Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
The real leftist agenda... behind all the lies. Drive the private sector out... force communism on the tax payers.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...-britain-uninvestable-for-energy/#more-104139
Oh, this canât be good: Britain âUninvestableâ for energy
Posted on March 2, 2014 by Anthony Watts
Place your bets now on when the lights will go off
Deepening Energy Crisis: Britain Has Become âUninvestableâ, Analyst Warns
Danny Fortson, The Sunday Times
The German owner of Npower is set to write off hundreds of millions of pounds on the value of its British power plants in the latest sign of a deepening crisis among the big six energy suppliers. RWE, one of Europeâs largest power companies, will reveal the British loss as part of an expected £4bn writedown of the value of its fleet of power stations.
RWE npowerâs Major Power Plants in the UK (2007)
The loss arises from pollution taxes that are forcing the closure of old coal-fired plants. Big subsidies for renewable energy, meanwhile, have made even gas-burning plants, which are much cleaner than coal stations, loss-making.
The hit will alarm Whitehall, which is increasingly worried about the lights going out. Companies have stopped building new power stations amid a political and regulatory backlash, sparked last year by Ed Milibandâs pledge to freeze energy prices.
RWE, for example, has not commissioned a new plant in Britain since 2009, when it broke ground on a big wind farm and a gas-fired plant in Pembroke. Since then it has sold out of a consortium to build new nuclear plants, closed down plants capable of lighting more than 4m homes, and cancelled a proposed £4bn offshore wind farm. [...]
Peter Atherton, analyst at Liberum Capital, said Britain had become uninvestable as political pressure over soaring household bills has intensified. âI can think of a dozen very good reasons not to invest in the UK, and not one good one to invest here this side of the election,â Atherton said.
Full story (subscription required)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...-britain-uninvestable-for-energy/#more-104139
Oh, this canât be good: Britain âUninvestableâ for energy
Posted on March 2, 2014 by Anthony Watts
Place your bets now on when the lights will go off
Deepening Energy Crisis: Britain Has Become âUninvestableâ, Analyst Warns
Danny Fortson, The Sunday Times
The German owner of Npower is set to write off hundreds of millions of pounds on the value of its British power plants in the latest sign of a deepening crisis among the big six energy suppliers. RWE, one of Europeâs largest power companies, will reveal the British loss as part of an expected £4bn writedown of the value of its fleet of power stations.
RWE npowerâs Major Power Plants in the UK (2007)
The loss arises from pollution taxes that are forcing the closure of old coal-fired plants. Big subsidies for renewable energy, meanwhile, have made even gas-burning plants, which are much cleaner than coal stations, loss-making.
The hit will alarm Whitehall, which is increasingly worried about the lights going out. Companies have stopped building new power stations amid a political and regulatory backlash, sparked last year by Ed Milibandâs pledge to freeze energy prices.
RWE, for example, has not commissioned a new plant in Britain since 2009, when it broke ground on a big wind farm and a gas-fired plant in Pembroke. Since then it has sold out of a consortium to build new nuclear plants, closed down plants capable of lighting more than 4m homes, and cancelled a proposed £4bn offshore wind farm. [...]
Peter Atherton, analyst at Liberum Capital, said Britain had become uninvestable as political pressure over soaring household bills has intensified. âI can think of a dozen very good reasons not to invest in the UK, and not one good one to invest here this side of the election,â Atherton said.
Full story (subscription required)
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12]
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12]
we have already shown you there is no consensus, the junk you cite... is from misrepresented studies and bogus claims by the IPCC...
CO2 accumlation and dissipation trails ocean temps.
CO2 accumlation and dissipation trails ocean temps.
here it is for you moron troll agw nutters...
the green lags but follows the blue.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11â12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature and 9.5â10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
Global and Planetary Change Volume 100, January 2013, Pages 51â69
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
Ole Humlum a, b
Kjell Stordahl c
Jan-Erik Solheim d
a) Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
b) Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway
c) Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway
d) Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008, How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11â12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5â10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
Highlights
⺠Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11â12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ⺠Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5â10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ⺠Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ⺠Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ⺠Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
17 .5 years (or more) of no global warming and counting.
UAH Global Temperature Anomaly Down by .12C in February
Posted on March 5, 2014 by Anthony Watts
UAH Global Temperature Update for February 2014: +0.17 deg. C
(Note, my original headline number was unintentionally misleading, using a percentage to illustrate the drop rather that the absolute number. While the calculation was correct, it gave an impression of overall magnitude across the entire scale rather than the month to month change. It has been corrected. â Anthony)
by Dr, Roy Spencer
UAH Global Temperature Anomaly Down by .12C in February
Posted on March 5, 2014 by Anthony Watts
UAH Global Temperature Update for February 2014: +0.17 deg. C
(Note, my original headline number was unintentionally misleading, using a percentage to illustrate the drop rather that the absolute number. While the calculation was correct, it gave an impression of overall magnitude across the entire scale rather than the month to month change. It has been corrected. â Anthony)
by Dr, Roy Spencer
you mean the .3% of the papers
or the 75 out of 3100 scientists in the doran paper
Hey asshole, what is 75 out of 77? Yup ...................97%.
All the science orgs in the world. None deny it. None...zero. One out of thousands of climate papers. One.
To deny AGW is to be an idiot.