Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

OCATA THERAPEUTICS, INC. Message Board

  • lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 6, 2014 2:04 PM Flag

    Thank God for global warming otherwise this would be much worse.The last sentence in this article confirms what I have been saying all along

    Forbes
    Jame Taylor
    6/25/2014 @ 11:07AM

    Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

    Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor citing issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely cited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

    According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

    Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year cooling period does present some interesting facts.

    First, global warming is not so dramatic and uniform and alarmists claim. For example, prominent alarmist James Hansen claimed in 2010, “Global warming on decadal time scales is continuing without letup … effectively illustrat[ing] the monotonic and substantial warming that is occurring on decadal time scales.” The word monotonic means, according to Merriam-Webster Online, “having the property either of never increasing or of never decreasing as the values of the independent variable or the subscripts of the terms increase.” Well, either temperatures are decreasing by 0.4 degrees Celsius every decade or they are not monotonic.

    Second, for those who may point out U.S. temperatures do not equate to global temperatures, the USCRN data are entirely consistent with – and indeed lend additional evidentiary support for – the global warming stagnation of the past 17-plus years. While objective temperature data show there has been no global warming since sometime last century, the USCRN data confirm this ongoing stagnation in the United States, also.

    Third, the USCRN data debunk claims that rising U.S. temperatures caused wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events during the past year. The objective data show droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent and severe in recent decades as our planet modestly warms. But even ignoring such objective data, it is difficult to claim global warming is causing recent U.S. droughts and wildfires when U.S. temperatures are a full 0.4 degrees Celsius colder than they were in 2005.

    Even more importantly than the facts above, the USCRN provides the promise of reliable nationwide temperature data for years to come. No longer will global warming alarmists be able to hide behind thinly veiled excuses to doctor the U.S. temperature record. Now, thanks to the USCRN, the data are what the data are.

    Expect global warming alarmists, now and for the foreseeable future, to howl in desperation claiming the USCRN temperature data are irrelevant.

    Of course, to global warming alarmists, all real-world data are irrelevant.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • HUGE WAVES OBSERVED IN FORMERLY FROZEN ARCTIC REGION

      Waves as high as 29 feet recorded in a normally waveless Beaufort Sea

      By Ian Lang, Daily Digest News | July 30, 2014

      When most people think of the Arctic, they usually imagine things like polar bears and Santa Clause. What they don’t picture are waves the size of a one-story house, because most of the Arctic Ocean is typically frozen and you can’t have big waves in frozen water. Well, tell that to the scientists from the University of Washington and the Naval Research Laboratory, who recently published their 2012 observation of big waves in the Arctic’s Beaufort Sea: During peak times, the waves averaged around 16 feet high.

      THE HIGHEST SINGLE WAVE WAS MEASURED AT 29 FEET. RESEARCHERS FEAR THAT THE WAVES, ENABLED AFTER DECADES OF EXPANDING ICE RETREAT THANKS TO GLOBAL WARMING, WILL EVEN FURTHER ACCELERATE THE ICE BREAKING PROCESS IN THE ARCTIC REGION.

      “The observations reported here are the only known wave measurements in the central Beaufort Sea,” they wrote in the report, “because UNTIL RECENTLY THE REGION REMAINED ICE COVERED THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER AND THERE WERE NO WAVES TO MEASURE.”

      TO CREATE WAVES, YOU NEED PLENTY OF OPEN WATER IN ADDITION TO HIGH WINDS. THERE WERE NO WAVES OBSERVED EARLIER, BECAUSE IN THE PAST THE ICE JUST DIDN’T RETREAT FAR ENOUGH, EVEN IN THE HEAT OF SUMMER.

      Now, things are different. “IN RECENT YEARS, THE SEASONAL ICE RETREAT HAS EXPANDED DRAMATICALLY, LEAVING MUCH OF THE BEAUFORT SEA ICE FREE AT THE END OF THE SUMMER,” they wrote.

      Though no one is sure of anything just yet, the shocking observations don’t paint a rosy future. The compounding effects of sea swells combined with global warming could have unseen consequences for all who inhabit the Arctic, both human and otherwise. What exactly those consequences will be is the subject of future study.

      “WAVES COULD ACCELERATE THE ICE RETREAT,” RESEARCHER JIM THOMSON TOLD THE WASHINGTON POST IN AN EMAIL. “WE DON’T HAVE MUCH DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THIS, OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE COMPARED WITH MELTING, BUT THE PROCESS IS REAL. WE ARE CONDUCTING A LARGE PROJECT THIS SUMMER TO ANSWER JUST THAT QUESTION”

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • The arguments of the loons are sciolistic to say the least..

    • JAMES TAYLOR MISLEADS ON HURRICANE CLAIMS, DISCOUNTS SANDY VICTIMS

      Climate Science Watch | 11/1/2013

      In a typically misleading Forbes op-ed, James Taylor suggests we should “thank global warming for softening the blow of Hurricane Sandy.” He begins with the sweeping claim that “Any way you measure it… global warming is having no impact or a beneficial impact on hurricanes.” However, instead of following his own advice and looking at all ways of measuring hurricanes, he focuses only on a few narrow characteristics of past hurricane trends. He ignores the many ways that global warming has affected hurricanes, did affect Sandy, and will worsen hurricanes in the future. The important factors he completely overlooks include:

      Sea level rise: Climate change has contributed about eight inches to sea level rise, giving Sandy’s storm surge a crucial boost that allowed it to reach an additional 83,000 people in New York and New Jersey (according to an upcoming paper accepted by the journal Earth’s Future). Those 83,000 people might take issue with the idea of thanking climate change for its effects on Hurricane Sandy. The trend towards rising seas will continue, lending destructive power to future storm surges.

      Storm size: Taylor attempts to refute the idea of any trends in hurricane intensity. However, he uses the Saffir-Simpson scale, which is based entirely on wind speed. Hurricane winds can cause damage to trees and buildings, but storm surges have caused more deaths during hurricanes than any other factor. As James Brinkley, a member of the National Hurricane Center’s storm surge unit, recently told LiveScience: “There is no relationship” between wind speed and storm surge. Scientists are beginning to realize that other factors like storm size have a more significant impact on the storm surge. Sandy fits into this pattern -- it was especially massive, with a radius of 207 miles of hurricane-force winds. Nearly 1,000 miles of the East Coast were hit by tropical-storm-force winds.

      Warming was likely a factor in this large size. Dr. Jennifer Francis told Joe Romm that the abnormally warm sea surface temperatures at the time of Hurricane Sandy “set up the strong pressure gradient between Sandy and the blocking high that caused the enormous expanse of tropical-storm-force winds from Delaware to Nova Scotia.”

      Precipitation: Likewise, precipitation has a major impact on flooding, and global warming appears to be causing the extreme precipitation associated with hurricanes and storms to increase. After Sandy hit New York City, Dr. Kevin Trenberth explained in an op-ed: “The sea surface temperatures just before the storm were some 5°F above the 30-year average, or “normal,” for this time of year over a 500-mile swath off the coastline from the Carolinas to Canada, and 1°F of this is very likely a direct result of global warming. With every degree F rise in temperatures, the atmosphere can hold 4 percent more moisture. Thus, Sandy was able to pull in more moisture, fueling a stronger storm and magnifying the amount of rainfall by as much #$%$ to 10 percent compared with conditions more than 40 years ago.”

      The jet stream: The Arctic is warming disproportionately fast compared to the rest of the planet, and this appears to be causing changes to the jet stream that may be affecting hurricane patterns. For example, when Sandy was moving up the East Coast, a large wave in the jet stream’s path pushed Sandy farther north than it would otherwise have been able to travel.

      Future warming: Inconsistent record-keeping can make it difficult to understand exactly how global warming has affected past hurricane trends. However, we are much more knowledgeable about the future of hurricanes as the planet warms. The recent and comprehensive IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) concluded a “likely” increase in both wind speed and rainfall rates associated with tropical cyclones as warming continues over the next century. Individual studies have found much stronger results, including Dr. Kerry Emanuel’s recent paper published after the cutoff for inclusion in the AR5. Emanuel found that Atlantic named storms have increased their activity since 1995, and will increase in both frequency and intensity as warming continues.

      Taylor’s argument boils down to an assertion that it’s difficult to discern a trend in hurricane wind speed or frequency over the past century, therefore we should be thankful for global warming and unconcerned about its future impacts. The five factors listed above show just how illogical that conclusion is. EMERGING SCIENCE SHOWS GLOBAL WARMING CAN AFFECT THE STORM SURGE, EXTENT, PRECIPITATION, AND PATH OF STORMS, ALL OF WHICH CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE DAMAGE TOLL. As warming continues, these factors are only projected to worsen. That’s an excellent reason to take action against climate change -- not to be thankful for it.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • JAMES TAYLOR MISINTERPRETS STUDY BY 180 DEGREES

      Posted on February 14, 2013 by Climate Science Watch

      In a Forbes op-ed, James Taylor takes a study that prominently reveals the anti-science influence of oil and gas companies, and spins it to suggest that serious, substantive disagreement exists among relevant scientists on climate change. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the very study he cites, as well as numerous other studies that have surveyed climate scientists.

      The following is a guest post by Climate Nexus:

      JAMES TAYLOR MISINTERPRETS STUDY BY 180 DEGREES

      In a Forbes op-ed, James Taylor takes a study that prominently reveals the anti-science influence of oil and gas companies, and spins it to suggest that serious, substantive disagreement exists among relevant scientists on climate change. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the very study he cites, as well as numerous other studies that have surveyed climate scientists.

      The claim:

      Taylor references a new study that surveyed Canadian engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta. He attaches the headline, “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority of Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis.” The study divides respondents into 5 groups, and Taylor highlights the fact that only 36% of scientists fell into the category most supportive of climate action. He concludes, “…it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.”

      The context:

      - The study Taylor references polled members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). Membership in APEGA is a prerequisite to a job with an oil, gas, or mining company, and these jobs dominate its online job board. Alberta, home to the tar sands boom, is Canada’s most oil-rich province, and the petroleum industry is Alberta’s largest employer of engineers and geoscientists.

      - The study authors used the APEGA survey as a way to see how extractive industry positions influence scientific views and justifications. They found that people employed by oil and gas companies were much more likely to oppose mainstream climate science. Additionally, the more highly placed in the company, the more vehement the opposition.

      - 84% of the respondents to the survey were engineers. This designation includes many subspecialties that have nothing to do with climate, for example electrical engineers and pipeline corrosion specialists.

      - Taylor’s focus on the most concerned category of scientists and engineers is misleading. Another 5% of respondents supported moderate action, and an additional 17% believed that humans were influencing the climate, although they were not sure if action was needed. This means that even among a group made up primarily of oil and gas industry engineers, 58% believed that humans are influencing the climate.

      Additional studies:

      - A recent literature review found that out of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate science studies since 1991, only 24 reject human-caused global warming.

      - A peer-reviewed survey of 1,372 actively publishing climate researchers found that 97% of them uphold the existence of human-caused global warming.

      - Another peer-reviewed survey of 10,257 earth scientists from a variety of disciplines also found 97% agreement among actively publishing climate scientists, and almost 90% agreement among all actively publishing earth scientists that humans are causing global warming.

      Conclusion:

      The APEGA survey is noteworthy for its exposure of the disparity between the views of engineers and geoscientists employed by petroleum companies, vs. the rest of the community of actively publishing climate and earth scientists. Denialism increased still further among the top-level oil and gas engineers. Although the cause behind this trend is unclear, it shows at the very least a correlation between ties to oil and gas and climate denial views. In no way does it undermine the strong agreement among publishing scientists that human-caused global warming is real and a problem.

      * * *

      Also see Heartland Institute’s James Taylor falsely claims a new study rejects climate consensus [Updated], by Bryan Angliss at Scholars and Rogues, which leads with:

      James Taylor, managing editor of The Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, recently wrote a Forbes blog post about a new study of professional engineers and geoscientists involved in Alberta, Canada’s petroleum industry. According to the authors of the study, however, Taylor got most of the details in his post wrong, and Taylor has not corrected or retracted the blog post even though his errors have been pointed out to him. Furthermore, Taylor republished his deceptive and dishonest post at The Heartland Institute this morning, three days after the study’s authors corrected Taylor. Taylor has a made a habit of distorting scientific studies in the past – his new blog post is no different. ...

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • James Taylor-is ridiculous-we're raising the little bridges and the water-front parkways-does he think that we are hallucinating the flooding and just want to spend millions? He should stick to "Mockingbird"

    • WARM WATER LIKELY TO ACCELERATE ANTARCTIC ICE MELT AND SEA LEVEL RISES, AUSTRALIAN SCIENTISTS FIND

      Lateline By Margot O'Neill | 7/7/2014

      Warm water is likely to increasingly displace cold water around the Antarctic coastline, prompting accelerated ice melt and more sea level rise, according to new Australian research. 

      Scientists from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) have modelled how shifting wind patterns can drag warm water currents right up to the base of the giant ice shelves.

      "What you usually have is cold water sitting next to the ice shelves at about minus 2 degrees Celsius and then warm water further out," said Paul Spence from the Climate Change Research Centre at UNSW.

      "We found by using projected wind forces to the end of this century that warm waters tend to flood onshore, right next to the grounding lines of the glacial ice sheets."

      The researchers found the warm water can be 4 degrees warmer than the cold water it displaces.

      "It could lead to a massive increase in the rate of ice sheet melt, with direct consequences for global sea level rise," Dr Spence said.

      It is the latest alarm being sounded by scientists that all is not well on the vast, icy southern continent.

      Glaciologists have warned that the melting of some of the unstable ice sheets in West Antarctica is probably now irreversible, while others have recorded alarming ice loss in the more stable and vast East Antarctic ice sheets.

      A team of scientists from UNSW and the Australian National University (ANU) have for the first time modelled how sub-surface ocean temperatures down to 700 metres are rapidly changing around Antarctica because of shifting wind patterns, thought to be partly due to global warming.

      They were shocked by both the size and the speed of what they discovered.
      "It certainly was for me a very frightening result," Dr Spence said.
      "I didn't fully appreciate how sensitive this part of the ocean was to change and how ripe a situation it was for providing dramatic impacts on the ice sheets."

      He says the research shows sub-surface warming at twice the rate previously thought.

      It means the melting of West Antarctic ice shelves could be faster than anticipated in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

      "They weren't considering the types of temperature warming that we're seeing in our model simulations around the Antarctic coastline," Dr Spence said.

      GLACIAL LOSS 'NOT UNLIKE AN AVALANCHE OF SNOW'

      The University of Hawaii's Professor Axel Timmerman, who has seen the research paper, says the melting of some unstable ice sheets might be irreversible.

      "It's plausible that the mechanism revealed by this research will push parts of the West Antarctic ice sheet beyond a point of no return," he said.

      It's not unlike an avalanche of snow, where you don't quite know when it's going to happen but when it happens, it can happen quickly.
      Paul Spence from the Climate Change Research Centre at UNSW

      "This work suggests the Antarctic ice sheets may be less stable to future climate change than previously assumed."

      But scientists cannot predict when these warm waters will trigger cascading glacial loss.

      "It's not unlike an avalanche of snow, where you don't quite know when it's going to happen but when it happens, it can happen quickly," Dr Spence said.

      The Australian Antarctic Division's Tas van Ommen says the effects of a rapidly transforming Antarctica are now likely to be felt this century.

      "We need to bear in mind that even modest sea level rises half-a-metre to a metre is a very big change and if we are going to see estimates now of several tenths of a metre more than that by the end of this century, that's going to rapidly reshape our response to sea level rise," he said.
      "What's concerning is that with a heavily populated planet it's going to reshape our coastlines in ways that matter in this century."

    • Lonesome: The socialist/liberal environmental extremists are not going to accept the truth easily. I think we can expect many lies and distortions in an effort to contest this, as well as personal attacks on the character and reputation of the people who tell the truth about the man caused global warming hoax, and since this is a government agency, I would not be surprised to see pressures brought to bear on it to change or obscure the data and the conclusions to be drawn.

 
ACTC
0.00(0.00%)