased by 4%. H2o being a stronger ghg than co2, we are in a positive feedback loop until a neg feedback finally stops it.

  2. Skeptics believe that temperatures will rise due to CO2,

    ################

    ok, I have seen otherwise.

    ##############

    but will remain within the bounds of temperatures we have already seen over the last millenia, including those in the Medieval Warm Period during which European civilization thrived.

    ###############
    According to this we are already above based on average earth temperature.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    ###################

    And we believe that the cost of economic dislocations, particularly in developing countries, from limiting fossil fuel consumption will be far worse than from merely adapting to a one degree change. What fair-minded person could possibly imagine this black circle in any way is a rebuttal to this skeptic position?
    #######################
    Climate inaction is extraordinarily expensive.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money.html
    I don’t think nature is fair minded. Neither is physics.

  3. But climate alarmists have been remarkably adept at defining fringe views as the mainstream skeptic position, a sort of bait and switch that allows them to avoid debating the more difficult topics (for example, the proposition that the Earth’s climate system is dominated by strong positive feedbacks is far from settled and a literature review of that critical topic would show an incredibly broad range of results).

    #################################
    Where the skeptics need to focus their attention is to the negative feedbacks. There aren’t very many. That is why this is a dangerous proposition for our future generations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback

    1 Positive

    1.1 Carbon cycle feedbacks

    1.1.1 Arctic methane release

    1.1.1.1 Methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs

    1.1.1.2 Methane release from hydrates

    1.1.2 Abrupt increases in atmospheric methane

    1.1.3 Decomposition

    1.1.4 Peat decomposition

    1.1.5 Rainforest drying

    1.1.6 Forest fires

    1.1.7 Desertification

    1.1.8 CO2 in the oceans

    1.2 Cloud feedback

    1.3 Gas release

    1.4 Ice-albedo feedback

    1.5 Water vapor feedback

    2 Negative

    2.1 Carbon cycle

    2.1.1 Le Chatelier’s principle

    2.1.2 Chemical weathering

    2.1.3 Net Primary Productivity

    2.2 Lapse rate

    2.3 Blackbody radiation

    In the climate debate, the supposed “Defenders of Science” much prefer painting skeptics as beyond the bounds of polite society and therefore unworthy of response to actually debating the difficult points.
    ##########################
    If you look at the Marc Morano tactics, yes some skeptics/deniers are over the edge. THat is why some of the scientists are getting death threats by email.

  4. But in fact we have not seen any particular increase in record high temperatures, at least not in the US where we have the longest and most detailed temperature history. One reason is that most of the warming we have seen has been in nightly low temperatures. In other words, we are seeing higher lows rather than higher highs, if that makes sense. As you can see below, in the US during summer we are not setting an unusual number of daily high records (Tmax, the black line) but are seeing more records for high nightly low (Tmin, the grey line).

    ######################################

    Our author must be living under a rock to make a statement like this last one. The United States is going to have its hottest year ever in the US temperature record.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/book-it-2012-the-hottest-year-on-record-15350
    nights are getting warmer due to co2 holding in a little more energy during the night. That is part of the agw theory.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-human-fingerprint-in-the-daily-cycle.html

  5. Short term the ratios of high to low records are all in the postive range with a few in the very extraordinary range. The United States has had a 6 to 1 high to low record smashing year in 2012. The record back from 1936 is going to be no 2.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/13/1333911/mother-nature-is-just-getting-warmed-record-smashing-december-2012-hottest-in-us-history/

    http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/temp.records.121012.jpeg

  6. Munic RE says extreme weather is increasing more in the United States than in the rest of the world.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zpbsdVvEa8M

    http://climatecrocks.com/2012/10/25/insurance-giant-study-warns-extreme-events-a-game-changer/

    According to the Munich Re press release on the most recent report:

    A new study by Munich Re shows that North America has been most affected by weather-related extreme events in recent decades. The publication “Severe weather in North America” analyzes all kinds of weather perils and their trends. It reports and shows that the continent has experienced the largest increases in weather-related loss events.

    For the period concerned – 1980 to 2011 – the overall loss burden from weather catastrophes was US$ 1,060bn (in 2011 values).The insured losses amounted to US$ 510bn, and some 30,000 people lost their lives due to weather catastrophes in North America during this time frame. With US$ 62.2bn insured losses and overall losses of US$ 125bn (in original values) Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the costliest event ever recorded in the US. Katrina was also the deadliest single storm event, claiming 1,322 lives.

  8. I accept that CO2 is a GHG which causes 1 degree of warming for a doubling.

    Since water vapor seems to not be increasing so catastrophic AGW is not possible !

  10. ‘or deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas’

    The question is not whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas but whether or not it is at very low concentrations in a complex mixture. So far as I’m aware that has never been demonstrated in the laboratory. All the numbers used in the models come from extrapolating from experiments performed on higher concentrations of CO2, extrapolating back to atmospheric concentrations and making unproven assumptions about the interactive effects of other gasses and particles.

  13. All should read the breaking news here, from which I quote:

    ” This story is huge. America’s prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and related government bodies found no greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. Evidence shows the U.S. government held the smoking gun all along – a fresh examination of an overlooked science report proves America’s brightest and best had shown the White House that the greenhouse gas effect was not real and of no scientific significance since 1979 or earlier.”

    For those who have been following the research by myself and others from among nearly 200 members at Principia Scientific International, I’d like to draw your attention to an Appendix now added to my current paper.

    Have a Happy Christmas everyone!

  19. It’s kind of hard to give a reference for something you
    believe wasn’t done. To prove this I would have to research and document the
    entire history of the science. Who publishes a paper saying they didn’t do something?
    I’m simply basing my belief on the fact that no one has yet provided the
    original references or data when asked. (I have similar issues with string
    theory, BTW where key points seem to have been missed or forgotten)

    I looked at your links and they are chock full of
    equations and numbers, but none of the references I found had any real (direct)
    data at the levels of CO2 or any other gas that are under discussion. It
    certainly makes sense that the changes in the CO2 levels at atmospheric
    concentrations might lead to said changes in the overall heat exchange behavior
    in the atmosphere but everything here is theoretical.

  23. As I tried it, it works. Nasa satellites are a very good reference. But then look at your own reference in which you claim that absolute humidity has not risen but show relative humidity. Were you trying to pull the wool over my eyes?

  24. Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming

    Abstract: “Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.”

    Susan Solomon1, Karen H. Rosenlof1, Robert W. Portmann1, John S. Daniel1, Sean M. Davis1,2, Todd J. Sanford1,2,Gian-Kasper Plattner

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract

  25. Yes, it does; working through the methods takes the most work – especially since I am a biochemist, not a climatologist. I don’t necessarily disbelieve these numbers; I am simply skeptical when theoretical (or model) values are always used and I can’t find the experimental verification nor understand how they were derived.

    I’ve learned the hard way that taking a short cut through empirical verification is not a good idea – climatology seems to be complicated enough (like biology and physics) that it should be taken step by step.

    It reminds me ofa lot of systems biology – make a model, check the data; improve the model; check the data; further improve the model….etc.

  28. The fact that CO2 causes milder storms instead of more violent ones even if it warms is indisputable.

    Why are so man skeptics unaware that less temperature difference causes milder storms.

    The alarmists twist and abuse science but the skeptics know better !

  29. Funny thing the IPCC was founded to prove that manmade CAGW was happening and they did their best but failed.

  30. Can you show me how they have failed?
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

    compared to the contrarian projections the IPCC does a damn good job.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCCvsContrarians.gif
    Figure 1: IPCC temperature projections (red, pink, orange,
    green) and contrarian projections (blue and purple) vs. observed surface
    temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; black and
    red) for 1990 through 2012.

  33. The United States has had the hottest year on record. It appears to me that when temperatures go up, extreme storms increase.
    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hurricane-sandy-tops-list-of-2012-extreme-weather-and-climate-events-15405
    2012’s Top 10 Weather & Climate Events

    No. 1: Sandy Alters Climate Conversation
    No. 2: Tenacious Drought Punishes U.S.
    No. 3: Hottest Year on Record in Lower 48
    No. 4: Steamy Arctic Events Alarm Scientists
    No. 5: Hot and Dry Conditions Fuel Wildfires
    No. 6: Hottest March on Record for U.S.
    No. 7: July Is Hottest U.S. Month on Record
    No. 8: Hurricane Isaac Creeps Ashore
    No. 9: Derecho Blows Into Lexicon
    No. 10: 333 Straight Months & Counting(Click on above links to go straight to each story)

  34. Thermodynamics 101 !

    Obviously you have never taken it or understood it.

    Wind is caused by temperature difference not absolute temperature !!

    That is a fundamental truth, if you dispute it tell me why the fastest wind in the solar system are on Neptune not Mercury or Venus !

    Whatsup had an interesting discussion of this subject a couple of days ago.

    More skeptics understand this concept than I would have guessed.

  35. That is untrue !

    History shows that storms were more violent when it was colder. During the little ice age and the big ice age storms were more violent.

    If you stood on a street corner and it was 100 + F how fast is the wind ??

    0 MPH ?

    If it was -10 the wind was probably very fast !

  37. Higher temperatures bring on the extremes. Water vapor is a carrier of heat into the storms and when it is consensed, the heat is released into the storm. The 4% absolute humidity increase that we have been discussing does effect our weather.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm

    How global warming affects weather
    parameters

    Rising temperatures can have several effects on
    the factors involved in weather. For example:

    They increase the rate of evapotranspiration,
    which is the total evaporation of water from soil, plants and water bodies. This
    can have a direct effect on the fequency and intensity of
    droughts.

    A warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour.
    The atmosphere now holds 4% more water vapour than it did 40 years ago as a
    result of increasing temperatures. This increases the risk of extreme rainfall
    events.

    Changes in sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) also
    have an effect by bringing about associated changes in atmospheric circulation
    and precipitation. This has been implicated in some droughts, particularly in
    the tropics.

    These changes don’t automatically generate
    extreme weather events but they change the odds that such events will take
    place. It is equivalent to the loading of dice, leading to one side being
    heavier, so that a certain outcome becomes more likely. In the context of global
    warming, this means that rising temperatures increase the odds of extreme events
    occurring.

  38. It’s quite clear you firmly believe in the strong feedback theory and the forcing’s needed for a catastrophe to take place. I will not attempt to counter your faith in your religion. There is much debate still to be done on this, the core AGW of the argument. This being said, I will simply state, I believe quite the opposite and contend that negligible warming will occur due to additional C02 in the atmosphere. So you needn’t spend your time pointing me towards sources that parrot the theory.

    I want to address the list you posted, this seems to be quite the hobby of yours and this one is pure propaganda. Let’s look at your stats above and put these into perspective and not over hyped headlines. (1) Sandy was not an abnormal occurrence and many of these types of storms occurred in the mid 20th century. (2) Drought is, has been and always will be a common occurrence in all parts of the US. (the world) It is theorized that many of the native Americans of the South West were forced to relocate due to decades long drought. (3) It was quite hot in the mid-West and Eastern US, although it was quite mild in the Western US, so this would seem to be a regional event. (4) The polar ice has been retreating for the last 150 years, with the exception of the mid 20th century. I cannot locate any source that will clearly cite 2012’s melt any more sever than any in the past. Yes, there is a steady summer melt trend in place and it has been in place for quite some time. I do find it puzzling that no one talks of the growing Antarctic cap which would seem to be a noteworthy topic, that clearly has a relationship. (5) With drought comes fire, again a very quite year for fires on the West coast, yet no mention of this good news, only the very rare fires in the Rockies. (6 and 7) Again, this would seem to be a regional occurrence. (8) Hurricanes do move at different rates depending on a multitude of factors, Issac was no more or less severe than those in the past. To attribute speed or severity of any hurricane to AGW or the like is pure conjecture, since many storms in the past have been more severe. There is certainly no clear trend here. (9) Seems to be hype on the part of the source to spin fear in the minds of the populous.

    Now lets look at the source of the info provided. Climate Central is looking for and will find any weather anomaly to make their point and reinforce the AGW theory. They are bias, plain and simple. If you go looking for the devil under a rock you going to find him, which is clearly their intent and purpose. One thing that fails to be mentioned in all of this climate reporting, the fact that up until the recent attention to climate, no one spent this much time, money or effort paying any attention to climate. When every weather event is scrutinized with the intent of proving it’s cause to be from a warming earth, odds are one will come to this conclusion. Attention given to weather has heightened the senses of the populous and only due to the over-sensationalize by media such as this.

    Let’s just assume all the AGW theorists are correct and all of their data is correct. (This is highly unlikely and to be so naive at to think they all got it right would lend itself to religion, which is not science, its faith). Their solution to the problem would be ???? One certainly cannot expect billions of people to simply return to living in the 19th century, which based on the perceived severity of the situation would need to be done. The outcome of the solution would be far worse than the problem. It would seem mitigation would be a far more logical solution than trying to stop the inevitable. We as humans have been adapting to our surrounding for millions of years. Does the technology to look at our climate also give us the audacity to think we could actually control the entire climate with one compound measured in PPM? Throughout history we simply moved to a more hospitable climate of made concession to the climate!

    I must remain quite skeptical on the subject simply due to the fact we do not have all of the answers and we have yet to find the smoking gun to prove this theory fact! Consensus on the part of many, not all, is hardly a good reason to throw modern society under the bus, as suggested by many in this field. If I am not mistaken there have been many times throughout human history when the consensus among the educated was wrong. I dare say this may very well be another one of those situations. One can make the argument into oblivion with circumstantial evidence that points in the AGW direction, yet we must be CERTAIN without doubt these things to be true or we are asking billions to essentially perform societal and financial suicide.

  39. It takes faith to keep on believeing something is not true in the face of overwhelming evidence.
    My understanding of climate science is based on information that uses peer reviewed science. If you remain forever skeptical, then it crosses over the line and becomes denial. You want to state your opinion and yet don’t want to engage in the learning curve of science. Does this mean you will never absorb the science literature because it automatically is run by THEM?
    I will agree with you on one thing. You will never accept the science literature. Its not about me, its about the reality brought in by scientists around the world.

  43. I appologize for the length of this, but it was in response to the above statements.
    (1)
    Sandy
    was not an abnormal occurrence and many of these types of storms occurred in
    the mid 20th century.

    It acutally is a
    rare hybrid storm and an extraordinary one at that.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/from-storm-surge-to-snow-hurricane-sandy-has-it-all-15178

    Stu Ostro, a senior meteorologist at The
    Weather Channel, and no stranger to major storms, wrote today
    that: “History is being written as an extreme weather event continues to
    unfold, one which will occupy a place in the annals of weather history as one
    of the most extraordinary to have affected the United States.”

    (2)
    Drought
    is, has been and always will be a common occurrence in all parts of the US.
    (the world) It is theorized that many of the native Americans of the South West
    were forced to relocate due to decades long drought.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hurricane-sandy-tops-list-of-2012-extreme-weather-and-climate-events-15405/P3

    Climate-related
    disasters usually have multiple causes, and the 2012 drought was no exception.
    The natural, periodic La Niña
    climate oscillation played a role, as did the pattern of sea surface
    temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean, but so did
    manmade global warming, and plain old bad luck. As the century progresses,
    however, the atmosphere’s growing concentration of greenhouse gases will very
    likely make severe droughts
    more common, more intense and longer lasting.

    (3) It was quite
    hot in the mid-West and Eastern US, although it was quite mild in the Western
    US, so this would seem to be a regional event.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hurricane-sandy-tops-list-of-2012-extreme-weather-and-climate-events-15405/P4

    No. 3 — Turning Up the Heat: Hottest
    Year on Record in the Lower 48 States

    2012 will go down in history as
    the hottest
    year on record in the continental U.S., pushing 1998 into second place. In
    line with the global warming trend spurred by steadily rising carbon emissions,
    seven of the top 10 warmest years in the 48 states have occurred in the past 15
    years.

    Like so much recent record-breaking
    weather, 2012 isn’t just going to top the previous record, 2012 is looking to
    smash it, by more than 1°F. In mid-December, Climate
    Central projected that 2012 average temperature for the continental U.S. at
    55.34°F compared to the previous record set in 1998 of 54.32°F. For
    perspective, 1°F is one-quarter of the difference between the coldest and
    warmest years ever recorded in the U.S.

    (3)
    The
    polar ice has been retreating for the last 150 years, with the exception of the
    mid 20th century. I cannot locate any source that will clearly cite 2012’s melt
    any more sever than any in the past. Yes, there is a steady summer melt trend
    in place and it has been in place for quite some time. I do find it puzzling
    that no one talks of the growing Antarctic cap which would seem to be a
    noteworthy topic, that clearly has a relationship.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hurricane-sandy-tops-list-of-2012-extreme-weather-and-climate-events-15405/P5

    During the
    spring, snow cover across North America and Eurasia dropped to the lowest level
    ever seen. A few months later in July, fully 97 percent of Greenland’s ice cap
    — which covers most of that enormous island — experienced at least some
    surface melting. That hasn’t happened since at least the 1800s. During that
    same month, a glacier in northern Greenland shed a slab of ice twice as big as
    Manhattan Island. And finally in August, the ice that covers the Arctic Ocean
    melted back more than it has since satellite observations began in the 1970s,
    and kept on dropping right through mid-September.

    (4)
    With
    drought comes fire, again a very quite year for fires on the West coast, yet no
    mention of this good news, only the very rare fires in the Rockies.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hurricane-sandy-tops-list-of-2012-extreme-weather-and-climate-events-15405/P6

    Thanks to the
    warmest temperatures on record for the continental U.S. and the
    worst drought since the 1950s, wildfires spread like, well, wildfire in
    2012, scorching nearly 9.2
    million acres of forest, brushland and grassland across the nation through
    November, the most recent month for which numbers are available. That’s the
    second-largest area burned since the National
    Interagency Fire Center began keeping records in 2000 (the worst was 2006),
    and nearly 50 percent more than the 10-year average over the first decade of
    this century.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hurricane-sandy-tops-list-of-2012-extreme-weather-and-climate-events-15405/P7

    Of all the heat waves that
    roasted the U.S. in 2012, it was the
    March heat event that was most unusual, and most consequential. In the
    northern Plains and Upper Midwest, March is typically a wintry month. But
    during March 2012, an already thin snow and lake-ice cover was essentially
    vaporized by unrelenting warm weather with temperatures that soared as high as
    40 degrees above average in some locations. In many cases, overnight low
    temperatures were so warm that they broke the daytime-high temperature record.

    By melting the snow and drying
    out soils, the March heat wave set the stage for the dramatic
    and rapid expansion of the drought in subsequent months, catching many
    farmers and ranchers — who had been expecting a bumper corn crop — off guard.

    (6 and 7) Again, this would seem to be a regional occurrence.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hurricane-sandy-tops-list-of-2012-extreme-weather-and-climate-events-15405/P8

    The
    hot and dry weather propelled the U.S. Climate Extremes Index
    — which keeps track of the highest and lowest extremes in temperatures,
    precipitation, and other events — to a record 46 percent for the period
    January-July, 2012, which is twice the average for the period. That means that
    nearly half the country was affected by extreme weather conditions. The record
    (42 percent) was last set in 1934 — again, during the Dust Bowl.

    (8) Hurricanes do move at different rates depending on a multitude of
    factors, Issac was no more or less severe than those in the past. To attribute
    speed or severity of any hurricane to AGW or the like is pure conjecture, since
    many storms in the past have been more severe. There is certainly no clear
    trend here.

    I wouldn’t say that hurricane ISSAC was caused by global warming. But every
    hurricane formed now in warmer waters are influenced in small or large ways by
    AGW. It is now pervasive throughout our warmer oceans.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hurricane-sandy-tops-list-of-2012-extreme-weather-and-climate-events-15405/P9

    Hurricane Isaac may help change the way the National Hurricane Center in
    Miami warns
    the public about the storm surge risk from an approaching hurricane. While
    Isaac was technically a Category 1 storm when it made landfall, its low barometric
    pressure and broad wind field made its impacts more characteristic of a
    Category 2 storm in several ways. Furthermore, the storm’s slow pace ensured
    that the storm surge would batter the coast during multiple high tides. Both
    those factors made Isaac more dangerous than its Category 1 classification
    indicated, yet it seemed that many coastal residents did not get or heed that
    message before the storm hit.

    (9) Seems to be hype on the part of
    the source to spin fear in the minds of the populous.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hurricane-sandy-tops-list-of-2012-extreme-weather-and-climate-events-15405/P11

    November was the 333rd month in a row with a global average surface
    temperature that was above the 20th century average, a clear sign of the
    warming trend that scientific evidence shows is due at in large part to
    man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. And with mild
    temperatures in early December, that string of record warm months seems likely
    to continue.

    To put it another way, if you are under the age of 27, you have never
    experienced a month in which global average surface temperatures came in below
    the 20th century average, as the environmental
    news website Grist reported in October.

  44. Let’s just assume all the AGW theorists are correct and all of their data is correct. (This is highly unlikely and to be so naive at to think they all got it right would lend itself to religion, which is not science, its faith). Their solution to the problem would be ???? One certainly cannot expect billions of people to simply return to living in the 19th century, which based on the perceived severity of the situation would need to be done. The outcome of the solution would be far worse than the problem. It would seem mitigation would be a far more logical solution than trying to stop the inevitable. We as humans have been adapting to our surrounding for millions of years. Does the technology to look at our climate also give us the audacity to think we could actually control the entire climate with one compound measured in PPM? Throughout history we simply moved to a more hospitable climate of made concession to the climate!

    ################################

    http://www.livetradingnews.com/100-renewable-energy-in-germany-93980.htm

    Since 2000, Germany has converted 25 percent of its power grid to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass. The architects of the clean energy movement Energiewende, which translates to “energy transformation,” estimate that from 80 percent to 100 percent of Germany’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2050.

    Germans are baffled that the United States has not taken the same path. Not only is the U.S. the wealthiest nation in the world, but it’s also credited with jump-starting Germany’s green movement 40 years ago.

  45. That if the heat is balanced storms will be less violent !

    Since the Arctic but not the antarctic is warming faster than the equator storms should be and are getting milder !

  48. Lets get beyond your opinion on the matter. Show me your sources since you claim to have more knowledge than I do.
    Then why do hurricanes increase in intensity when the sea surface temperatures are warmer?

  49. That if the heat is balanced storms will be less violent !

    Since the Arctic but not the antarctic is warming faster than the equator storms should be and are getting milder

    ####################
    We might as well be talking theology with your sources you are showing. HOw does hurricane intenisty fit into this?

  50. Hurricane intensity is seriously down and even Sandy was only a cat 1 and there is no cat 0.

    Some argue that sandy was big and slow but CO2 doesn’t cause BIG does it ?

Comments are closed.