Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

When you have NASA reporting significantly increasing ice mass in Anarctica at one point and then significantly decreasing ice five years later, that to me is a 180, especially when it is reported as a trend.

Those headlines I posted also indicate a 180 in media emphasis within a one month period. Media interpretation I think should not be the last word on any of this.

Temperature
Average annual global temperatures over the last 131 years have varied:
1877 = 14.909C = 58.836F
1878 = 15.023C = 59.041F
1879 = 14.735C = 58.523F
…
1907 = 14.493C = 58.087F
1908 = 14.441C = 57.994F
1909 = 14.436C = 57.985F
1910 = 14.452C = 58.014F
1911 = 14.419C = 57.954F
1912 = 14.509C = 58.116F
...
1997 = 15.351C = 59.632F
1998 = 15.546C = 59.983F
1999 = 15.296C = 59.533F
2000 = 15.270C = 59.486F
2001 = 15.409C = 59.736F
2002 = 15.464C = 59.835F
2003 = 15.473C = 59.851F
2004 = 15.447C = 59.805F
2005 = 15.482C = 59.868F
2006 = 15.421C = 59.758F
2007 = 15.414C = 59.745F

Seriously though guys, doesn't it give anybody pause for thought when there can be such a 180 switch in scientific opinion within five years or even within one month as in 2002? Isn't backing up, taking a deep breath, and advocating a critical view of all the data something that should be really encouraged at this point?

Foxfyre wrote:

Seriously though guys, doesn't it give anybody pause for thought when there can be such a 180 switch in scientific opinion within five years or even within one month as in 2002? Isn't backing up, taking a deep breath, and advocating a critical view of all the data something that should be really encouraged at this point?

You haven't really shown a 180 switch in science Fox. You only pointed to 5 or more sensationlized headlines for one story on each side of the issue. 5 headlines on the same day is NOT a result of a lot of science. It is the result of one paper that may not even say what the headline says it does.

Why don't you back up, research the paper that was the cause of the 2 "opposing" headlines and see if the headlines even reflect the science.

Seriously though guys, doesn't it give anybody pause for thought when there can be such a 180 switch in scientific opinion within five years or even within one month as in 2002?

If you had actually read what I wrote, I did not present the headlines as scientific opinion. I presented the headlines as an example of media treatment of scientific opinion (or reports as it were.)

Seriously though guys, doesn't it give anybody pause for thought when there can be such a 180 switch in scientific opinion within five years or even within one month as in 2002? Isn't backing up, taking a deep breath, and advocating a critical view of all the data something that should be really encouraged at this point?

If you had actually read what I wrote...

Foxfyre wrote:

When you have NASA reporting significantly increasing ice mass in Anarctica at one point and then significantly decreasing ice five years later, that to me is a 180, especially when it is reported as a trend.

Actually, it's not even a "significantly increasing ice mass in Anarctica at one point and then significantly decreasing ice five years later" - it's happening at the same time. Increasing ice mass here, large scale melting there.

Foxfyre wrote:

Those headlines I posted also indicate a 180 in media emphasis within a one month period. Media interpretation I think should not be the last word on any of this.

Again: how can it be a '180' when it's happening at the same time? Even if you had two newspapers, one reporting that the ice shelf is increasing, and the other one writing that larger areas of Antarctica are melting than before - how would that constitute a '180'?

You'd have two newspapers reporting different parts of what's going one. Yet, as both trends are happening at the same time, it's in no way the contradiction you're trying to make of it.

ican711nm wrote:

Temperature
Average annual global temperatures over the last 131 years have varied:
1877 = 14.909C = 58.836F
1878 = 15.023C = 59.041F
1879 = 14.735C = 58.523F
…
1907 = 14.493C = 58.087F
1908 = 14.441C = 57.994F
1909 = 14.436C = 57.985F
1910 = 14.452C = 58.014F
1911 = 14.419C = 57.954F
1912 = 14.509C = 58.116F
...
1997 = 15.351C = 59.632F
1998 = 15.546C = 59.983F
1999 = 15.296C = 59.533F
2000 = 15.270C = 59.486F
2001 = 15.409C = 59.736F
2002 = 15.464C = 59.835F
2003 = 15.473C = 59.851F
2004 = 15.447C = 59.805F
2005 = 15.482C = 59.868F
2006 = 15.421C = 59.758F
2007 = 15.414C = 59.745F

Please note that the graphs you posted do not go beyond 2003. However they do show a small temperature decline after 1998.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Solar Firm Heads to Mesa del Sol

By Andrew Webb
Copyright © 2008 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Write

New Mexico pitched $130 million in incentives to lure a 1,500-employee solar technology plant to Albuquerque, beating out more than a dozen other states, Mexico and Canada.

Schott Solar, a subsidiary of Mainz, Germany-based glass-making giant Schott AG, will initially employ 350 at the Albuquerque plant, which is expected to quadruple in size over time to become its U.S. flagship facility.

Gov. Bill Richardson, flanked by local and state officials, announced the agreement Monday morning, calling it a boost to American clean energy production and technology, and lauding the potential for hundreds of high-wage jobs.
"When we land companies like Schott, this is a home run for the state," he said.

Schott AG will break ground for the $100 million, 200,000-square-foot plant next month at Mesa del Sol, a new development southeast of Downtown that is already home to a solar cell plant. Company officials said the new plant would be operational by 2009.
The company, which has annual sales of $3 billion and employs 17,000 people in 41 countries, will initially hire 350 people to work on two products:

• Complete 300-watt solar panels, using solar cells made in Germany.

• Build solar thermal receivers?- which are used to create steam with solar energy concentrated by parabolic mirrors. The steam is used to power turbine generators.


In coming years, the company will invest up to $400 million to expand the plant, add about 100 jobs per year, and eventually expand to the production of solar cells?- a process that uses materials and equipment similar to that used in the computer chip industry.

Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chávez told the Journal that the city and state have been working for months to land Schott.
"Today, we celebrate success," he said, calling the plans "consistent with my vision to have Albuquerque be the centerpiece for technology excellence on addressing energy independence and climate change."
Richardson said he sealed the deal with a handshake in a New Hampshire hotel about a month ago, during his recently ended presidential campaign.
He said the company chose New Mexico because of its existing base of skilled workers and "renewable energy policies."
"This will help further the establishment of our state as the leading force behind the renewable energy revolution," Richardson said.

The governor will ask the Legislature for $8 million in capital outlay funds this year for infrastructure, such as roads and utilities, at Schott's Mesa del Sol site, and $4 million more in 2009.
Albuquerque will also contribute $1 million in infrastructure funds, Chávez said.

Other incentives offered to the company?- including job training funds, energy and high-wage job tax credits and industrial revenue bonds?- total $120 million, a spokesman for the Economic Development Department told the Journal.
New Mexico Secretary of Economic Development Fred Mondragón said the plant could provide jobs for high-tech workers recently laid off from Intel Corp.'s Rio Rancho plant and other local employers.
"This enables us to dodge the recession," he said.

Schott is a 120-year-old company whose primary business is glass and similar materials used for household appliances, optics, tubing, electronics and pharmaceutical packaging. Schott products are used in telescopes, flat-screen televisions and glass-ceramic-top stoves. The company expanded to the United States in the 1960s and began producing solar energy equipment in the 1970s.
Udo Ungeheuer, chairman of Schott's Management Board, said the company is dedicated to reducing the use of fossil fuels.
"Climate change is very real," he said. "We have to change our energy supply to clean renewable sources."
Most of Schott's solar business?- both photovoltaic and solar thermal?- is in Europe, but demand here is growing.
Schott Solar CEO Mark Finocchario said the plant would be the company's largest in the United States. It would also use solar and other renewable energy sources for some of its energy needs, he said.
"We're absolutely committed to becoming a good corporate citizen and employer of choice in New Mexico," Finocchario said.
Schott AG has a presence in about 10 U.S. states and employs about 2,500 in the United States. Schott Solar has another plant in Massachusetts.
Mesa del Sol is already home to a homegrown solar company, Advent Solar, which produces solar cells based on technology developed at Sandia National Laboratories.

this is nothing scientific , just anecdotal .
we have lived in eastern ontario about a mile away from lake ontario since 1956 .
until about 1985 , by christmas lake ontario (at the eastern end where we live) would be frozen and stay frozen until the end of march/early april .
the coast guard would send out icebreakers at that time to re-open the seaway for shipping .
the ice would be about three feet thick and we could take a walk on the frozen lake and even circle some of the smaller islands .
the university students would set up ice rinks on the frozen lake and many hockey games would be played during january-february .

an ìce road`would be opened up (marked by discarded christmas trees) for cars to drive over to wolfe island - about 2 miles from the eastern shoreline .

the ground would be frozen until late april and gardening would usually not start before `victoria day`in mid-may .

in the mid eighties things started to change gradually . the lake would freeze later - mid to late january for only three to four weeks .
no more walking on the ice , no ice rinks , and definetely no ice road.

i started to work earlier in the garden - putting seeds into the ground in early may .

saturday and sunday we took some walks by the lake .
not a speck of ice on the lake .
the canada geese no longer go south but were swimming right in front of us in the lake - sure a nice sight .
some flies are already buzzing around - certainly , things have changed .
we have also noticed that ourconsumption of heating oil is getting less - not a bad thing .

this weekend there is to be a brief cold spell but the long range forecast calls for continued mild weather .

so where we live there has certainly be a change - it`s been gradual , but it`s changing .
in the summer there are also more days when the temperature reaches 30 C and higher - and more often for several days in a row .
we also see more smog hanging over the shoreline .
the water level of lake ontario keeps falling - about two feet below where it was some years ago .

nothing scientific but changes that we have noticed .
on more thing : yesterday i caught the first fly of the season in the house .
hbg

That your lake no longer freezes is interesting

Scientists Take Complaints About Interference to Hill
By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 16, 2008; Page A13

Two dozen scientists swarmed over Capitol Hill this week mad as vespinae ( hornets) at what they say is Bush administration meddling in environmental science.

Organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Endangered Species Coalition, the rumpled researchers won time in the offices of more than 20 lawmakers. They are protesting what Francesca Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, calls "the systematic dismantling of the Endangered Species Act through the manipulation and suppression of science."

On a dash from the House to the Senate, Grifo said the group wants hearings and better congressional oversight of the Interior Department, where Bush appointees control the fate of threatened and endangered species.

The scientists say political appointees at Interior, or those who report to them, have been altering their reports recommending "critical habitat" preservation to favor industries whose interests conflict with the findings.

Hmm, climate change is all about December temperatures, delivered by junkscience.