February 28, 2011


Sanity in the Main Stream Media

FROM-Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Energy failure

Recent rolling blackouts in Texas and a natural gas "emergency" in New Mexico during a cold snap should focus attention on the empty promise of the Obama administration's "Team Green" approach.

At issue is what the administration's energy policies -- shifting from conventional sources to "green alternatives" -- will mean for Americans already feeling the chill when energy supplies don't keep pace with public demand.

In Texas, The Dallas Morning News reported that the blackouts stemmed from a breakdown of clustered coal-fired power plants, which was compounded when natural gas-fired backup plants didn't have enough fuel. And record cold prompted New Mexico's demand for natural gas and the resulting shortages.

But how will Texas and New Mexico meet existing demands, never mind future needs, amid punishing federal regulations that demonize conventional energy sources -- namely coal and natural gas?

Instead of providing help, President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency has been fighting Texas over regulating new power plants. And similar regulations already are crimping domestic oil and natural gas drilling, according to The Heritage Foundation.

The service disruptions are a stark reminder that Congress must tap into readily available abundant domestic energy sources to meet the nation's growing demand for fuel. Otherwise more Americans might find themselves left in the cold in the middle of winter.

February 25, 2011

"Notable Quotes"

"My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think outside the models."
Freeman Dyson

February 24, 2011

Creating Green Jobs

FROM-The Washington Examiner

The missing link

This article is perhaps one of the most contradictory and deceptive I've ever read and that is saying a lot. The whole article is a prime example of double speak from the very beginning. Note the headline all emphasis mine.
Climate Change, Food Safety Linked

Changing climate could make food more dangerous, add to the malnourishment of millions, and change even what we eat

By Joel N. Shurkin, Inside Science News Service
Now I am not the brightest guy in the world but even I know that there is a world of difference between something being linked to something as compared to something could cause something. Perhaps Joel will clarify this seeming contradiction.
(ISNS)—Global warming has the potential to make what we eat more dangerous and expensive, and the world already is feeling the effects, according to experts.
 OK, thanks for that clarification Joel. But just as the difference between link and could has quite a gulf in meaning, the idea that something with a potential to cause harm is already causing that harm is a bit of a contradiction isn't it? It is like saying that the hoodlum has the potential to kill people and the five homicide victims are feeling the effects of that potential.
A quartet of scientists reporting during the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington last weekend said the issues of food safety are poorly understood, but the inference from what is known is distressing.
So now we can begin to understand the confusion. The primary sources for this story do not really have a good understanding of the subject matter, so they'll make inferences and this is how modern science takes a potential danger and create a  link.
They fear that global warming would lead to increased levels of contamination of food, from chemicals and pesticides to crop pests and fungal pathogens, as well as faster spreading of diseases such as cholera and shellfish poisoning. These issues could also force changes in diets as some foods become less available or more dangerous and increase food prices in a world where they are already rising and causing civil unrest.
I am not a grammar expert as I am sure you can tell, but in the above paragraph, couldn't the would be could ? I believe that would could be replaced with could without changing the meaning...couldn't it? Regardless of whether it is would or could, I still do not see the link so prominently featured in the headline. But the scientist are afraid so let's carry on.
Discussions about the link between climate change and food safety are only now beginning, said Sandra Hoffman of the Department of Agriculture, and the science is not clear.
AH HA ! The link is back. Still no actual link but we have a discussion on the link! Is a discussion of link higher on the scientific proof ladder than potential ? I would suspect so since these folks are meeting in Washington to discuss the link and pretty much anything that comes out of Washington is potentially dangerous to society and food safety is a potential danger to society so there in lies the link.
While poor countries, particularly in the tropics and subtropics and the impoverished everywhere will fare the worst, according to Ewen C. Todd, of Michigan State University in East Lansing, Mich., the threat is not restricted to the developing world.

There are 38.4 million cases of food poisoning in the U.S. every year, mostly from noroviruses, the pathogen best known for affecting cruise ship passengers. Of those victims, 72,000 people are hospitalized and 1,600 die. Salmonella, a bacterium, now is the leading cause of food-related death.
Yes very good but where is the link?
Scientists know that for every degree the ambient temperature rises above 6 degrees Celsius—or 43 degrees F—temperature in an area, the occurrence of food-borne salmonella poisoning increases by 12 percent.
 Ah, you scientist I knew you would (could) do it. You took something you know could happen and you connected it to something you theorize will happen and created a link to something that has not yet happened. How diabolically ingenious of you and our intrepid journalist Joel. The potential is the link! But to show that you have facts on your side you need to have a real world example. So stick it to....uh give it to us.
The dangers can readily be demonstrated, Todd said. In 2005, lettuce grown in Spain and shipped to Finland caused 56 cases of salmonella poisoning. The cause was traced to farmers using untreated water for irrigation. They had to do so, they told authorities, because a drought, likely produced by climate change, restricted their access to clean water.
So farmers using untreated water caused salmonella poisoning and through a series of unproven assertions and connections from this cause we are able to trace the poisoning back to it's likely source, your car. Don't you feel terrible! You, YOU decadent SUV owners are responsible for Spanish farmers poisoning Finnish vegetarians! Or at least you are a potentially likely link in the crime.
Another possible effect of climate change is in the news now. One of the reasons for the unrest in Egypt and Asia has been rising food prices caused by stressed ecosystems on the land and in the ocean, Todd said.
Do you hear that ! It is not the US Federal Reserve Bank with their Quantitative Easing driving global inflation. NO, it is not even a host of dictatorial Third World despots who keep their citizens locked into repressive political and economic systems to maintain their own power and wealth. NO it is you and your gluttonous decadent lifestyle spewing forth your CO2 as if it was the breath of life instead of the poison that is responsible for creating unrest and revolution throughout the globe. Have you no shame ?!
Ray Knighton, also of the USDA, said changing climate affects food production. Drought can cause a loss in plant vigor, making plants more susceptible to disease; floods and heavy rains favor the growth of fungal pathogens on leaves, and many disease-causing organisms can spread in changing wind currents.

"Greenhouse gasses and atmospheric pollutants change plant structure and the ability of the plant to defend itself against pathogens," he said.
 There you have it, carbon dioxide which plants breathe, which they can not live killing them. The more of that poisonous stuff you spew into the atmosphere, the faster they will die. Worse yet if you add more water to the plants along with the carbon dioxide you kill them even faster. 
Most scientists believe climate change is producing more severe storms and these apparently help spread diseases.
Ah, the most scientist ploy, how familiar is that? Most scientist this, most scientist that. Did Joel go out and interview all scientist on the matter to determine the poll numbers on this belief of most scientist? Apparently he did in order to make such a statement, right?
One classic example is Asian soybean rust, spores that cause gold speckles on the light green leaves and eventually kill the plant. The spores spread from Asia to Africa then to South American and finally the United States. The spread in the U.S. was unusually fast and wide. It turns out the spores were riding on the winds of hurricanes from the Gulf of Mexico, Knighton said.
I am sorry, can you take this anymore, I'm having a hard time here. It appears that the inferred link is that climate change causes more hurricanes (not proven) which caused these spores to ride the winds from South America to the United States. May I point out that the spores first had to get from Asia to Africa. I guess they rode a train, then to South America, by cargo ship, or did they catch a plane? Then and only then did they catch the winds of a hurricane to visit us here in the United States. At least they did not sneak across the border. This is their link?
That has huge implications for how food-borne diseases are monitored and the need for a sensitive network for tracking pathogens, he said.
Which of course will require vast sums of tax payers money to finance the monitoring of hurricane winds to stop illegal spore entry into the country,
Vibriosis, which comes from seafood, is known to increase with rises in the temperature and salinity of the oceans, said Hoffman. It peaks in the heat of summer. One species of the vibrio bacteria causes cholera. As temperatures rise, the implication is that the spread of vibriosis also will rise.
I thought we were supposed to be worried about the oceans becoming more acidic? Now we are to worry about it becoming more saline? Is an implication  a link or is it just a potential ? I guess we'll need a taxpayer funded discussion to decide.
Increased water temperatures also can lead to increased mercury contamination of fish by 30-50 percent for every increase in degree Celsius, said Cristina Tirado of the University of California at Los Angeles. Desertification, another probable result of climate change, increases pesticide concentration in plants, she said. Flooding leads to soil contamination, and even biofuel production could be affected
 The hits just keep on coming don't they, previously carbon dioxide mixed with water through flooding was the problem, but desertification and pesticides are now the problem. I guess the implication is that climate change will cause farmers to use more pesticides to contain the spores riding the hurricanes into desert areas...or something. Don't get me started on biofuels.
The danger of food poisoning could mean people change what they eat, Tirado added, avoiding foods grown where climate change has altered the path of germs and potentially increasing the price of food. One and a half billion people already pay 80 percent of their income for food and an increase in food prices would mean "more hunger and less money for health care and education."
Well that is a concern, you saw what happened to those Finnish vegetarians! I guess the solution would be to divert food crops and burn down rain forest to produce more biofuels for our cars. That is bound to help the people who are living on the edge of starvation.
The scientists admitted a contradictory effect of climate change: the possibility that some areas, particularly in the north, not now able to grow extensive crops, will warm up and begin to grow more food. Additionally, the cause and effect between climate change and food security is not well-defined.
Excuse me, I thought a link was exactly the proof of cause and effect. But then again I am not a government scientist in discussions with other scientist or even a journalist, what do I know.
Part of the problem, Hoffman said, is that data on the incidence of foodborne disease is imprecise and hard to come by.
So how do we have the link? Let's check out that headline again

Climate Change, Food Safety Linked
Yes that is what this journalistic abortion was about, the link between climate change and food safety. Certainly as we reach the end of this obvious case of journalistic malpractice, Joel will tie it all together for us and show us the link.

"There is significant uncertainty about all of this," Hoffman admitted. "We don't know what direction those cumulative effects will be." That uncertainty, she said, will make difficult to design an effective adaptation policy.
 Well there you have it, a link is defined as uncertainty . Just thought you would want to know for future use in your daily life.

February 23, 2011

Evil Fruit

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
 Mathew 7:17 KJV 

I was reading Judith Curry's  thoughtful post at her web site about the "hide the decline" controversy. I was struck by the perception that she was concerned that the whole "Hockey Stick/ "hide the decline " could be a real stain upon her chosen profession. The passage that caught my attention was this
The question I am asking myself is what is my role as a scientist in challenging misuses of science (as per Beddington’s challenge)? Why or why not should I personally get involved in this?
Really, as a scientist should she get involved in corruption of her science ? I'm definitely not a scientist or I suspect anywhere near being as intellectually qualified as Ms Curry, hell I don't even know what Beddington's challenge is. However as someone who originally came to the global warming debate with no predetermined view on the subject, I pretty much believed  the entire global warming  science as portrayed by the media was true, after all the scientist agreed... right ? Scientist are basically honorable people, after all the very nature of science is seeking the truth...right?

I would probably have gone through life believing this and have remained blissfully unaware of the the greatest scientific scandal in history had I not stumbled upon a blog over at the Weather Underground site and become interested in the debate. What began to change my attitude from benign acceptance to complete "denial" of the theory of catastrophic man made global warming was the attitude of the proponents of the theory.  What grated me the most as I became interested in the debate was the utter contempt proponents of AGW displayed towards those who questioned their narrative. Had it just been childish bloggers  it would probably not have gotten on my nerves, but it was the so called consensus community that promoted this abrasive and dismissive approach which  they displayed towards those who dared question the narrative. Nowhere was this more grating to me than the way they treated the people who should have been  at least listened to in the climate science community but instead were ridiculed and mocked. As I wrote in part:

What motive does an established respected scientist at the end of their career have to take on the entire science community? To have an entire lifetime of distinguished work besmirched and ridiculed by the very people whom just years before, they taught.

The recently deceased Reid Bryson was for years known as the father of modern climatology a geologist and meteorologist, the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies, made a Global Laureate by the United Nations Global Environment Program. This man’s stature in the world of climate sciences can not be disputed.
" All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."…… "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide".

Why would such a man say such things? What was there to gain? He was already recognized as one of the greatest scientist of his time and yet he basically tells the science field he has belonged to his entire life , the field of science he is considered one of the founders of- “you are full of crap”. He is just one example but ask yourself, what was his motive, fame ? money ? All he received for his position against the AGW theory was ridicule from a bunch of pygmies.
Observing the debate I was more and more reminded of the old lawyers adage
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. And when you don’t have either the law or the facts on your side, pound the table!
 The more I studied the issues and the arguments the more I realized that the AGW crowd really did not have the facts on their side, though they did have the law (appeal to authority) what they primarily did was pound the table, and if anybody got in their way pound them too.

The most important tool they have at their disposal is an old progressive trick, actually it is not a trick at all it is the entire foundation of progressive ideology, progress, incrementalism. Move the narrative forward at all cost and don't allow your opposition to go back to show the fallacy of the previous assertion. Make your point of view the accepted view regardless of whether or not it is built on a pile of crap which on future review can be proven wrong. It matters not, the narrative has become accepted by a larger and larger segment of society.  They have eaten the corrupted fruit so feed them more.

Without going back too far, which others have done, there has been three critical quasi-scientific events in promoting the AGW agenda, all of which have been shown to be wildly exaggerated assertions and in some cases out and out fraud. In order they were:

James Hansen's testimony before congress in June of 1988

The publication and promotion of the "Hockey Stick " in 1999 and it's prominent place in the IPCC TAR report

Al Gore's  Docudrama "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006

None of these are really science, in all three cases they were more about promoting an ideology than proving a theory. Yet these three events were used like a sledge hammer to stifle debate and convince a trusting public of something that in all three cases would later be proven to be either false, exaggerated or out and out fraud. These are large branches of an evil tree  which the climate science community continues to feed off as if they did not know that much of their science is based on the promotion of provably false claims. The gluttony of corruption and greed is so pervasive that it is better to close ones eyes to that which is so obvious to the untainted, lest you stain your elitist white smock.

Despite Ms Curry's lack of interest in "tree rings" the fact remains that if the MWP was warmer than today and global in nature, nearly all the silly studies being done today are based on a falsehood. But it is far worse than that, this evil tree has grown roots into a global multifaceted entity whose tentacles corrupt everything it touches from politics, to education (at all levels) to economies, and ultimately into the very soul of human trust in one another so necessary for the advancement of our species. 

My daughter has lived her entire twenty five years of life being bombarded by nonsensical science. This science was a seed planted by devious and deceptive people which has grown into a giant tree which cast a dark shadow over humanity, frightening and misleading children, corrupting institutions needed for the well being of society, spending and misdirecting vast resources which humanity so desperately needs for real progress. The harm done by just the "Hockey Stick/ hide the decline" is incalculable, the fruits of lies seldom are easily computed.

I am a nobody that is blessed to live in a time when I have a computer and the internet, but few will read this so it will have little effect on the "great debate". But people like Ms Curry are respected scientist who have a world wide audience, yet she asks "what is my role as a scientist in challenging misuses of science "

Your role Ms Curry is to seek and tell the truth, I once believed that was what scientist did perhaps you know better.

If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.
- Anon

For you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

February 21, 2011


Sanity in the Main Stream Media

FROM-Detroit News

Don't overreact to possible global warming

Jay Ambrose / Scripps Howard News Service

There's a new book out, something called "Hot." The author worries how his little girl will suffer if something isn't done about global warming, says a New York Times reviewer confiding that the concern broke his heart.

Here's something that should also break his heart. If we do the wrong thing about the climate, we might do far more harm than global warming ever could, maybe killing children.

It's utterly amazing that so many journalists and others inundate us regularly with scare stories demanding that the United States take fierce anti-warming action while scarcely ever pausing to mention the possible futility of it all — or the costs.

Those costs will get us if we don't fight back, and those saying so aren't just radio hosts of the kind that make leftists urge censorship. They are people like William Nordhaus, a Yale economist who thinks man-made warming is real and dangerous. He has calculated what would happen in the long haul if the world were to implement an anti-warming plan like Al Gore's and has some numbers to share: Costs would outweigh benefits by $21 trillion.

One meaning of that figure for undeveloped countries could be that they remain impoverished, sticking with old-fashioned energy sources such as human brawn and maybe a windmill tossed in occasionally. Think of famine. Think of widespread disease. That would be the story unless developed countries gave them hundreds of billions despite recessions, high unemployment and their own Third World trajectories, all induced by the senselessness of cap-and-trade overreach.

Nordhaus does think some strategies could be effective, but there are reasons any effort might be of little avail. If India and China do not join the parade, nothing is accomplished by any American program, and the Chinese have not been spotted signing up. If the warming trends aren't bad, it's all a lot of hollering about very little, and some climatologists say the trends are mild.

One of them is Patrick Michaels who was at the University of Virginia for 30 years. His study convinces him nothing disastrous lies around yonder bend. Another is Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He believes gloomy computer simulations are bogus, that the climate changes we are seeing could be more natural than man-made.

While some fanatically vile environmental activists try to make it sound as if anyone disagreeing with their conjectures is on the take, uncertainties abound about human-caused, calamitous climate change.

A better answer is to adopt one sane course of action that Mark Hertsgaard, the author of "Hot," recommends: adaptation. Another answer if climate does veer in ruinous directions could be along the lines of something the famed physicist Freeman Dyson has suggested. In not too many more years, he suspects, we will have bioengineered plants capable of absorbing huge amounts of the atmospheric carbon dioxide believed by some to be the devil behind a coming hellfire.

The main thing is to avoid what happened with DDT. Because of a ban to protect wildlife from the pesticide in this country, it became more scarce,

and a consequence was its being employed sparingly if at all in wildlife-safe, indoor spraying to combat malaria in Africa. Though not always, DDT can be enormously effective in stopping the disease while posing minimal threats.

The estimate is that millions of African children died because of misplaced values and overreactions.

That's worse than heartbreaking.

February 20, 2011

Algae, Algae everywhere!

Remember when aerosols were all the rage? I do but as a reminder a portion of one of my post from last year titled:

Everyone thinks they are saving the planet

The absurdity of the entire AGW theory and the unintended consequences are sometimes both staggering and amusing. Consider this article from Popular Science "New Clean-Fuel Rules For Ships Could Actually Hurt the Environment". It discusses the seemingly very worthwhile new regulations to cut air pollution from the overseas shipping industry.
The regulations call for reducing the sulfur in shipping fuel—which is basically unrefined petroleum sludge—from 4.5 to 0.5 percent by 2020. Scientists project that this switch will cut sulfur-pollution-related premature deaths from 87,000 worldwide per year to 46,000.
Of course we want to reduce these known pollutants from the atmosphere...right? I mean it is all about man not leaving a mark on the ecosystem ...right? But not so fast there Eco Warriors:
But the sulfate aerosols spewing from supertanker smokestacks also produce planet-cooling clouds called ship tracks, which form when water droplets coalesce around sulfate particles. These clouds, which are big enough to be seen from orbit, reflect sunlight back into space, preventing the equivalent of up to 40 percent of the warming caused by human-produced carbon dioxide. “The IMO has done a good job addressing air-quality issues,” says Daniel Lack, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA. “But there’s a climate impact that wasn’t necessarily considered.”
So by cutting real pollution we in fact will be eliminating the mitigation of (imaginary) pollution -CO2. But that's not all !:
Worse, the fuel switch won’t improve ships’ carbon emissions—if the industry were a country, it would be the sixth-largest CO2 emitter. The IMO plans to regulate CO2, but until then, it might be best to leave well enough alone.
Got all that? Now consider that our Eco Warriors and their mad scientist allies have been so concerned that we are going to fry the planet by spewing evil CO2 into the atmosphere that they are regularly spending countless (tax payer) dollars investigating the possibility of spewing these same real pollutants into the skies to save us from the imaginary one.

So at the same time part of the Eco-scientific community is studying the negative affects of sulfate aerosols on the Earth:

Reductions of SO2 emissions in the 70-90% range should be required for both new and existing ships as soon as possible, but no later than 2015—
Another group of Eco-scientist is trying to figure out the best way to pump it back in.
We used a general circulation model of Earth's climate to conduct geoengineering experiments involving stratospheric injection of sulfur dioxide and analyzed the resulting deposition of sulfate. When sulfur dioxide is injected into the tropical or Arctic stratosphere, the main additional surface deposition of sulfate occurs in midlatitude bands, because of strong cross-tropopause flux in the jet stream regions. We used critical load studies to determine the effects of this increase in sulfate deposition on terrestrial ecosystems by assuming the upper limit of hydration of all sulfate aerosols into sulfuric acid. For annual injection of 5 Tg of SO2 into the tropical stratosphere or 3 Tg of SO2 into the Arctic stratosphere, neither the maximum point value of sulfate deposition of approximately 1.5 mEq m−2 a−1 nor the largest additional deposition that would result from geoengineering of approximately 0.05 mEq m−2 a−1 is enough to negatively impact most ecosystems.
And everyone thinks they are saving the planet and making a good buck in the process. Of course this is nothing new to us.
Please feel free to read the entire post as it gives a good reason to be very leery of organizations like the Novim Group who are all the rage lately for being behind the Berkley Earth Surface Group. But the point I wish to make is that when you base a theory on so many unknowns and pretend that this theory is fact, you are constantly in danger of being at cross purposes and contradicting yourself. Another example is algae.
In one study, NOAA scientists modeled future ocean and weather patterns to predict the effect on blooms of Alexandrium catenella, or the toxic "red tide," which can accumulate in shellfish and cause symptoms, including paralysis, and can sometimes be deadly to humans who eat the contaminated seafood.

"Our projections indicate that by the end of the 21st century, blooms may begin up to two months earlier in the year and persist for one month later compared to the present-day time period of July to October," said Stephanie Moore, one of the scientists who worked on the study.

But the impact could be felt well before the end of this century -- as early as 2040, she said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Having recently experienced an onslaught of the "Red Tide"  where I live here in Florida, it is not a pleasant experience. I personally could not go near the ocean for several week because it affected my breathing. So I in no way want to downplay the harm of "Red Tide" on peoples health or marine life, though I would point out that it is a natural occurring event which has been around predating by millions of years the invention of the internal combustion engine. The point I wish to make is that studies are being done trying to link this particular algae growth to man made global warming and of course painting a picture of gloom and doom.  The question though is increased algae good or bad ?

 The portion of the article which first caught my attention though was this:
In another study, NOAA scientists found that desert dust that is deposited into the oceans from the atmosphere could also lead to increases of harmful bacteria in seawater and seafood.

Researchers from the University of Georgia found that adding desert dust, which contains iron, to seawater significantly stimulated the growth of Vibrios, a group of ocean bacteria that can cause gastroenteritis and infectious diseases in humans.
The mention of desert dust stirred some brain cells in my tired old brain which led me back a short time ago when I read this in Science Daily:

Dust Storms In Sahara Desert Sustain Life In Atlantic Ocean

ScienceDaily (July 19, 2008) — Research at the University of Liverpool has found how Saharan dust storms help sustain life over extensive regions of the North Atlantic Ocean.

Well that seems like a good thing, doesn't it? According to this study it is a very good thing
They found that plants are able to grow in these regions because they are able to take advantage of iron minerals in Saharan dust storms. This allows them to use organic or ‘recycled’ material from dead or decaying plants when nutrients such as phosphorous – an essential component of DNA – in the ocean are low.

Professor George Wolff, from the University’s Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, explains: “We found that cyanobacteria – a type of ancient phytoplankton – are significant to the understanding of how ocean deserts can support plant growth. Cyanobacteria need nitrogen, phosphorous and iron in order to grow. They get nitrogen from the atmosphere, but phosphorous is a highly reactive chemical that is scarce in sea water and is not found in the Earth’s atmosphere. Iron is present only in tiny amounts in sea water, even though it is one of the most abundant elements on earth.

“Our findings suggest that Saharan dust storms are largely responsible for the significant difference between the numbers of cyanobacteria in the North and South Atlantic. The dust fertilises the North Atlantic and allows phytoplankton to use organic phosphorous, but it doesn’t reach the southern regions and so without enough iron, phytoplankton are unable to use the organic material and don’t grow as successfully.”
In case you did not know phytoplankton is a form of algae, which according to the study in 2008:
“These findings are important because plant life cycles are essential in maintaining the balance of gases in our atmosphere. In looking at how plants survive in this area, we have shown how the Atlantic is able to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through the growth of photosynthesising plants.”
So here we have studies that are at cross purposes. On the one hand global warming will cause more desert dust which will create more bacteria causing human illnesses. On the other hand we have a study showing that those dust storms are essential to "maintaining the balance of gasses in our atmosphere" .

But we are not done there. My old memory was pricked a bit more when they mentioned iron in the water which led me back to this:

Green Algae Bloom Could Stop Global Warming
The researchers, aboard the Royal Navy’s HMS Endurance, have found that melting icebergs off the coast of Antarctica are releasing millions of tiny particles of iron into the southern Ocean, helping to create huge ‘blooms’ of algae that absorb carbon emissions. The algae then sinks to the icy depths, effectively removing CO2 from the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

According to lead researcher, Prof. Rob Raiswell of Leeds University, “The Earth itself seems to want to save us.”

Scientists have known for some time that artificially created algal blooms could be used to absorb greenhouse gases, but the technique has been banned for fear of causing unforeseen side effects in fragile ecosystems. However, based on the UK team’s evidence that the process has been occurring naturally for millions of years, and on a wide scale, the UN has given the green light for a ground-breaking experiment later this month.
The team will seek to create a massive algae bloom by releasing several tons of iron sulphate into the sea off the coast of the British island of South Georgia. The patch will apparently be large enough to be visible from space...
So here we are again. Instead of sulphate in the atmosphere we now have scientist dumping sulphate in the oceans to create algae to stop global warming while other scientist are warning that increased algae caused by global warming is a health hazard. In addition we have another group of scientist telling us that the algae created by Saharan dust is dangerous while another group is telling us that it is essential to our very survival.

But it does not end there, it never ends, we have a whole other group of scientist telling us that algae is the possible solution to not only our energy needs but also a slolution to our sewage problems.

Using Algae to Clean Wastewater, Make Fuel
A wastewater treatment plant might seem like the last place to find a fuel for the future, but a team of researchers has done just that.

Researchers at Rochester Institute of Technology are using algae grown in wastewater to produce biodiesel. They say the process is “doubly green” because the algae consume pathogens in the water even as they can be used to produce biofuel.....
Focusing on sewage is probably a good thing since returning to our original article on algae we are faced with this:
Meanwhile, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee warned that an increase in severe rainstorms could cause more sewage overflows, which would release disease-causing bacteria, viruses and protozoa into drinking water and onto beaches.

The researchers in this study used climate models to show that spring rains are expected to increase in the next 50 years, and with that increase, ageing sewer systems are more likely to overflow because the ground is frozen and rainwater can't be absorbed.
Perhaps if we quit spending so much money on these studies we could fix our aging sewer systems...just saying. After all in our warmer world we have to worry more about the frozen ground in springtime...right?


Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

FROM-Daily Breeze

Sunday's Letter of the Day: Climate-change doomsday is just a modern fable

Most of your readers are familiar with the stories of "The Emperor's New Clothes" and "Chicken Little." The article "`King tides' tell of wet future, groups predict," (Wednesday) is a perfect illustration of the morals behind the two tales. First it repeats the doomsday predictions of the environmental "activists" interviewed. The mantra that catastrophic climate change due to industrial greenhouse gases will overwhelm civilization as we know it is nothing more than Chicken Little's claim that the sky is falling. Citing as a reference the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is as politically correct as were the emperor's subjects who refused to cite the obvious for fear of offending anyone. After all, the emperor wore no clothes and the IPCC has been thoroughly discredited by their own words. I guess that's why these old fables never die.

- Tom Hoffman, Rancho Palos Verdes

It Never Ends !

FROM-Asia One

Global warming may increase water-borne diseases

WASHINGTON - Climate change could increase exposure to water-borne diseases originating in oceans, lakes and coastal ecosystems, and the impact could be felt within 10 years, US scientists told a conference here Saturday.

Several studies have shown that shifts brought about by climate change make ocean and freshwater environments more susceptible to toxic algae blooms and allow harmful microbes and bacteria to proliferate, researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

In one study, NOAA scientists modeled future ocean and weather patterns to predict the effect on blooms of Alexandrium catenella, or the toxic "red tide," which can accumulate in shellfish and cause symptoms, including paralysis, and can sometimes be deadly to humans who eat the contaminated seafood.

"Our projections indicate that by the end of the 21st century, blooms may begin up to two months earlier in the year and persist for one month later compared to the present-day time period of July to October," said Stephanie Moore, one of the scientists who worked on the study.

But the impact could be felt well before the end of this century -- as early as 2040, she said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

"Changes in the harmful algal bloom season appear to be imminent. We expect a significant increase in Puget Sound (off the coast of Washington state where the study was conducted) and similar at-risk environments within 30 years, possibly by the next decade," said Moore.

In another study, NOAA scientists found that desert dust that is deposited into the oceans from the atmosphere could also lead to increases of harmful bacteria in seawater and seafood.

Researchers from the University of Georgia found that adding desert dust, which contains iron, to seawater significantly stimulated the growth of Vibrios, a group of ocean bacteria that can cause gastroenteritis and infectious diseases in humans.

"It is possible this additional input of iron, along with rising sea surface temperatures, will affect these bacterial populations and may help to explain both current and future increases in human illnesses from exposure to contaminated seafood and seawater," the researchers said.

"Within 24 hours of mixing weathered desert dust from Morocco with seawater samples, we saw a huge growth in Vibrios, including one strain that could cause eye, ear and open wound infections, and another strain that could cause cholera," said Erin Lipp, who worked on the study.

The amount of iron-containing dust that is deposited in the sea has increased over the last 30 years and is expected to continue to rise, based on precipitation trends in western Africa which are causing desertification.

Meanwhile, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee warned that an increase in severe rainstorms could cause more sewage overflows, which would release disease-causing bacteria, viruses and protozoa into drinking water and onto beaches.

The researchers in this study used climate models to show that spring rains are expected to increase in the next 50 years, and with that increase, ageing sewer systems are more likely to overflow because the ground is frozen and rainwater can't be absorbed.

February 19, 2011

The Other Side Of The Story

This Episode Brought To You By-Quadrant On Line

Historic amnesia

by Gerrit J. van der Lingen

For their propaganda, global warming alarmists rely heavily on historic amnesia. This can be well illustrated by examples from Australia.

A large part of Australia has harsh climatic conditions. About 80% of Australia, mostly in the centre of the continent, has an arid to semi-arid climate. Other parts repeatedly suffer from severe droughts or floods.Tropical cyclones regularly strike the northern and northeastern coasts. Most of these weather phenomena are caused by naturally-occurring ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) climatic events.

Indigenous plants and animals have adapted to these severe conditions. The ability of Australian plants to handle fires is quite unique. Eucalypts, the largest tree family in Australia with more than 900 species, have adapted to all climate conditions, from hot arid regions to cold snowfields. They contain inflammable oils that make them susceptible to fires, and many species rely on fire for their seeds to germinate. Another adaptive example is the Paperbark (Melaleuca rhaphiophylla), which has little dormant buds under thick bark. These buds can only sprout when subjected to heat by fire. The bark protects the buds against fire and also provides starch to feed the sprouting buds until they have developed enough green leaves to start photosynthesising. Such trees are therefore called “sprouters”. Paperbarks are also deep-rooted (up to 15 metres) to reach groundwater below scorched surface soil.

Marsupials were the first mammals to develop in Gondwana, of which Australia formed a part. Australia started to drift away from the supercontinent about 55 million years ago, before the placental mammals started to evolve. Marsupials have a slower lifestyle and require less food and water than other mammals. But they have also developed other survival strategies. For instance, during extreme dry conditions, kangaroos can keep embryos in suspended animation until rain arrives. The Thorny Devil lizard (Moloch horridus) collects dew during the night on large spines, which then flows between its scales to its mouth.

These adaptations to harsh climatic conditions, especially heat and drought, must have taken millions of years to evolve. This inescapably means that severe climatic events have been a common natural occurrence in Australia in the past, as they are today. However, this doesn’t seem to deter climate alarmists from blaming every severe drought or flood on human CO2 emissions. Good examples include the 2010 bushfires in Victoria, the recent catastrophic floods in Queensland and the destructive cyclone Yasi.

read entire article here

February 16, 2011

‘Absolute madness’ of biofuels

FROM-Washington Times

By Robert Bryce

Last month, Peter Brabeck, the chairman of the Swiss food giant Nestle, declared that using food crops to make biofuels was "absolute madness."

The epicenter of that madness is the U.S. corn-ethanol sector. This year, it will consume 40 percent of all U.S. corn - that's about 15 percent of global corn production or 5 percent of all global grain - in order to produce a volume of motor fuel with the energy equivalent of about 0.6 percent of global oil needs.

Congress lavishes about $7 billion in annual subsidies, mandates and tariff protections upon an industry that is helping push global food prices to all-time highs and shrink grain reserves at the very same time that global grain production is faltering and protests over food prices are becoming common.

The quantity of grain to be consumed this year for ethanol production - 4.9 billion bushels - boggles the mind. That's more than twice as much as all the corn produced in Brazil and more than six times as much as is grown in India. Put another way, that's more corn than the output of the European Union, Mexico, Argentina and India combined.

Despite these facts, President Obama said last month in his State of the Union speech, "We can break our dependence on oil with biofuels." Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House, who is considering a run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, was in Iowa recently, cravenly wooing the ethanol producers and slamming "big city" critics of the ethanol industry. Alas, there's little reason to expect much bravery out of Mr. Gingrich's fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill. Current Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, recently told reporters not to expect cuts to the ethanol subsidies because they are "not in the discretionary spending pot."

While Mr. Obama prevaricates and Congress dithers, ethanol boosters are once again claiming that their sector has negligible effect on grain prices. However, the events of the past few weeks - corn futures at near-record highs and social unrest related to food prices - are nearly identical to the mayhem that occurred in 2007 and 2008. Back then, more than a dozen studies, including ones by Purdue University, the World Bank and the Congressional Research Service, exposed the link between increasing ethanol production and higher food prices. Soaring food prices led to violent protests in Egypt, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Haiti, Mauritania, Ethiopia, Madagascar, the Philippines and Indonesia. Worries about adequate food stocks led several countries to ban food exports.

In May 2008, the Rand Corp. warned that diverting corn to the ethanol sector was not only bad economics, but a security threat: "Using corn for ethanol is economically inefficient and has harmed U.S. national security. Diverting corn from food to ethanol production has pushed up world market prices for grains and other foods, which, in 2008, resulted in riots in a number of developing countries."

In recent weeks, we've seen food price increases and protests that are reminiscent of 2008. There have been food riots in Algeria and Mozambique. Last month, about 8,000 Jordanians protested in the streets of Amman and other cities over rising food prices. In Egypt, the world's biggest wheat importer, wheat prices are up by 30 percent over the past 12 months. Those higher wheat prices are being stoked by rising corn prices, which have doubled over the past six months and are at about $7 per bushel. "Higher corn prices always means higher wheat prices," says Bill Lapp, president of Advanced Economic Solutions, an Omaha-based commodity consulting firm.

In December, a study by two U.S. agriculture economists, Thomas Elam and Steve Meyer, found that corn prices are being directly stoked by demand from the ethanol sector. Mr. Elam and Mr. Meyer, who have done consulting work for the meat industry, found that without the ethanol mandates, the average price of corn would be lower by more than $2 per bushel. They also conclude that "biofuels policy has caused significant cost increases for all users of feedgrains."

David Orden, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, told me that surging corn prices are "a continuation of what happened in 2008." The push for biofuels, he said, "has clearly tightened up agricultural commodity markets. That's good for farmers, but it is not good for poor people around the world."

Many of those poor live in the United States. Some 43.6 million Americans, about 14 percent of the population, are receiving federal food stamps. Since October 2008, the number of Americans relying on food stamps jumped by 41.5 percent, and enrollment in the program has increased for 26 consecutive months. And thanks to the ethanol scam, those many millions are being priced out of the meat aisle. Over the past year, beef prices have risen more than 6 percent, and pork prices are up 11 percent. Economists are expecting overall grocery prices in the United States to rise by about 5 percent this year.

But the real - and likely more dangerous - food-price increases will happen outside of this country. Last year, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development projected that global grain prices are likely to be as much as 40 percent higher by 2020, and a London-based nonprofit entity, ActionAid, predicted that some 600 million more people could be left hungry by 2020 because of increased production of biofuels.

Mr. Brabeck, the chairman of Nestle, the world's biggest food company, has rightly put the spotlight on the biofuels madness. As the head of a company with $100 billion in annual food-related revenues, Mr. Brabeck clearly has a keen understanding of the global food industry. And last month during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he identified the stunningly obvious solution to the ongoing insanity. "No food for fuel," he said.

It's time - no, it's long past time - to heed Mr. Brabeck's advice. "No food for fuel" should be the mantra on Capitol Hill and at the United Nations. In addition, it should be a required oath for all of the candidates (Mr. Gingrich in particular) who are planning to campaign in Iowa for the 2012 presidential election.

Stop the madness.

Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His latest book is "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future" (PublicAffairs, 2010).

It Never Ends!


Floods linked to manmade climate change: studies

...The British study used several thousand computers to simulate the weather in 2000 across England and Wales, where October and November were the wettest since records began in 1766, before the industrial revolution.

The models ran simulations with and without the effects of man-made greenhouse gases on climate change.

The study was striking in trying to attribute man-made climate change to a particular event, given all the complex, chaotic events that contribute to a given storm....

Read and weep here

Anatomy of the Gravy Train -Update

It is obvious to anyone who has been paying attention that climate science  is now not much more than a gravy train for researchers and institutions of all types to milk tax payers money world wide. There are of course other agendas at play but the job security and monetary benefits lubricate the consciences of the riders of the  gravy train.

Here is a brief example of the gravy train in action. The university of Arizona put out a press release titled Rising Seas Will Affect Major U.S. Coastal Cities by 2100. The press release is about a soon to be released paper by some riders employed by the University of Arizona, hence public employees along with some fellow travelers from other institutions.

As you can tell from the title of the Press Release these fine public servants have gone to the trouble of warning us of the dangers of sea level rise in the next century. A portion to illustrate (all emphasis are mine):
The research is the first analysis of vulnerability to sea-level rise that includes every U.S. coastal city in the lower 48 with a population of 50,000 or more.

The latest scientific projections indicate that by 2100, the sea level will rise about 1 meter – or even more. One meter is about 3 feet.

At the current rate of global warming, sea level is projected to continue rising after 2100 by as much as 1 meter per century.

"According to the most recent sea-level-rise science, that's where we're heading," said lead researcher Jeremy L. Weiss, a senior research specialist in the UA's department of geosciences. "Impacts from sea-level rise could be erosion, temporary flooding and permanent inundation."

The coastal municipalities the team identified had 40.5 million people living in them, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Twenty of those cities have more than 300,000 inhabitants.

Weiss and his colleagues examined how much land area from the 180 municipalities could be affected by 1 to 6 meters of sea-level rise.

"With the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the projections are that the global average temperature will be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present by 2100," said Weiss, who is also a UA doctoral candidate in geosciences.
Wow, scary stuff, 40.5 million people to be affected, well at least the communities they live in. That is a pretty big deal, that could cause some serious disruption. But what is this "The latest scientific projections indicate that by 2100, the sea level will rise about 1 meter – or even more. One meter is about 3 feet. Thanks for the math lesson by the way I was never much good at that metric conversion stuff, that is why had to go to a conversion table when I read all those IPCC reports. You know those reports that are supposed to be the gold standard on all things climate. The main terminal of the gravy train if you will. One of those conversion I had to make was when I read this information on their chart 3.2.1 of the AR 4 Synthesis Report
Sea Level Rise

B1 scenario 0.18 – 0.38
A1T scenario 0.20 – 0.45
B2 scenario 0.20 – 0.43
A1B scenario 0.21 – 0.48
A2 scenario 0.23 – 0.51
A1FI scenario 0.26 – 0.59

Those figures represent centimeters and as you more educated people know there are 100 centimeters in a meter (I thought that but I had to look it up to be sure) Now putting aside the scenario mumbo jumbo, excuse me model output, nowhere do they predict 100 centimeters. In fact the absolute worse case of the worse mumbo jumbo output is .59 centimeters.

So I went back and read the press release from the University of Arizona to find out where they got this figure  to run their mumbo jumbo to get their output so that they could print up all those scary maps to release to the press, on the taxpayers dime I might add. Well  it doesn't tell us where they came up with that 100 centimeters (one meter, which is about three feet). I guess we'll just have to wait for the actual study to come out. But who actually reads those studies anyway? Why do you need to do that when you can get all the relevant scary details from your local newspaper:

Miami Could Lose 10 Percent of its Land by 2100 Due to Rising Sea Levels

Heck you don't even have to read the press release you can get the super condensed version in the paper, or just read the headline and pass the good news on to your neighbors, how convenient. But back to the case of the missing 82 to 41 missing centimeters depending on your favorite scenario.

Not given any specifics as to the source for the reason for my soon to be beach front property either in my local paper or the UA Press Release I just Googled One meter Sea Level rise and  the very first thing that popped up was this article from Science Daily

Sea Level Rise Of One Meter Within 100 Years

Which in part says:
According to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the global climate in the coming century will be 2-4 degrees warmer than today, but the ocean is much slower to warm up than the air and the large ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are also slower to melt. The great uncertainty in the calculation of the future rise in the sea level lies in the uncertainty over how quickly the ice sheets on land will melt and flow out to sea. The model predictions of the melting of the ice sheets are the basis for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's predictions for the rise in sea level are not capable of showing the rapid changes observed in recent years. The new research has therefore taken a different approach.
Yeah man! A new approach that is what we need. the heck with those model driven scenarios we want cataclysmatic results! So what did they do? Follow closely:
With the help of annual growth rings of trees and analysis from ice core borings researchers have been able to calculate the temperature for the global climate 2000 years back in time. For around 300 years the sea level has been closely observed in several places around the world and in addition to that there is historical knowledge of the sea level of the past in different places in the world.

By linking the two sets of information together Aslak Grinsted could see the relationship between temperature and sea level. For example, in the Middle Ages around 12th century there was a warm period where the sea level was approximately 20 cm higher than today and in the 18th century there was the 'little ice age', where the sea level was approximately 25 cm lower than it is today
Let's stop right there, please feel free to read the entire article or go to the abstract here but let me first ask a very simple oh, let's just call it a naive question. From the article and report : the Middle Ages around 12th century there was a warm period where the sea level was approximately 20 cm higher than today

Now the whole purpose of this little exercise is to connect global warming to sea level rise...correct? And one of the foundations of the whole global warming argument is that we are experiencing unprecedented warming....correct? As a matter of fact a great deal of verbiage and scientific literature has been expended to try to show that what we are experiencing now and will in the future is unprecedented and that the Medieval Warm Period was not as warm as todays climate...correct? Remember the Hockey Stick ?

The reason for this debate about the MWP is that if it were warmer in the 12 century without man made influence then what we are experiencing now is not unprecedented in modern geological history then the whole theory of Man Made global warming is moot for many reasons. Not the least of which is that a higher temperature in the past did not lead to the dreaded tipping point which the global warming theory hinges upon. As I have previously pointed out:
The importance of whether or not the MWP was warmer than today really has little to do with precedented or unprecedented as if it was some sort of sports record, the real importance has to do with the "enhanced" greenhouse theory itself. If a period of time measured in centuries not decades were more than 1.2 degrees warmer on average than is projected to occur due to increased CO2, what happened to the famous tipping point? Yet we are to believe in a few short decades we will reach a tipping point that centuries of warmer temperatures of the past did not tip? This is the true importance of the Hockey Stick. Remember too we have not, to my knowledge, ever been told where the starting point is. What is the pre-industrial temperature which was the starting point on our road to the fabled cataclysmic tipping point?

Yet in the very article and report which is trying to convince us of catastrophic sea level rise. we are told that in a period prior to man made global warming sea levels were higher than today due to warmer temperatures. Got it?  In a nutshell the given purpose of the study, to prove that warmer temperatures drive sea level rise, shows that in the 12th century sea levels were higher than present, then the temperatures in the that time must have been warmer than present. End of Hockey Stick, End of tipping points, end of alarm.

Despite the obvious flaw in the reasoning of this report not to mention the finagled science that went into putting it together, this one meter study is important fuel to the gravy train, as shown by the recent AU study. After all if you can say "According to the most recent sea-level-rise science, that's where we're heading," and have some peer reviewed scientific published study to back you up, well then you can justify further studies based upon that study and the train just keeps  moving down the track.

Even better still, whenever the public says "hey wait you guys are really hyping the threat here." Scientist throughout the community with all humility reply, "it is not us, the media takes our scientific research and sensationalizes it," This despite the fact that they put out the press releases, knowing that the media will do nothing more than keep the hype going, generating more fuel (funds) for their gravy train. The climate science gravy train has a self perpetuating never ending source of fuel.

Back to metrics for a second. Why was it important that a study be done to show these higher Sea Level rise numbers?  If the IPCC projections are correct, then even the most dramatic rise of  59 centimeters is not all that catastrophic, after all it rose almost half that amount back in the 12th century, right? In fact it could be argued and was and is that based upon current science it would make more sense to adapt to the rising seas than shut down our carbon based economic growth. So when science does not fit your agenda and threatens to derail the gravy train, you need new science and so they produced it.

The problem in all of this is that policies are being determined and laws and regulations written based upon speculation not actual science. Communities are changing their zoning laws, developments are being stopped, the insurance industry is getting in on the act and a host of other consequences are taking place based upon agenda driven gravy train fueled science.

So in reality as the AU press release says, in a perfect example of self fulfilling prophecy, countless communities and millions of coastal citizens are being affected by sea level rise-science. 

Oh and where do they get  "8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present"

Choo, Choo....Choo Choo....Choo, Choo


The current rate of sea level increase is 3.1 mm per year which means that by the end of the century sea levels will increase 28 (27.9) cm. This is 72 cm shy of a meter.

If you start the calculation at the start of the 21st century you can ad another 3 cm to this or 31 cm which is 69 cm shy of a meter rise in this century.

In order to reach a meter increase in Sea Level rise in this century (since 2000) you would have to increase the rate by 7.6 mm per year for the next 90 years. Which means the annual increase would have to be approx. 10.7 mm per year every year from now until the end of the century. As I said it currently is at 3.1.

So every year that goes by from here forward without reaching that 10.7 mm threshold only increases the rate at which the increase must accelerate in order to reach one meter.

If you take the high end of the IPCC scenario of .59 meters and the current rate of sea level rise you are still left 18 cm shy of reaching that projection beginning 2000 and ending at the end of the century.

In order to reach the IPCC's most dire projection, the rate of increase must accelerate by 2mm per year for the next 90 years, or approx. 5.1 mm per year and again every year it does not reach that threshold it will have to accelerate even faster in the years to come.

The AU study and press release is based upon the full one meter increase by the end of the century. Those oceans best start  rising really fast really soon for those maps not to be just very expensive toilet paper.

I am only semi confident in my math so please check if you wish


Knowing the math involved; here is what these studies are counting on. From another paragraph from the Science Daily article
When the ice age ended 11.700 years ago, the ice sheets melted so quickly that sea level rose 11 millimeters per year – equivalent to a meter in 100 years. In the current situation with global warming, Aslak Grinsted believes, that the sea level will rise with the same speed – that is to say a meter in the span of the next 100 years
I would suggest to the authors that they may want to check out the location and amount of the available ice to be melted relative to today. I suspect that increase was based on ice melting from far larger glaciers and far south of where today's ice fields are located. Seriously, do these scientist believe that the land based ice in the world, aworld  where ice covered Boston hundreds of meter thick is comparable to our modern world?  Do they not even realize that the ice that was available to be melted 11,700 years ago has already pretty much been melted and is in our oceans already. How alarmingly naive and simplistic are today's scientist.

Frightening actually

February 15, 2011

"With emphasis on the 'likely'".

I was reading this article about the recently released  study on ancient Arctic climate. It is a very interesting article well worth the read, but the pertinent information is contained in these paragraphs (emphasis mine):
Based on reconstructions of Arctic climate variability in the greenhouse world of the Late Cretaceous, Southampton scientists have concluded that man-made global warming probably would not greatly change the climatic influence associated with natural modes of inter-annual climate variability such as the El Niño—Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the Arctic Oscillation/ North Atlantic Oscillation (AO/ NAO).

"Even in the warm Cretaceous period, the patterns of these climatic oscillations changed over longer decadal timescales," explained Professor Alan Kemp of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton. "It is therefore difficult to predict whether anthropogenically driven warming will lead to systematic changes such as persistently milder European winters (a positive AO/ NAO) as some have suggested."
The first thing that came to mind was this from AR-4 Synthesis Report
*Climate change is expected to magnify regional differences in Europe’s natural resources and assets. Negative impacts will include increased risk of inland flash floods and more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion (due to storminess and sea level rise).

*Mountainous areas will face glacier retreat, reduced snow cover and winter tourism, and extensive species losses (in some areas up to 60% under high emissions scenarios by 2080).

*In southern Europe, climate change is projected to worsen conditions (high temperatures and drought) in a region already vulnerable to climate variability, and to reduce water availability, hydropower potential, summer tourism and, in general, crop productivity.

*Climate change is also projected to increase the health risks due to heat waves and the frequency of wildfires.
What I found interesting was the Late Cretaceous period which the researchers of the new study used to compare the coming climate Apocalypse to was not exactly known for its lack of bio-diversity.
Dramatic changes occurred in plant life during the Cretaceous. Pollinating insects such as bees and butterflies allowed the emerging flowering plants—the angiosperms —an advantage over seed-bearing plants that relied on the wind or a chance encounter with an animal to disperse their seeds. Today, nearly 90 percent of plants on Earth are angiosperms, signifying a remarkable evolutionary success story. Forests of oak and willow, cypress, magnolia, palms, and sycamore slowly replaced the cycad forests—palm-like plants with a barrel shaped trunk and many long leaves growing from the top. These new plant communities provided new sources of food and habitat for many kinds of animals.

During the Cretaceous, the dinosaurs reached the height of their evolutionary success....
Interesting isn't it that the very climate they are projecting for the future is the climate that allowed us to have the plant life we now enjoy. Which also begs the question, if our biosphere is so sensitive to climate change, why is it that all these plant species that evolved during a time when it is warmer than it is now and which they compare our future to, survived the cooler climate that the warmist seem to believe is the natural order? If  "forests of oak and willow, cypress, magnolia, palms, and sycamore" evolved and thrived due to pollinating insects which also evolved during this warmer period how bad could it have been?  Or more importantly, how bad will it be when we return to the past? If that is our unfortunate (?) fate.

But I digress.

What caught my attention in the article was this line "It is therefore difficult to predict whether anthropogenically driven warming will lead to systematic changes such as persistently milder European winters (a positive AO/ NAO) as some have suggested." Well who suggested it?

Among others where's the heat Kevin Trenberth of NCAR in this article from 1997
As a record El Niño event changes temperature and precipitation patterns over a large part of the globe, it's natural to ask whether these changes have anything to do with the warming air and changing precipitation caused by human beings. According to Kevin Trenberth (NCAR Climate and Global Dynamics Division, or CGD), the answer is a likely yes--with emphasis on the "likely." But the link is quite complicated, and some questions remain unanswered
Well it appears that "likely" is not likely at all. Like almost everything to do with climate science in the alarmist epoch, theories are advanced as "likely" with much fanfare and alarm, building a psychological Mountain of Doom in society. Later when the "likely" is diproven it hardly matters since the profits prophets of disaster have already planted another seed into the psyche of  the people whom they have deceived for their own purposes and gain.

Some may say that they do not do this intentionally to deceive the pubic, that new research has proven that their original analysis wrong. A point which I would gladly grant  had not this swamp  of unscrupulous vipers not proven by their actions again and again that they will hide and distort their own research in order to maintain the theory, else why would it take leaked   Emails to learn the truth of their own doubts :
...The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate...
Kevin Trenberth

How many of these "likely" predictions must be proven wrong before these scientist  begin to shoot straight with the public? I would say about as likely as they will explain that if a warmer Arctic causes a colder Northern Hemisphere how did the Dinosaurs roam in Canada- "not likely".