Ridgewood NJ,ok so now the Village is blaming “Global warming” ie “Climate change” on poor maintenance of Village shade trees ? Be it poor planning or lack of budget the fact is Village shade trees have not been maintained ,time to focus and plan ,excuse making or excuse implying will not fix anything.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND URBAN/SUBURBAN TREES – NOV. 9 – RIDGEWOOD LIBRARY
Native Plant Society of New Jersey
November 9, 2016 at 7PM Lecture at Ridgewood Public Library
Climate Change and Urban/Suburban Trees
Dr. Jason Grabosky, professor at Rutgers University’s School of environmental and Biological Seiences, will address Climate change and Urban/Suburban Trees.
Dr. Grabosky will discuss the implications of climate change on plant selection and management, how trees occupy spaces which change over time, and how that affects other species such as insects.
There will be time for general discussion and questions and answers.
Ridgewood NJ, PSEG announced today that its Hudson Generation Station in Jersey City, N.J., and its Mercer Generation Station in Hamilton Township, N.J., will be retired on June 1, 2017.
“The sustained low prices of natural gas have put economic pressure on these plants for some time. In that context, we could not justify the significant investment required to upgrade these plants to meet the new reliability standards,” said Bill Levis, president and chief operating officer-PSEG Power. “The plants have been infrequently called on to run and neither plant cleared the last two PJM capacity auctions. The plants’ capacity payments have been critical to their profitability and PSEG’s ability to continue to invest in modernizing them.”
PSEG stressed that it is committed to treating the approximately 200 employees at Hudson and Mercer fairly during the process of retiring the existing units.
“These plants have played a critical role in powering the growth and economic expansion of New Jersey and PSEG is grateful to our employees who have played a part in building and running them for the past 50 years,” said Levis. “We will work with our union and PSEG leadership to ensure that the plants continue to operate safely through their retirement dates and to place as many employees as possible within PSEG’s family of companies.”
PSEG remains committed to meeting the long-term energy needs of New Jersey and the region and currently is investing more than $600 million in a new state-of-the-art combined-cycled gas plant in Sewaren, N.J., as well as new plants in Connecticut and Maryland. Currently, PSEG Power has gas facilities representing nearly 4,000 MWs of generating capacity in New Jersey and owns 3,740 MWs of nuclear generation, of which approximately 2,500 MWs are located in New Jersey.
PSEG has long been an advocate for fuel diversity, both in its generation fleet and in the PJM pool. With the announced closing of the coal plants, New Jersey’s energy now will be split almost evenly between nuclear and natural gas, with a small but growing amount of renewable energy. “We continue to believe that it is unwise for New Jersey to become too overly dependent on one source of energy,” said Levis. “With the continued low cost of natural gas, it is important that we recognize and support the full value of non-carbon, non-polluting nuclear and renewable energy.”
PSEG noted that it is evaluating all options for future use of the sites.
The decision to retire the Hudson and Mercer plants early triggers certain changes in accounting treatment that will have a material effect on PSEG’s and PSEG Power’s reported results. In the third quarter of 2016, PSEG and PSEG Power expect to recognize one-time charges in Energy Costs and Operation and Maintenance expense ranging from an estimated $40 million to $70 million and $35 million to $77 million, respectively, related to the cost of shutting down these units, including coal and other materials and supplies, inventory reserve adjustments, employee-related continuance, and severance benefits costs.
In addition to these one-time charges, there will be ongoing annual incremental non-cash charges to earnings of $560 million to $580 million in 2016 and $940 million to $960 million in 2017 due to the shortening of the expected economic useful lives of the Hudson and Mercer plants. These charges are detailed in the Form 8K that PSEG and PSEG Power filed today and will be discussed in more detail when PSEG reports third quarter earnings on October 31, 2016.
Mercer Generation Station was opened in 1960. It currently has a capacity of 632 MWs. Hudson Generation Station was opened in 1968 and had a capacity of 620 MWs. The 200 employees are roughly split between the two locations
Facts don’t support his hypothesis, so he shouts louder, changes subjects, and attacks his critics
May 27, 2016 by Dr. Willie Soon and István Markó,
True science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.
That’s why Albert Einstein once joked, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts.” When informed that scientists who rejected his theory of relativity had published a pamphlet, 100 authors against Einstein, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”
In the realm of climate scientism, the rule seems to be this: If the facts don’t support your argument, talk louder, twist the facts, and insult your opponents. That’s certainly what self-styled global warming “experts” like Al Gore and Bill Nye are doing. Rather than debating scientists who don’t accept false claims that humans are causing dangerous climate change, they just proclaim more loudly:
Our theory explains everything that’s happening. Hotter or colder temperatures, wetter or drier weather, less ice in the Arctic, more ice in Antarctica – it’s all due to fossil fuel use.
Climate scientism aggressively misrepresents facts, refuses to discuss energy and climate issues with anyone who points out massive flaws in the man-made climate chaos hypothesis, bullies anyone who won’t condemn carbon dioxide, and brands them as equivalent to Holocaust Deniers.
In a recent Huffington Post article, Mr. Nye “challenges climate change deniers” by claiming, “The science of global warming is long settled, and one may wonder why the United States, nominally the most technologically advanced country in the world, is not the world leader in addressing the threats.”
Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).
Science has taken a back seat at the United Nations.
On this Earth Day 2016, there is a great deal of frenzy about how our Earth is going to become uninhabitable, as the civilized activities of man allegedly trigger unstoppable global warming and climate change.
With the Obama administration set to commit the U.S. to the Paris climate agreement by signing our nation onto the document Friday, it is obvious that science has taken a back seat at the United Nations.
The environmentalists, bureaucrats and politicians who make up the U.N.’s climate panel recruit scientists to research the climate issue. And they place only those who will produce the desired results. Money, politics and ideology have replaced science.
U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres has called for a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different” to combat the alleged global warming threat. How many Americans are looking forward to the U.N. transforming their lives?
BURNING fossil fuels and cutting down trees causes global COOLING, a shock new NASA study has found.
By JON AUSTIN
PUBLISHED: 13:07, Mon, Dec 21, 2015 | UPDATED: 17:00, Mon, Dec 21, 2015
Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.
Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced – which causes the global greenhouse effect.
While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols – also given off by burning fossil fuels – actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.
The research was carried out to see if current climate change models for calculating future temperatures were taking into account all factors and were accurate.
A NASA spokesman said: “To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth.
The environmental intelligence agency ignores satellite data
By Lamar Smith – – Thursday, November 26, 2015
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the nation’s leading collector of climate data. Every day, NOAA analyzes vast amounts of data to predict changes to our climate, weather, oceans and coasts. The agency also publishes monthly temperature averages across the nation and compares those numbers to historical temperature records.
As the nation’s self-proclaimed authority on “environmental intelligence,” NOAA should be held to the highest scientific standards. This means their conclusions should be objective, independent of political consideration and based on all available sources of information.
NOAA’s top official, Kathryn Sullivan, has described the agency’s role as providing “timely, reliably, and actionable information — based on sound science — every day to millions of Americans.”
In testimony before the House Science Committee, NOAA’s deputy administrator, Manson Brown, made similar remarks, noting the importance of satellite data. He said that NOAA’s ability “to deliver environmental intelligence starts with keeping the pulse of the planet, especially the atmosphere and the ocean, and this is the central capability where space-based assets come into play.” So why does NOAA leave out satellite data when it releases climate projections?
NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.
Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. This fact is well documented, but has been embarrassing for an administration determined to push through costly environmental regulations.
Instead, NOAA focused its study on surface temperature monitoring that is often flawed because these sites measure thousands of independent temperature readings and utilize a hodgepodge of different methods that have changed over time. For example, measurements from land-based stations can be skewed because of their location and proximity to surrounding heat-holding asphalt in urban areas.
Satellite data, on the other hand, is highly calibrated and provides complete global coverage. For decades, satellites have been used to monitor the earth and collect information. Satellites measure something extremely important — the deep atmosphere. The temperature readings collected by satellites often differ from ground monitoring stations and have consistently shown much smaller rates of warming. Yet NOAA refuses to incorporate satellite data into its monthly projections that are released to the public. Why?
NOAA appears to pick and choose only data that confirms their bias. NOAA then disseminates this incomplete data to the media who manufacture alarming headlines but ignore the uncertainty of the conclusions.
Cold sun rising
Sam Khoury
Special to The Nation November 11, 2015 1:00 am
New studies flip climate-change notions upside down
The sun will go into “hibernation” mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society’s annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it – the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova’s model is said to have near-perfect accuracy.
So what is a “solar minimum”?
Our sun doesn’t maintain a constant intensity. Instead, it cycles in spans of approximately 11 years. When it’s at its maximum, it has the highest number of sunspots on its surface in that particular cycle. When it’s at its minimum, it has almost none. When there are more sunspots, the sun is brighter. When there are fewer, the sun radiates less heat toward Earth.
But that’s not the only cooling effect of a solar minimum. A dim sun doesn’t deflect cosmic rays away from Earth as efficiently as a bright sun. So, when these rays enter our atmosphere, they seed clouds, which in turn cool our planet even more and increase precipitation in the form of rain, snow and hail.
Solar cycles
Since the early 1800s we have enjoyed healthy solar cycles and the rich agriculture and mild northern temperatures that they guarantee. During the Middle Ages, however, Earth felt the impact of four solar minimums over the course of 400 years.
The last Maunder Minimum and its accompanying mini-Ice Age saw the most consistent cold, continuing into the early 1800s.
The last time we became concerned about cooler temperatures – possibly dangerously cooler – was in the 1970s. Global temperatures have declined since the 1940s, as measured by Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The PDO Index is a recurring pattern of ocean-atmosphere climate variability centred over the Pacific Ocean. Determined by deep currents, it is said to shift between warm and cool modes. Some scientists worried that it might stay cool and drag down the Atlantic Decadal Oscillation with it, spurring a new Ice Age. The fear was exacerbated by the fact that Earth has been in the current inter-glacial period for 10,000 years (depending on how the starting point is gauged).
(CNN)Antarctica is gaining more ice than it has lost, according to a new study by NASA.
A NASA team came to this conclusion after scientists examined the heights of the region’s ice sheet measured from satellites.
The new methods used by scientists to come to this study’s conclusion, such as measuring small height changes in the ice over large areas, warrant consideration. But the findings do conflict with more than a decade of research indicating that Antarctica is losing ice and that the loss has contributed to rising global sea levels.
The continent is roughly the size of the United States and Mexico combined, and changes in the ice are not uniform across Antarctica. Some places are gaining ice, and some are losing ice.
Many scientists agree that the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica are losing ice and that the rate of loss is increasing. In the eastern part of the continent and part of the interior, there have been ice gains. These gains, scientists from the study say, are more than the losses in the rest of the region.
“It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,” says Dr. Tim Ball in his new book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”.
Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988.
Several UN conferences set in motion the hoax that is based on the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing a dramatic surge in heating the Earth. IPCC reports have continued to spread this lie through their summaries for policy makers that influenced policies that have caused nations worldwide to spend billions to reduce and restrict CO2 emissions.
Manmade climate change—called anthropogenic global warming—continues to be the message though mankind plays no role whatever.
By Melanie Batley | Tuesday, 07 Jul 2015 11:35 AM!
A Nobel Prize-winning scientist who supported President Barack Obama has said that he does not believe global warming is a problem, and has openly criticized the president for his position on the issue.
“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Ivar Giaever announced during a speech at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, last week, according to Climate Depot.
Quoting Obama’s warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” Giaever said it was a “ridiculous statement.”
“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” he said, according to Climate Depot.
“Obama said last year that 2014 is [the] hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest.”
I have been a professional meteorologist for 36 years. Since my debut on television in 1979, I have been an eyewitness to the many changes in technology, society, and how we communicate. I am one who embraces change, and celebrates the higher quality of life we enjoy now thanks to this progress.
But, at the same time, I realize the instant communication platforms we enjoy now do have some negatives that are troubling. Just a few examples in recent days…
I would say hundreds of people have sent this image to me over the past 24 hours via social media.
Comments are attached… like “This is a cloud never seen before in the U.S.”… “can’t you see this is due to government manipulation of the weather from chemtrails”… “no doubt this is a sign of the end of the age”.
Let’s get real. This is a lenticular cloud. They have always been around, and quite frankly aren’t that unusual (although it is an anomaly to see one away from a mountain range). The one thing that is different today is that almost everyone has a camera phone, and almost everyone shares pictures of weather events. You didn’t see these often in earlier decades because technology didn’t allow it. Lenticular clouds are nothing new. But, yes, they are cool to see.
No doubt national news media outlets are out of control when it comes to weather coverage, and their idiotic claims find their way to us on a daily basis.
The Houston flooding is a great example. We are being told this is “unprecedented”… Houston is “under water”… and it is due to manmade global warming.
Yes, the flooding in Houston yesterday was severe, and a serious threat to life and property. A genuine weather disaster that has brought on suffering.
But, no, this was not “unprecedented”. Flooding from Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 was more widespread, and flood waters were deeper. There is no comparison. In fact, many circulated this image in recent days, claiming it is “Houston underwater” from the flooding of May 25–26, 2015. The truth is that this image was captured in June 2001 during flooding from Allison.
CLIMATE: There’s no denying this label packs a political punch
Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter
Greenwire: Friday, May 15, 2015
The word “denial” — meaning refusal or withholding — entered the English language from Old French hundreds of years ago, but it gained linguistic muscle with A.A. Brill’s translation of the Austrian father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, in the early 20th century.
Denial, or Verneinung in Freud’s German, came to mean refusing to acknowledge a painful or uncomfortable truth, despite overwhelming evidence.
In politics, there was “Holocaust denial,” “moon-landing denial” and “evolution denial” — all flowing from Freud, with its implications not only of untruth but of mental illness.
And now the word’s in the center ring of the global warming fight: “climate denial.”
“Climate change has always been a kind of a framing war,” said George Marshall, founder of the Climate Outreach Information Network in Great Britain and the author of the book “Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change.” “If you can get out there and you can get your language inserted into the discourse, it’s your ideas that dominate.”
Marshall and co-author Mark Lynas published the first reference to “climate denier” in the English-language press in a 2003 op-ed they wrote for the left-leaning magazine The New Statesman.
They wanted those words to sting.
They did — and still do. Consider that the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) threatened to sue left-leaning Common Cause and the League of Conservation Voters last month, charging that they had falsely branded ALEC as promoting “climate denial” (E&ENews PM, April 6).
Environmentalists, meanwhile, label opponents as “deniers” when they disavow not only the link between warming and human emissions but the urgency of the issue or the policies designed to address it.
An offshoot of the Obama presidential campaign, Organizing for America (OFA), ran a “Climate Change Fantasy Tournament” alongside the NCAA’s March Madness brackets, asking supporters to “vote for the worst denier in America.” Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) won for tossing a snowball on the Senate floor (E&E Daily, Feb. 27).
“Deniers” also figured in recent League of Conservation Voters’ pleas for funding and in Climate Action Campaign messaging about House legislation to allow states to opt out of U.S. EPA’s carbon rule for power plants. The campaign wrote recently that the bill now working its way through the lower chamber is “part of a broader effort by climate deniers to eviscerate the President’s Clean Power Plan.”
But while environmentalists say they are making inroads with a public that is increasingly aware of climate change and impatient with those who continue to dispute it, they’re a long way from what Marshall says is the endgame.
“In the end, if you win the frame war, your opponents back off and they start using your language,” he said. “And then you’ve won.
Earth Day provided a fresh opening for Obama to raise alarms about global warming based on beliefs, not science.
By
LAMAR SMITH
April 23, 2015 7:35 p.m. ET
‘Today, our planet faces new challenges, but none pose a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” President Obamawrote in his proclamation for Earth Day on Wednesday. “As a Nation, we must act before it is too late.”
Secretary of State John Kerry, in an Earth Day op-ed for USA Today, declared that climate change has put America “on a dangerous path—along with the rest of the world.”
Both the president and Mr. Kerry cited rapidly warming global temperatures and ever-more-severe storms caused by climate change as reasons for urgent action.
Given that for the past decade and a half global-temperature increases have been negligible, and that the worsening-storms scenario has been widely debunked, the pronouncements from the Obama administration sound more like scare tactics than fact-based declarations.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
By Christopher Booker
8:14PM BST 25 Apr 2015
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.
Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.
My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.
So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.
Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming These ‘climate wiggles’ were not properly accounted for in IPCC report
By ELLIE ZOLFAGHARIFARD FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 15:56 EST, 23 April 2015 | UPDATED: 18:31 EST, 23 April 2015
ReaGlobal warming hasn’t happened as fast as expected, according to a new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records.
The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates.
But it adds that these so-called ‘climate wiggles’ could also, in the future, cause our planet to warm up much faster than anticipated.
The study compared its results to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
‘Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,’ said Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University. ‘But this could change.’
The Duke-led study says that variability is caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors.
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_riaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 165
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_inhaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 166
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_mastodonIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 177
