WASHINGTON - With most Americans ambivalent about President Barack Obama's signature healthcare overhaul or openly hostile to it, next Tuesday's elections
could have a big impact on the reforms, experts said on Wednesday.
Major Republican gains could mean years of hold-ups on implementing the legislation - but if Democrats manage to prevail against the odds, they may reward their
base with even more extensive reforms, Robert Blendon and John Benson of the Harvard School of Public Health said. (Reuters)
If the GOP can't save you then you might be "rewarded" with even greater disasters... You've been warned.
State Senator Bill Perkins has filed an amicus brief in hopes that the Supreme Court will take a look at the legality of eminent domain use in Manhattanville.
(Columbia Spectator)
By Steve Milloy
October 28, 2010, GreenHellBlog.com
A Kaiser Permanente-sponsored study of 514 Chinese workers reports that urinary levels of chemical bisphenol A (BPA) were associated with decreased sperm concentration, total sperm count,
sperm vitality and sperm motility. The study was published in the journal of Fertility and Sterility. It may as well have been published in the journal
of Futility and Stupidity.
First, the statistical associations are quite dubious. None of the reported associations between urinary BPA levels and semen quality are statistically
significant. None of the p-values were reported, so it can be presumed that they all exceed the standard significance requirement of P =< 0.05. The
confidence intervals (i.e., margins of error) are all quite wide — i.e., 160-200+% greater than the size of the reported association.
Next, the statistical associations were supposedly adjusted for age, education, history of chronic disease, previous history of exposure to other chemicals
and metals, employment history, marital status, age at first intercourse, smoking, drinking and study site. But all these “data” were self-reported by the
workers and the researchers made no effort to verify or validate any of it. Assuming for the sake of argument, for example, that smoking, drinking, and
“exposure to other chemicals and metals” are true confounding factors for semen quality, no information was collected on the levels of such exposures. No
doubt there are many other risk factors for reduced semen quality, but they weren’t considered. The researchers claim that study subjects complied with a
7-day sexual abstinence requirement but how certain can they be?
Also, the study population was not randomly selected. Of the 888 workers eligible to participate, only 514 did. Were these 514 the less healthy ones who
opted for a free medical exam?
This effort was not designed or conducted so as to study the relationship of BPA exposure to semen quality. Not surprisingly, it doesn’t.
BPA has been used for more than 50 years with no real-world indication that it has ever harmed anyone. That’s why the anti-chemcial activists are forced to
stoop to the depths of such junk science.
CHICAGO - An independent U.S. advisory panel is amending its recommendations for booster vaccines to prevent whooping cough and expand protection from the
disease that has made a comeback in several U.S. states.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted on Wednesday to allow adolescents or adults whose vaccine history is not known to get a booster shot of
the "Tdap" vaccine for tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis, or whooping cough, as soon as possible.
The committee, whose advice is usually followed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also recommended that adults over 65 be given the
vaccine to help prevent transmission to infants under a year old, who are too young to be vaccinated.
Children aged 7 to 9 who have not been adequately vaccinated should be given the Tdap booster, it added.
Tdap vaccines, made by both Sanofi Aventis and GlaxoSmithKline, protect adolescents and adults from three once-common killers - whooping cough, tetanus and
diphtheria.
But they are not approved for children aged 7 to 10 or people aged 65 and older. Two- to 6-year-olds get a different vaccine, called DTaP, for the same three
infections.
Tom Clark, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a telephone interview the moves were intended to "close
some gaps in our vaccination program."
Whooping cough is a highly contagious respiratory disease caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis.
Public health officials from California told the panel that, to date, the state has had 10 infants younger than 2 months old die from whooping cough. CDC
researchers told the panel 6 to 8 percent of whooping cough cases are transmitted from grandparents to children.
"We've definitely heard from grandparents who are told if they are 65, they can't get a Tdap vaccine to protect their grandbabies. Now they can,"
Clark said.
Representatives from both GSK and Sanofi told the panel they intend to seek approvals for their vaccines from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Until then, doctors can give the vaccine on an off-label basis, Clark said. (Reuters)
In the midst of a legislative fight over taxing sodas last year, the New York City health department put together a media campaign about how drinking a can
of soda a day “can make you 10 pounds fatter a year.”
But behind this simple claim was a protracted dispute in the department over the scientific validity of directly linking sugar consumption to weight gain —
one in which the city’s health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley, overruled three subordinates, including his chief nutritionist.
“CAUTION,” the nutritionist, Cathy Nonas, wrote in a memorandum to her colleagues on Aug. 20, 2009. “As we get into this exacting science, the idea of a
sugary drink becoming fat is absurd.” The scientists, she said, “will make mincemeat of us.” (NYT)
Countless people clung to life in the branches of trees hemming the shorelines during the deadly 2004 tsunami that killed more than 230,000 coastal residents
in Indonesia, India, Thailand and Sri Lanka. In the aftermath of the disaster, land change scientist Chandra Giri from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) decided
to explore to what degree those unique trees – which make up valuable forest ecosystems called mangroves -- safeguard lives, property and beaches during
hurricanes, tsunamis and floods.
Encountering challenges while trying to quantify the long-standing hypothesis compelled Giri and an international team of scientists to take a more roundabout
and ultimately more viable research path: to first describe the distribution and magnitude of the area mangrove ecosystems cover. With funding from NASA, that
path yielded the first high-resolution, satellite-based global map of mangrove forests. Published online this summer in the Journal of Global Ecology and
Biogeography, the map revealed worrisome facts about these treasure troves for biodiversity: they make up less of the Earth's surface than previously thought.
This new information, Giri says, coupled with other reports that mangrove forests are vanishing faster than scientists' previous estimates, can provide
motivation and evidence for stronger conservation efforts. (NASA/GSFC)
Can the international community reach a turning point in nature conservation? A UN conference in Nagoya, Japan this week may determine how our planet's
resources are used in the future. Germany could have played an important role, but its environment minister left the meeting after only one day. (Spiegel)
Wasted that much time there eh? Don't bother attending any more of these scam sessions.
Nagoya talks close to agreement but countries remain split over access to microscopic germs and the sharing of benefits from research and medicines
(Guardian)
Proposition 23 seeks to put some of California’s more egregious energy regulations on hold—at least until the California economy recovers. Current law
will force consumers to switch to energy sources that can be four or more times as expensive as conventional energy, driving energy prices up, employers out,
and consumers crazy. The current rules make especially little sense in the current economic environment.
In addition to the standard environmental groups, those financing the opposition to Proposition 23 are mainly financiers who stand to gain from restrictions
on conventional energy and billionaires who are far removed from worries over monthly energy bills and losing a job. The problem for the other 37 million
Californians is that they do worry about how they can pay higher energy bills and about getting and keeping a job. Continue reading... (The Foundry)
I love this quote from clean-tech exec Eric Dresselhuys to the San Francisco Chronicle's David R. Baker: "If California isn't leading the charge on
implementing these technologies, why be here? Do you want to be here for the high taxes, the high cost of living? Right now, you want to be here because
California is where the action is."
In a nutshell, that is the argument against Proposition 23 -- which would stall the impending implementation of AB32, California's landmark 2006 global-warming
bill, until unemployment dips to 5.5 percent. If voters delay AB32, they will staunch the creation of clean-tech jobs -- because no sane entrepreneur would
dream of doing business here without a sweetheart deal from Sacramento.
To keep venture capitalists rolling in it, Californians are supposed to raise the cost of doing business for everyone else. No worries: California's
unemployment rate is only 12.4 percent.
The real choice here is between jobs and magical thinking. AB32 promises to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in 10 years. There's no
easy way to reach that goal. State regulators will have to raise energy prices on consumers and businesses, raise fees on industries and slap more regulations
on already burdened employers.
And for what? Green jobs represent about 1 percent of California jobs -- as opposed to manufacturing, which accounts for 21 percent of jobs. A recent UC
Berkeley study predicted that AB32 will create the equivalent of 1,000 to 3,600 permanent jobs each year. Those numbers simply don't stack up against
California's 2 million lost jobs, or the jobs that could go away. (Debra J. Saunders, Townhall)
California governor fights hard to protect his green legacy, taking on oil executives who aim to annul law via Proposition 23
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is fighting oil firms that want to cancel his climate change bill through the Proposition 23 referendum. Photograph:
Max Whittaker/Getty Images
It was his signature line from his days as an action hero: "I'll be back." Now Arnold Schwarzenegger's fight to protect his climate legacy is fuelling
speculation that he is seeking a role as environmental defender on a bigger stage.
With just a week to go until Californians choose his successor as governor, Schwarzenegger has hurled himself into the campaign against the Proposition 23
ballot initiative brought by Texas oil refiners and the billionaire Koch brothers that would effectively kill off his climate change law, which requires 25%
cuts in emissions levels by 2020.
He has called oil company executives and eco-entrepreneurs, visited investment bankers and held a fundraising event at his home, helping to build a huge cash
advantage for the climate campaigners over the oil firms. He has lobbied Hollywood directors and used a Tweetcast to urge his 1.8 million followers to vote down
the measure. (Guardian)
Last week, David Roberts at Grist coined the phrase “Climate Hawk,” to
describe “people who understand climate change and support clean energy but do not share the rest of the ideological and sociocultural commitments that define
environmentalism as historically understood in the U.S.”
Of course, a “hawk” in political jargon has long referred to policymakers who are bullish on the use of military might to advance American interests. The
national security overtones are meant to impart a seriousness to global warming alarmists otherwise conflated with hippy-dippy granola environmentalists. According to Andrew Leonard at Salon,
Roberts’s term is “a brilliant jiujitsu move of rhetorical framing.”
Roberts’s new meme was adopted quickly by the green journo beat. Today, for example, both Joe Romm (of Climate
Progress) and…
Saving energy or stopping pollution is a good
thing. What’s the danger in acting now?
We can save energy and stop real pollution without setting up a whole financial bureaucratic system based on “thin air”. The wholly unnecessary trading
system feeds the sharks of finance with more money and power. We waste blood, sweat and tears and encourage cheats. We reward fraud and foster corruption.
When we trade real things, people who cheat get caught easily. They can’t get away with it for long. But in the quasi world of meaningless permits-for-air,
the only limit to cheating is “what they can get away with”.
For example: Carbon credits paid to China to build hydro dams end up helping bankers buy yachts, and feed the mafiosi in China. They evict homeowners,
don’t pay them enough compensation, flood their valleys and commit these people to homelessness or more slavery to bankers through mortgages.
Sure, some useful outcomes might occur. But hoping we get lucky is not “planning”. It’s policy-by-accident. If solar energy, say, is a good idea all on
its own, we don’t need to invent fake reasons to force people to use more of it.
We could for example tax fuel or gas and subsidize the less efficient energy sources to encourage the switch… oh, that’s right, we already do.
The real price is often invisible. It’s all the things we won’t do that we could have: $3.4 billion dollars spent on carbon sequestration is not just
“money”, it’s 46 million people who didn’t get cured of blindness and another 100 million who won’t get clean water — some of whom will die from
cholera or dysentery.
If we employ thousands of accountants, lawyers and auditors to monitor a scheme that’s pointless, it means all these honest hardworking people are wasting
everyone’s time and resources. They could be finding a cure for cancer, or feeding kids in Haiti. They could be teaching children here to use logic and
reason, and help stop the next generation from wasting billions on manufactured scares.
Global warming, energy independence and good 21st-century jobs are three compelling reasons why Washington must do a lot more to promote renewable energy.
Congress seemed to get it in 2005 when it directed the Interior Department to approve enough wind, solar and other projects on public land to produce 10,000
megawatts by 2015 — enough to heat, cool and light five million homes. Not much has happened since. (NYT)
Wind power is a many centuries-old technology and can be considered "mature", yet it is still not competitive without enormous
subsidy. Sun power is, well, as old as the sun but its energy at Earth's surface is too dispersed to be a viable baseload generator, which is why Sun worshipers
too, clamor to be suckled on the public teat. Politicians are ill-suited to picking winning technologies and should not attempt to do so. Get out of the way and
let the market deliver the most reliable and affordable energy.
'Local legislation prohibits any car engine running for more than 60 seconds' -- But Gore Not Fined
Reprinted from CFACT.EU
Frankly Sir, You Are an Embarrassment
Posted: 27 Oct 2010 10:35 AM PDT
By Einar Du Rietz
Al Gore -- He did it again.
Recently, Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore toured again. Or maybe he does that all the time. This time, he turned up in Gothenburg (Sweden) for the usual
alarmist talk. In advance, all distinguished guests were politely advised to – if possible – use any form of public transportation to go to the event, in
order to minimize CO2 emissions.
Intriguingly, the Master of World Climate himself arrived in a rental car (with or without driver is unclear), from the airport, and subsequently left the
engine running for the entire lecture. That is to say, about one hour. Incidentally, local legislation prohibits – for very good environmental reasons, i e
pollution – any car engine running on empty for more than 60 seconds. Fines are severe. As far as I know, he was not fined.
It starts to form a pattern. (Marc Morano, Climate Depot)
Hyundai has released a “green” (carbon-neutral) commercial to
market itself as a “green” company. The production set includes rain collectors, solar panels, a tiny wind turbine, and electric
generators hooked up to bicyclists (evidently, the solar panels and wind turbine just don’t provide enough juice).
The ”greenest” feature, though, is that the car shown in the commercial doesn’t use any gasoline at all. Not one drop. A miracle? An
all-electric vehicle?
Not even close. The car emits no greenhouse gases because nobody actually drives it on the set. Instead of the car moving people, people move the car.
Literally. Three guys give it a shove to get it moving long enough (a few seconds) for the cameras to create the illusion of auto-mobility.
One of the glories of modern civilization is that…
The ASA understood that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), was considered, through its work collating data from peer reviewed climate science papers internationally, to be the world's most
authoritative source of information on climate science. Taking into account statements issued by other national and international bodies with expertise in
climate science, we considered there was a robust consensus amongst them that there was extremely strong evidence for human induced climate change. We noted
that the part of Oxfam's claim that stated "Our politicians have the power to help get a climate deal back on track ... let's sort it here and now"
made a link between human action and climate change.
We noted that Oxfam had supplied a WHO fact sheet which had been published in January 2010 and which stated "Globally, the number of reported
weather-related natural disasters has more than tripled since the 1960s. Every year, these disasters result in over 60,000 deaths, mainly in developing
countries" and confirmation from WHO that that position still, in June 2010, reflected WHO's assessment of the situation. We noted that that statement
reflected findings set out in more detail in WHO's publication "The World Health Report 2002 Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life", which stated
"Climate change was estimated to be responsible in 2000 for approximately 2.4% of worldwide diarrhoea, 6% of malaria in some middle income countries and 7%
of dengue fever in some industrialized countries. In total, the attributable mortality was 154 000 (0.3%) deaths ..." and WHO's 2009 publication
"GLOBAL HEALTH RISKS - Mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks", which stated "Climate change was estimated to be
already responsible for 3% of diarrhoea, 3% of malaria and 3.8% of dengue fever deaths worldwide in 2004. Total attributable mortality was about 0.2% of deaths
in 2004; of these, 85% were child deaths". We noted that those statistics were broken down in more detail according to cause and region in WHO's 2004
publication, "Comparative Quantification of Health Risks." We also noted that the IPCC Report's position was that changes in weather trends had led to
increased disease.
We noted that Oxfam's claim was reasonably restrained in that it stated deaths were occurring at the present time as a result of climate change but that it did
not claim specific numbers of deaths were attributable and it did not speculate about future numbers of deaths. Because of that, and because of the consensus
that we considered already existed amongst climate scientists that there was extremely strong evidence for human induced climate change, and because of a
similar consensus that climate change was now resulting in people dying, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.
In The Climate Fix, I discuss the WHO claims in some detail, and point out that the WHO
itself explains that their findings do not accord with the canons of empirical science (see p. 177). I argue that the WHO results are a guess on top of
speculation. They are not true.
Well, if the WHO claims are not true, and the ASA says that they are not false, then what is their epistemological state? They are, I suppose, whatever
you want them to be. Welcome to post-normal science. From where I sit, seeking to justify action on emissions or even adaptation based on
allegations that people are dying of climate change today is both wrong and wrongheaded, for reasons that I describe in some depth in TCF. Was the ASA decision
wrong? No. But it wasn't right either. (Roger Pielke Jr.)
Hippies turn against hipsters, Virgin greenwash isn’t enough to protect the final frontier from warmists and Britain is revolting. Against the green
agenda, to be clear. (Daily Bayonet)
Not putting the clocks back in winter could reduce energy use and carbon emissions, as well as cutting road accidents and boosting tourism, MPs were told
today.
According to researchers from the University of Cambridge, providing an extra hour of light in the peak evening period reduces electricity use.
If the clocks were not changed back to GMT in October, a least half a million tonnes of carbon emissions could be saved, they said. (PA)
Sure like to see how they calculated that. All the data we have seen indicates increased net energy use with "daylight saving".
What is true is that people might use less lighting, which certainly saved whale oil and candles back in the days before baseload electricity, plasma screens
and motor vehicles. That sure isn't the same thing as using less energy though.
After I posted up some comments on the previous article
from the Tampa paper, I heard from a number of people in the re/insurance industry explaining that the situation is complex and business are simply
responding to the commercial and regulatory environment. The issues are complex, but the numbers reported by the Herald-Tribune are eye-opening
regardless. Consider this math:
On average, the Herald-Tribune calculated, reinsurers charge five times more than the actuarial risk of loss.
The translation for Florida property owners: For every $1 in hurricane risk to their home, they pay another $4 for the reinsurer's profit. In other words, if
a reinsurer determines a home is likely to sustain $2,000 in damage in a year, it will charge $10,000 to cover that home.
In reinsurance, such math is unquestioned. It is not "undue profitability" but "the cost of capital," concluded an industry-funded study
by the vaunted Wharton Risk Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
"Insurers need considerable capital to supply this insurance and the cost of that capital is included in the premium," they note.
How does this happen? The article explains that after Katrina, primary insurers started pulling out of Florida, due to perceptions of risk but also due to
the regulatory environment. The consequence was a greater reliance on Bermuda-based reinsurers:
From 2005 to 2008, 2.2 million Florida homeowner policies were canceled or non-renewed. The state-run Citizens Property Insurance for the first time became
the largest provider of hurricane coverage in Florida.
With no viable alternative, state regulators and private insurance companies looked to offshore reinsurers to underwrite the risk posed by storms. With a few
million dollars in the bank, newly formed insurers could buy large amounts of reinsurance to instantly write billions of dollars worth of coverage.
The new Florida norm are carriers like ACA Home, a tiny St. Petersburg home insurer started after 2005 with funding in part from a Bermuda reinsurer.
ACA Home has no employees and pays an affiliate, American Strategic, to run its business.
Financial filings show reinsurers take 86 cents of every premium dollar ACA collects -- $9 million of the $10.5 million it collected in 2009.
The cost for turning over almost all of its risk is high. ACA pays as much as 33 cents for $1 of protection against the most likely kind of storms, the
equivalent of paying $66,000 a year to insure a house worth $200,000.
Ironically, such reinsurers thrive on disasters, and the
following passage from the Herald-Tribune article will be a surprise to many I am sure:
FOR A GUT-WRENCHING 48 hours in September 2008, the National Hurricane Center's skinny black line pointed like an accusation at Miami.
Hurricane Ike was barreling through the Atlantic as a Category 4, on a westerly track that had the potential to deliver the long-dreaded sucker punch that
would bring Florida to its knees.
As stomachs churned in Florida, a quarter turn around the globe on the balmy Mediterranean, the reinsurance industry welcomed an American calamity.
The financial giants who underwrite the world's risks were gathered in Monte Carlo for their annual Rendez-Vous de Septembre. Amid champagne parties and
sailing races, they kept close watch on the advance of the storm.
Profits at that moment were flat and reinsurance rates falling, even in Florida.
By their analysts' calculations, it would take a $35 billion disaster to turn the market around.
The head of research for a London brokerage sized up the hurricanes circulating in the American Gulf.
"Gustav and Hannah: perhaps unlikely to have a major impact ..." he told financial writers in the plush salon of a Monte Carlo hotel, as they
picked over silver trays of tiny lime tarts.
"But Ike ..." he said, turning his attention to the storm worrying Miami, "... depending on which way it goes, it could be a turning point,
ladies and gentlemen."
There was nothing in his tone, nor the reaction of those taking note, to reveal they were discussing the decimation of another American city.
There is a perverse tendency for the reinsurance industry to hope for disaster.
The cost of calamity coverage is determined mostly by supply and demand. Big disasters can temporarily dampen quarterly profits and even kill a few unlucky
reinsurers, but they drive up demand and draw down capital, shrinking supply.
The result is record profits made on the back of the world's biggest catastrophes -- Hurricane Andrew, 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina.
The macabre sentiment pervading Monte Carlo in 2008 was parodied a few mornings later at the Cafe de Paris, where reinsurance brokers massed 20-deep for
preliminary negotiations on the hurricane contracts for which Floridians would pay the next year.
"Industry mourns the passing of Gustav," joked a headline in the Rendez-Vous edition of the normally sedate Insurance Day.
By missing New Orleans, the trade journal quipped, the hurricane had "failed to destroy billions of dollars worth of energy infrastructure and make
millions of uninsured poor people homeless.
"An executive from a Bermuda start-up said he had lost everything as a result of the non-storm ...
"'I've got everything riding on a big one.'"
The banks waited too long to get their house in order, I wonder if reinsurance will do the same. If not, politicians will likely be more than happy to
do it for them. (Roger Pielke Jr.)
Having just returned from another New Orleans meeting – this time, a NASA A-Train satellite constellation symposium — I thought I would check the latest
sea surface temperatures from our AMSR-E instrument.
The following image shows data updated through yesterday (October 27). Needless to say, there is no end in sight to the cooling. (Click on image for the
full-size version).
Since these SST measurements are mostly unaffected by cloud cover like the traditional infrared measurements are, I consider this to be the most accurate
high-time resolution SST record available…albeit only since mid-2002, when the Aqua satellite was launched.
I won’t make any predictions about whether SSTs will go as low as the 2007-08 La Nina event. I’ll leave that to others. (Roy W. Spencer)
Not because of some humongous breakthrough in alternative energies but because of new ways to access two sources widely used today: oil and natural gas. The
recent news story about China's national oil company, Cnooc, purchasing a stake in Chesapeake Energy's Texas shale oil and gas fields and agreeing to pony up
most of the capital to develop them underscores what an amazing transformation is taking place in the U.S.' energy picture.
The word "revolution" is overused, but it's truly appropriate when applied to these technological breakthroughs: hydraulic fracturing--a.k.a. fracking--and
horizontal drilling. With fracking, drillers inject water, sand and chemicals deep underground to crack gas-bearing rocks. The technology, which has been around
for a long time, has advanced dramatically. Literally trillions of dollars' worth of shale oil and gas can now be economically extracted.
Horizontal drilling is another impressive breakthrough that allows us to get to oil and gas that was previously unattainable.
The implications are staggering. Within a decade the U.S. will be a major natural gas exporter. In those Texas Chesapeake fields alone production will reach the
equivalent of 400,000 to 500,000 barrels of oil a day. Pennsylvania and upstate New York will also become major gas producers.
Oil production, too, in the U.S. will increase far beyond what experts thought possible a few short years ago.
China made that sweetheart deal with Chesapeake Energy precisely because it wants to learn more about these technologies so it can enormously increase its
domestic oil and gas production.
Environmentalists worry that fracking might poison our water, even though the drilling takes place thousands of feet below the water table. Fortunately the
technology is there to get at these reserves in an extremely safe way.
The Earth is awash in energy. (Steve Forbes, Forbes)
Local revolts by British residents against wind farms are to blame for the number of planning approvals hitting record lows, an industry report has
warned.
More than 230 campaign groups across the country are putting plans to generate more than a quarter of Britain’s electricity in jeopardy, it was claimed.
New figures show one in three wind farm applications were approved by councils amid heightened opposition from angry residents.
Approvals in England has fallen by 50 per cent half over the past year while the number of new wind farms coming “on-stream”, or becoming active, has
dropped by almost a third. (TDT)
Local councils are to get extra funding if they give the go-ahead to new wind farms, under plans to stop local communities sabotaging renewable energy
projects. (Independent)
How about stopping "renewable energy projects" sabotaging local communities?
[Editor's note: Parts I and II set the stage for the development of some conclusions about how much wind electricity Denmark
exports, which will be provided in this post. The impact of wind on CO2 emissions is addressed in Part IV]
To further reduce the total amount of information to a more manageable level, the following is a look at this from the point of view of Denmark’s
electricity import/export flows for the most recent “normal” year (2004), dry year, (2006), and a wet year, (2007), these conditions being the main driver
of exports. This is shown graphically in Figures 1-3, starting with a normal year. In these charts numbers may not exactly balance due to rounding. Note in
particular the net export levels, which are typical for each type of year.
It must be remembered that most of these activities can take place at different times during the year, month or day. For example wind generation is usually
strongest at night so Norway and Sweden could be taking Danish wind at night and delivering hydro-generated electricity during the day. Alternatively, Nordic
hydro-generated electricity could be being used extensively to balance the remaining large amount of Danish wind for domestic consumption within Denmark or
export to Germany.
As Figure 1 shows, in normal years, the flow through Denmark is relatively balanced between imports and exports with its electricity trading partners.
Figure 1 – Danish imports and exports of electricity in 2004, in a normal year, that is when there are not significantly wet or dry conditions in the
Nordic region.
Here there is ample opportunity for the export of Danish wind to Norway/Sweden. Bach calculates that about 60% of wind from West Denmark, which has about 80%
of total Danish wind capacity, is exported. Wind exports from East Denmark are typically less than that for West Denmark, and Andersen notes that there is more
clearly an export of fossil fuel generation from East Denmark. [Read more →] (MasterResource)
Opponents of nuclear powered suffered a setback in Berlin on Thursday as the federal parliament approved legislation that would effectively repeal Germany's
planned withdrawal from atomic power. Now nuclear plants can stay open an average of 12 years longer than originally planned. (Spiegel)
Five years ago, in the landmark property rights case of Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court upheld the forced transfer of land from various homeowners by
finding that “economic development” qualifies as a public purpose for purposes of satisfying the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. In doing so, however,
the Court reaffirmed that the government may not “take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private
benefit.”
State and federal courts have since applied that pretext standard in widely differing ways while identifying four factors as indicators of pretext: evidence of
pretextual intent, benefits that flow predominantly to a private party, haphazard planning, and a readily identifiable beneficiary. Moreover, since Kelo, 43
states have passed eminent domain reform laws that constrain or forbid “economic development” condemnations. (Ilya Shapiro, Cato at liberty)
LONDON - Scientists studying swine flu have found that 70 children died from it in England in a 9 month period during the H1N1 pandemic and death rates were
worst among ethnic minority children and those with other health problems.
In a study in the Lancet medical journal, Liam Donaldson, the former Chief Medical Officer for England, said children from the country's Bangladeshi and
Pakistani communities had much higher mortality than white British children, as did children with serious pre-existing illnesses - especially chronic
neurological diseases such as cerebral palsy.
These high-risk groups should be a priority for H1N1 vaccination, Donaldson and his research team said.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), which declared the pandemic over in August, some 18,450 people worldwide are confirmed to have died from H1N1,
including many pregnant women and young people. But the WHO says it will take at least a year after the pandemic ends to determine the true death toll, which is
likely to be much higher. (Reuters)
Canada has announced it will ban the chemical bisphenol A -- known as BPA -- which is used to make plastic water and baby bottles.
The head of the Canadian environmental group Environmental Defence is thrilled:
"Kudos to the federal government. ... We look forward to seeing BPA legally designated as 'toxic' as soon as possible."
But the evidence doesn't actually show that BPA is toxic. Europe's equivalent of the FDA concluded: "(T)he data currently available do not provide
convincing evidence of neurobehavioral toxicity."
Richard Sharpe of the University of Edinburgh explained:
"Some early animal studies produced results suggesting the possibility of adverse effects relevant to human health, but much larger, carefully designed
studies in several laboratories have failed to confirm these initial studies."
The initial studies injected BPA into animals, rather than giving it by mouth, which is how we humans are exposed. Since BPA degrades in the gut when we consume
it, very little gets to our cells.
Yet many people are sure BPA causes not only breast and prostate cancer but also obesity, diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity, autism, liver disease,
ovarian disease, disease of the uterus, low sperm count and heart disease. When a chemical is said to cause so many disorders, that's a sure sign of
unscientific hysteria. But a documentary called "Tapped" says it's true. It quotes experts claiming "BPA may be one of the most potent toxic
chemicals known to man."
Nonsense. Not only is there no good evidence that BPA locked into plastic can hurt people, it actually saves lives by stopping botulism.
"Since BPA became commonplace in the lining of canned goods, food-borne illness from canned foods -- including botulism -- has virtually disappeared,"
says the American Council of Science and Health.
You never hear the good news about BPA in the mainstream media. Fear-mongering gets better ratings. (John Stossel, Townhall)
PARENTS obsessed with killing germs could be exposing children to potential allergies and a cocktail of chemicals, an expert says.
Australian College of Environmental Studies founder and naturopath Nicole Bijlsma warns clean freaks could actually be doing more harm than good. (Karen
Collier, Herald Sun)
While there is some (trivial) support for the hygiene hypothesis and the need to keep kids in a sterile environment is exceptionally rare it
does not justify the platform given to naturopaths and similar loons. Clean is good, sterile is unnecessary and chemophobes' manias will cause you immense harm.
Not so hard, is it? Relax.
LONDON - Getting people to eat a healthy diet, not smoke, cut down on alcohol and exercise more could prevent almost a quarter of the some 1.2 million cases
of colon cancer diagnosed each year, scientists said on Wednesday.
Researchers from Denmark found that following recommendations on physical activity, waist circumference, smoking, alcohol intake and diet could reduce the risk
of developing bowel cancer by as much as 23 percent. (Reuters)
NEW YORK - People living near a steel factory or another source of high manganese emissions are at higher risk of developing Parkinson's disease, suggests a
new study.
As many as one million Americans live with the degenerative disease, according to the Parkinson's Disease Foundation. Pesticides from farms have long been
suspected of upping the chances of developing Parkinson's, but much less is known about the influences of city living.
"Environmental risk factors for Parkinson's disease have been relatively under-studied, especially in urban areas where the overwhelming majority of
Parkinson's disease patients reside," Dr. Brad A. Racette of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, told Reuters Health in an
e-mail.
Earlier research had tied heavy metals to Parkinson-like brain damage, but it wasn't clear if they could also play a role in people who aren't exposed to the
metals as part of their job.
So Racette and his colleagues analyzed data on about five million Medicare beneficiaries who hadn't moved between counties from 1995 to 2003. Then they compared
Parkinson's rates to industry emissions of copper, lead and manganese obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency. (Reuters Health)
Lack of actual exposure data is its weakness. While this could implicate heavy metal exposure how does it compare with high pesticide
exposure cohorts? Does it indicate that Medicare recipients in industrial areas have less healthy lifestyles than those in the 'burbs or rural regions? If there
are greater heavy metal emissions does this indicate they are in mineral rich regions? If so, what is the water supply like for the region, is it unusually
mineralized? For now we see through a glass, darkly.
Obesity is health care's "global warming" - there is absolutely nothing it can't be responsible for or that can not be
associated with it, no one who can't be blamed for it or "victimized" by it:
Hyperactivity, impulsiveness associated with a 63 percent increase, researchers found
WEDNESDAY, Oct. 27 -- Children with symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are at increased risk for obesity in adulthood, a new study
claims.
Having three or more of any of the symptoms of ADHD -- such as inattention, hyperactivity or impulsivity -- significantly increases the chances of being obese,
according to researchers from Duke University Medical Center, who examined federal data on 15,197 adolescents followed from 1995 to 2009. (HealthDay News)
McDonald’s Corp., the world’s largest restaurant chain, convinced a U.S. judge that consumers’ claims that its food contributed to childhood obesity
were too distinct to be gathered in a single group lawsuit.
“Plaintiffs’ claims will necessitate extensive individualized inquiries,” Judge Donald Pogue in Manhattan said today in a 43-page decision in a lawsuit
filed in 2002 by teenagers Ashley Pelman and Jazlen Bradley.
They accused McDonald’s of deceptively marketing its Chicken McNuggets, fish sandwiches, hamburgers and French fries from 1985 to 2002, harming their health
and violating New York law.
Pogue, a U.S. Court of International Trade judge sitting by special designation in district court, said the consumers hadn’t shown that other people of a
similar age suffered the same medical injuries after being exposed to the same marketing and eating the same food. (Bloomberg)
Clear nutritional labels aimed at helping consumers combat obesity will appear next year on the products of some of the biggest U.S. food makers, two trade
groups said.
Calorie content and health information will go on the front of packages in a “fact-based, simple and easy-to-use format,” the Food Marketing Institute and
the Grocery Manufacturers Association said yesterday in a joint statement announcing the voluntary labeling system. The new labels will appear early next year,
they said. (Bloomberg)
MONTREAL — Children who don't get enough sleep are more likely to suffer from heart disease, researchers say, while sleep disorders in teenagers are
climbing.
As researchers at the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress in Montreal reported on the detrimental effects of lack of sleep on children Tuesday, Brian McCrindle, a
pediatric cardiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, said in an interview that one in five teenagers reports having poor sleep and regularly
takes sleep medication.
Insufficient sleep is a significant risk factor for developing childhood obesity, which can lead to premature heart disease, research shows. Obesity contributes
to several risk factors for the condition such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol. (Charlie Fidelman, Postmedia News)
Sir John Beddington says NHS funding may harm patients' health if they choose homeopathy over conventional medicine
The pharmacy of the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine. Homeopathy costs the NHS between £4m and £10m a year. Photograph: Martin Godwin
Patients are at risk of being misled over the benefits of homeopathy by the government's decision to fund the remedies on the NHS, the country's most senior
scientist warned today.
Sir John Beddington, the government's chief scientific adviser, said patients might believe homeopathic treatments could protect them against serious illnesses,
or treat existing conditions, because GPs and hospitals are allowed to prescribe them on the NHS.
Tens of thousands of people are given homeopathic pills and other preparations by their GPs or at Britain's four homeopathic hospitals, at an estimated cost to
the NHS of between £4m and £10m a year. Most homeopathic remedies are diluted multiple times to the point that only water is left, while others are
essentially sugar pills. (Guardian)
There is no excuse for squandering public funds on superstitious nonsense and no evidence homeopathy is anything but quackery. If people
insist on Dark Ages treatment then let them do it on their own dime. Better yet, let the son and airhead to the throne, Charlie, Prince of Wails (and prime
promoter of this crap), foot the bill through sales of his organic Duchy Originals or other such scams.
That's the title of John Groom's new book. Here's the blurb...
Did you know that, despite a token salary, Barack Obama has the most expensive lifestyle in human history, costing more than any other US president? That
taxpayers pay $300,000 for every night he spends at the Camp David retreat? That, even after adjusting for inflation, the entire Versailles palace in France
could be completely rebuilt every single year for what it costs to support the current US President? That his limousine costs over $2 million? That he has the
most expensive fleet of aircraft in the world?
John Groom and his researchers have just completed the first ever complete investigation into the costs of the White House, and you’ll see how, even in the
midst of recession, the US president lives like a king.
The environmental angle here is really quite simple. No organization can be Green, or even claim to support such a notion if it is this big and bloated.
Moreover, under these rubrics, there cannot be some sort of exemption for the White House, just because it is the White House.
Either the future of the planet is at stake, or its isn't. Only don't hold your breath waiting for his supporters to call him on this. (Shaw's Eco-Logic)
Government: While it destroys jobs with its regulations, the EPA has an opening for an "environmental protection specialist" whose job it is to
help the agency meet its "environmental justice goals." Meet its what?
If socialism and environmentalism had a child, it would be called the Environmental Protection Agency. Established under President Nixon to ensure the quality
of our air and water, it has become a tool of social engineering to implement President Obama's promised fundamental transformation of America
The EPA is looking for someone with "knowledge of the theories and principles of environmental protection, especially as they relate to issues of
environmental justice and the impacts of environmental laws, policies, legislation and regulation on minority and/or low-income groups and communities."
The job, located in New York City, pays up to $84,000. No college degree is required — just a hatred of industry, development and fossil fuels, and a belief
that minorities are the deliberate victims of capitalist exploitation. (IBD)
Property rights in Australia: the assault on the bush
It is time that the people of Australia stood up and halted this nonsense
Over the last few weeks, country folk in eastern Australia have rightly been focused on the issue of incompetent bureaucratic and government management of the
Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) plan.
Important aspects of the MDB plan bear on the property rights of landholders, which have been under assault from Green political activism in all states of
Australia for many years.
Meanwhile, in Western Australia, a first farmer has been jailed (for 90 days) for clearing 40 hectares of his own property for fire breaks. His name is Maxwell
Szulc, and he was released from Wooroloo Prison in Perth last Monday (October 25th).
Another frightening bureaucratic assault on individual property rights in WA concerns the case of Matt and Janet Thompson and their four children, who are
threatened with the bankruptcy of the modern, state-of-the-art feedlot business into which they have poured their skill, love and life’s savings. The WA
Department of Environment and Conservation having revoked a formerly-granted license to operate the feedlot at the required level of economic efficiency of
10,000 head of cattle, the business has become uneconomic, and on September 18th the NAB gave the Thompson’s four days notice to vacate their property.
These two cases are but the tip of a Green-inspired juggernaut that is now threatening farmers and other country businesses throughout Australia. (Quadrant)
NAGOYA, Japan — On screen he has battled Nazis, stormtroopers and terrorists to save democracy, freedom or civilisation from clear and present danger. Now
Harrison Ford describes his latest role as a real-life fight for the future of this planet.
"What is at stake is the ability of nature to provide services to the human community that we can't afford to do for ourselves," said the actor, 68,
in an interview with AFP.
He was speaking in the central Japanese city of Nagoya, where he is urging the 193 member countries of the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to use
their 10-day meeting to protect vast swathes of the Earth's surface.
"Intact ecosystems provide us with fresh water, clean air, help produce healthy soils, are the source of genetic material from which to derive
pharmaceuticals and regenerate our food supply.
"These are all the free services of nature," he said, but they are under threat from environmental degradation and "bold and decisive"
action had to be taken now.
"One of our missions is to create a sense of urgency, help people understand that... just because they don't see it in their own lives, the effects are
everywhere.
"Where it registers in everyone's life is in the economic impact; higher costs of food, depletion of fish stocks etc.
Harrison Ford slammed for 'unnecessary' flights
Environmental activists have blasted Harrison Ford for making "unnecessary" trips by air, following revelations he once made a jet journey to buy a
cheeseburger.
The "Indiana Jones" star began flying when he was 52. After receiving his license, he went on to purchase several aircraft, which he keeps at Santa
Monica Airport in California.
He recently revealed in an interview the extent of his love for piloting, telling Britain's Live magazine, "Learning to fly was a work of art. I'm so
passionate about flying I often fly up the coast for a cheeseburger. Flying is like good music; it elevates the spirit and it's an exhilarating freedom."
(Seattle PI)
The UN's forest protection plan hasn't even started yet but already we are seeing massive fraud, bribery and backdoor deals across the world. (John Vidal,
Guardian)
Scientists are reporting development of a new approach for dealing with offensive household and other odors — one that doesn't simply mask odors like
today's room fresheners, but eliminates them at the source. Their research found that a deodorant made from nanoparticles — hundreds of times smaller than
peach fuzz — eliminates odors up to twice as effectively as today's gold standard. A report on these next-generation odor-fighters appears in ACS' Langmuir, a
bi-weekly journal. (American Chemical Society)
Thanks go out today to Reason.com science correspondent Ron Bailey for inspiring today’s Science 101 lesson. (Disclaimer: Ron is an acquaintance, fellow
libertarian and nice guy. That said, he doesn’t always get his science corresponding correct, at least when it comes to climate.)
The balance of the evidence is that the man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are increasing the average temperature of the globe.
Brimming with excitement upon reading this, I immediately went to Edmund Scientific’s to see if I could
purchase such a scale or balance to weigh evidence. Unfortunately, I learned that I could only purchase equipment to weigh things like solids, liquids, powders
and animals. The science equipment supply house had nothing for sale that could weigh evidence. No other purveyor of scientific equipment had any new or magical
technology for weighing evidence either.
As it turns out, the notion of weighing evidence isn’t a scientific one at all. While courts of law have finders of fact (i.e., judges and juries) who
weigh evidence and regulatory agencies employ a weight-of-evidence concept in risk assessment to help make often-politicized regulatory decisions, science is
about determining objective facts and proofs, not about making hasty and subjective judgments. From Copernicus and Galileo to Brahe and Keppler to Newton and
Einstein and all the other great scientists in between and since, science has always been about the search for truth about the natural world, not the search for
a politically correct or viable consensus about the same.
And the way scientists determine truth is by formulating hypotheses, designing and conducting experiments to test the hypotheses, and then publicly reporting
their methodologies and results so that others may verify any claimed results and conclusions. This process is then repeated as necessary to arrive at the point
of objective knowledge.
That’s the theory anyway, so what about Bailey’s assertion?
We know objectively that human activity has increased the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, perhaps by as much as 65 percent since the mid 19th
century. We’re pretty sure that average global temperature has also increased since that time — but no one can be sure by precisely how much since we do not
have a sufficient number of temperature readings from enough places covering a long enough period of time. Moreover, we also know that the available temperature
data have either been significantly and artificially increased by the urban heat island effect, and/or have been extensively manipulated by collectors.
We also know that while atmospheric greenhouse gas levels have steadily risen, global temperatures have done everything but. Since 1995, for example, GHG gas
levels have increased by around 10 percent, but average global temperatures have gone nowhere, perhaps even slightly down. Between 1940 and 1975, global
temperatures markedly declined leading to alarm about a pending global cooling.
The question to be answered then is whether the known human GHG emissions are in any way causally related to the sort-of-observed temperature changes.
One valid way to answer the question might be to make some prediction about global temperature based on manmade greenhouse gas emissions and to see if it
comes true. A similar process was used by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington to confirm Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity in 1919. Despite the billions and
billions of dollars spent worldwide on climate science over the past 20 years, this has yet to be accomplished.
Invalid ways to answer the question include mere observations of changes in Arctic melting, frequency or severity of weather events, ocean pH, coral reefs or
polar bear populations. Even if such events were tied to warming global temperatures, it would still need to be proven that human GHG emissions caused the
warming in the first place. Also invalid are purported historical temperature reconstructions, like Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick. Past any fraudulent
aspects to them, they offer no information about the potential relationship between greenhouse gas levels and temperature.
It is noteworthy that global warming alarmist groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists have latched onto the weight-of-evidence notion in a national advertising campaign “to educate the
public about the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming.” But an illustrative case of how UCS employs weight-of-the
evidence is provided by the web site ActivistCash.com:
In 1986 UCS asked 549 of the American Physical Society’s 37,000 members if Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was “a step in the wrong
direction for America’s national security policy.” Despite the biased wording of the push-poll question, only 54 percent disapproved of SDI. Even so, UCS
declared that the poll proved “profound and pervasive skepticism toward SDI in the scientific community.”
Fortunately for the rest of us, Reagan’s SDI helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, despite UCS’s dubious scientific consensus.
To date, Copernicus and Galileo are perhaps the most prominent victims of Bailey’s subjective method for determining objective reality. But watch out, the
rest of us could be next. (Steve Milloy, Green Hell Blog)
The Tampa Herald-Tribune has an eye-opening article
on the Bermuda-based reinsurance industry, explaining how Hurricane Katrina was seen by this segment of the industry more as a business opportunity than as a
disaster. Here is an excerpt that describes what happened in the aftermath of the active and costly 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons:
[I]in 2006, many reinsurers reduced the storm coverage they were willing to give Florida. Some purposefully refused to write policies for months, convinced
they could extract an even higher price from insurers that neared collapse.
First-hand accounts, brokerage reports and copies of reinsurance contracts written that year show Florida insurers were still cobbling together hurricane
protection in August and September, during the peak of danger, and paying three times the January rate.
The cost was paid by Florida property owners, some of whom suddenly faced premiums as high as their house payments. Real estate agents complained they were
losing home sales as buyers no longer qualified for mortgages, and Florida bank leaders trouped to Tallahassee begging relief.
The squeeze was legal, and opportunistic.
“That's what we saw after hurricane Andrew and that's what will happen again, in my opinion, the next time we have a major hurricane,” said Steve
Alexander, actuary for the office of the Florida Insurance Consumer Advocate.
The Herald-Tribune reports in some detail how the Bermuda reinsurers sought to capitalize on the post-Katrina opportunity:
THE STREETS OF New Orleans were still flooded in 2005 when reinsurers started raising money to pay for Hurricane Katrina and take advantage of the
market boom expected to follow.
By December, Bermuda's reinsurers had raised $17 billion from eager investors, primarily hedge funds, private equity firms and U.S. investment banks such as
Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers.
But the flood of new money was not used to make more hurricane coverage available to Florida.
Reinsurance contracts and comments by executives show that even when they had money in the bank and board approval to use it, Bermuda reinsurers cut the
capital they were willing to allot to Florida.
The layoff in part was driven by the belief global warming had increased hurricane risk, a view backed by some scientists hired by the insurance industry.
But it also was driven by a hunger to maximize profit — to, as ACE Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Evan Greenberg told investors in a 2006 earnings call,
“ruthlessly take the elevator up at the right times.”
Rather than just ride Katrina-driven price increases, the Herald-Tribune found, reinsurers worked to make them bigger. They sat on business they normally
would have signed. They turned away Florida insurers they normally would have backed.
“It's a good tactic to do this,” Aspen Reinsurance CEO Chris O'Kane told stock analysts in early 2006. When he spoke, Aspen had written only half its
normal Florida contracts.
“We're confident that we will be able to replace a significant part of this lost exposure by the middle of this year at much better prices.”
O'Kane expected reinsurance prices to double because Aspen was not the only reinsurer refusing to write. Other reinsurers also were holding out.
Axis Capital chairman John Charman started the Florida writing season predicting severe shortages, and ended it by confirming in an earnings call, “We held
back capacity.”
Other reinsurers were willing to write policies but seized on the opportunity to boost profits in other ways.
Montpelier Reinsurance, for example, stopped selling a broad form of coverage on which many Florida reinsurers relied and offered a more expensive
substitute.
CEO Anthony Taylor urged analysts to be patient as the Bermuda reinsurer turned away early business. He would make it up later, he promised, earning 30
percent more while writing half the risk.
“This is an unprecedented market disruption,” Taylor said in the conference call, “providing opportunities for those who have available capacity.”
By July, Florida's cost to reinsure against the biggest hurricanes had tripled.
Aspen's O'Kane told analysts he still was withholding capacity, confident Florida insurers would return in a few months as “distressed buyers.”
Florida home insurers complained prices rose so fast they were “written in pencil.” Security First president Locke Burt, seeking rate increases of his
own, told regulators he would secure a quote only to discover “a month later our price was two times, then three times” the quoted amount.
Florida regulators began a watchlist of insurers without full coverage at the start of hurricane season. Industry sources said five insurers were put under
temporary supervision. Records obtained by the Herald-Tribune show at least one, United Property and Casualty, was still short in mid-September and operating
under a regulatory consent order, even as it sought a state loan to expand.
The average cost of reinsurance coverage in Florida climbed from $9.90 per $100 in exposure to $20, the highest in the nation.
The average home premium increased 80 percent. Residents near the coast saw increases of 300 percent. More than 300,000 Florida families lost their private
coverage, forced to find a new company or join Citizens, the state-run insurer of last resort.
A few industry leaders were troubled. Bill Riker, president at the time of Renaissance Reinsurance, said the Bermuda reinsurers overreached, hurting their
own market. “The reinsurers didn't do themselves well at all,” he told the Herald-Tribune. They “lost track of what they're all about.”
Most reinsurers simply rejoiced. Aspen Re ended the year with a $378 million profit, more than double what it lost to Katrina.
The Herald-Tribune article begins to uncover some of the context that surrounds the RMS 5-year forecast that I discussed yesterday, which was
produced in the post-Katrina pricing frenzy described above. The RMS forecast was important because it gave a scientific veneer to the justifications for much
higher pricing of reinsurance.
Another remarkable aspect of this issue -- quite apart from resinsurance but having to do with the IPCC -- is that the IPCC relied on a company with a clear
conflict-of-interest for preparing its scientific assessment of the relationship of disasters and climate change. Even allowing that RMS behaved in line
with its true beliefs at the time about the science, the appearance alone is troubling. And given that the IPCC has been shown to have been grossly wrong
on this subject and its review process failed, we should all look with interest at how the IPCC proposes to handle COI in the future. (Roger Pielke Jr.)
Views about the existence and causes
of global warming have changed little over the past year. A new Pew Research Center poll finds that 59% of adults say there is solid evidence that the earth’s
average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In October 2009, 57% said this.
Roughly a third (34%) say that global warming is occurring mostly because of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which also is little changed
from last year (36%).
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Oct. 13-18 among 2,251 adults reached on landlines and cell
phones, finds that 32% say global warming is a very serious problem while 31% think it is somewhat serious. A year ago, 35% described global warming as a very
serious problem and 30% said it was somewhat serious.
In 2006, far more Americans said there was solid evidence that the average temperature has been rising over the past few decades. In July of that year, 79%
believed there was evidence of global warming, and half (50%) said it was mostly caused by human activity. Much of the change in attitudes about global warming
occurred between April 2008 and last fall, with the decline coming mostly, though not entirely, among Republicans and independents. (See “Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming,” Oct. 22, 2009).
Two other indicators of opinion on the issue were not included in the October 2009 survey, and both show significant changes from earlier polls. Currently, 46%
of the public says global warming is a problem that requires immediate government action. In July 2006, 61% said the issue needed immediate action. This decline
is mostly a consequence of the fact that fewer now say global warming is a problem.
The public is divided on the question of whether scientists themselves agree that the earth is warming because of human activity: 44% say scientists agree, and
44% say they do not. In July 2006, when a much higher percentage of the public said there was solid evidence of global warming, 59% said that scientists agree
that global warming is caused by humans, while just 29% said scientists do not agree.
The new survey finds continuing support for a range of policies to address the nation’s energy supply, including requiring improved vehicle fuel efficiency
and increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar and hydrogen technology. Support for allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling – which declined
during the Gulf of Mexico oil leak – has rebounded modestly. Currently, 51% favor allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling, up from 44% in June. (Pew)
CHURCHVILLE—VA: The New York Times marvels editorially that none of the Republicans running for the Senate accept the “scientific consensus that humans
are largely responsible for global warming.” Maybe that’s because the Republicans come from more rural (Red) states that haven’t had any
warming—man-made or otherwise.
My colleague Ed Long, formerly a NASA physicist, has found a severe problem with the “official” U.S. temperature records from the Goddard Space Institute
and the National Data Collection Center. Both data sets deal with the inevitable gaps in station-by-station data by averaging the gap station with another
nearby station. Supposedly, this works because “stations in the same latitude bands tend to share a more similar climate.”
Too often, however, this has led to averaging rural and urban temperatures together. Inevitably, that means the blended temperatures will be higher. Due to the
Urban Heat Island effect, a big city can raise its own temperatures by five degrees C. Even a small city can be 2 degrees C warmer than the surrounding
countryside. The rural population of America has stayed roughly the same since 1950, but the urban population doubled from 1950–1960—and has continued to
grow twice as fast.
Long says GISS “adjustments” over ten years have progressively lowered temperatures for far-back data and raised the temperatures in the recent past. This
“adjustment” increased a 0.35 degree C per century uptrend in 2000 to 0.44 degrees C per century in 2009—a 26 percent increase. NCDC, meanwhile, has
shifted the “official” rate of temperature change for 1940–2007 from 0.1 degree per century in the raw data to an “adjusted” 0.6 degrees C per
century—a 600 percent “adjustment.” (CGFI)
Recent statements by the Royal Society shows that it has turned from a scientific institution into a nakedly ideological one.
It has been an annus horribilis for the environmental activists and politicians who insist that the world needs to act on climate change. There was
‘Climategate’, the leak from the University of East Anglia of compromising email discussions between climate researchers; questions about the provenance of
reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); concerns about the competence of IPCC chair, Rajendra Pachauri; and the failure to find a
successor to the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen.
These events have dented confidence in climate science. Claims that ‘the debate is over’ seem to have given way to an acknowledgement that doubt exists.
Reflecting these developments, the Royal Society – Britain’s most prestigious scientific body – has issued a new short guide to the science of climate
change that is substantially more equivocal than its previous statements. Some have welcomed this change in the character of the climate debate, but there
isn’t much to celebrate because the ideas underpinning climate anxiety have not been challenged. (Ben Pile, spiked)
Futuristic schemes for slowing climate change such as dimming sunlight are fraught with risks but will get a serious hearing from the U.N. panel of climate
scientists, a leader of the panel said on Wednesday.
Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the panel's working group examining climate science, said some so-called geo-engineering solutions could disrupt world rainfall and
might backfire by causing abrupt temperature rises if they go wrong. (Reuters)
It's not that that worries us, dopey! It's that you might actually cool the planet. Now that would be a disaster.
“The authority of the United Nations is being undermined by the incompetence exposed within its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], and
ultimately the buck has to stop with UN Secretary General,” asserted International Climate Science Coalition Chief Science Adviser Professor Bob Carter of
James Cook University in Australia. (Tom Harris and Bryan Leyland, CFP)
Climate change is not a reason to use sensationalist images and language that would be unacceptable in any other public exhibition (George Marshall,
Guardian)
Daniel Greenberg, the widely respected journalist and author who focuses on science policy and politics, was invited by Natureto review my book, The Climate Fix. Little did he know that
review would bring him up close and personal with the activist wing of the climate science community. After writing a positive review of my book,
Greenberg found himself under attack by Michael Mann, Paul Ehrlich and Stefan Rahmstorf
on the pages on Nature.
What followed was an email exchange that provides some insight into the mindset of the activist wing of the climate science community. Greenberg shared
this exchange with me with the following message, published here with his permission:
Roger, Re my stirring experience of jousting with Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf: What a scurrilous bunch. My sympathy to you and anyone else who has to deal with
them. They're gravediggers of science. Nature will soon publish my riposte and, I think, a disclaimer of any ties to me by the Marshall Institute. Below, my
further exchanges with the low-life trio. Best regards, Dan
Here is Greenberg's email to Michael Mann that concludes the exchange, reproduced with his permission:
Dear Professors Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf,
Your correspondence concerning my review of Roger Pielke's book "Climate Fix" has provided me with a deeper understanding of the widespread public
skepticism toward climate science. In your hands, apple pie and motherhood would come under public suspicion. Have you considered taking a remedial reading
course? Can you comprehend the difference between a book reviewer's own beliefs and the reviewer's presentation of the beliefs expressed by the author of the
book under review? Apparently not. Furthermore, your insinuation of an undisclosed relationship between me and a conservative think tank is preposterous. In
2006, I participated in a panel discussion sponsored by the Marshall Institute---as I have done with numerous other organizations, including the Brookings
Institution, RAND, AAAS, and various academic societies and universities. Common practice for journalists. Nor did I, as you allege, write a report, or
anything, for the Marshall Institute. The panel's words were transcribed and published by the Institute. I wrote nothing for them. You guys are the devil's gift
to the Tea Party and other climate-change wackos.
Sincerely, Dan Greenberg
If Michael Mann thinks that he has been treated unfairly by my decision not to publish his side of the exchange, I will be happy to post up his emails with his
permission. Somehow I doubt that he will be as forthcoming as Greenberg. The repeated character assassination and behind-the-scenes attacks of a
small segment of the climate science community gives the entire field a black eye, and it continues unabated.
Greenberg is right, these guys could make apple pie and motherhood come under public suspicion. (Roger Pielke Jr.)
These guys don't seem to realize that climate hysterics have no choice, they must behave as they do because there is no real scientific
position to defend. They have to try to shout everyone down and enforce the discipline of the dogma to avoid being exposed as the frauds they are. There is not
now, nor has there ever been any evidence of environmental harm from human release of carbon dioxide to atmosphere. None whatsoever.
Should global warming cause sea levels to rise as predicted in coming decades, thousands of archaeological sites in coastal areas around the world will be
lost to erosion. With no hope of saving all of these sites, archaeologists Torben Rick from the Smithsonian Institution, Leslie Reeder of Southern Methodist
University, and Jon Erlandson of the University of Oregon have issued a call to action for scientists to assess the sites most at risk. (Smithsonian)
Since there has been no known change in the long-term rate of sea level rise this shouldn't present too much of a problem.
Mention the "A-Train" and most people probably think of the jazz legend Billy Strayhorn or perhaps New York City subway trains — not climate
change. However, it turns out that a convoy of "A-Train" satellites has emerged as one of the most powerful tools scientists have for understanding
our planet's changing climate.
The formation of satellites — which currently includes Aqua, CloudSat, Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (CALIPSO) and Aura
satellites — barrels across the equator each day at around 1:30 p.m. local time each afternoon, giving the constellation its name; the "A" stands
for "afternoon."
Together, these four satellites contain 15 separate scientific instruments that observe the same path of Earth's atmosphere and surface at a broad swath of
wavelengths. At the front of the train, Aqua carries instruments that produce measurements of temperature, water vapor, and rainfall. Next in line, CloudSat, a
cooperative effort between NASA and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), and CALIPSO, a joint effort of the French space agency Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES)
and NASA, have high-tech laser and radar instruments that offer three-dimensional views of clouds and airborne particles called aerosols. And the caboose, Aura,
has a suite of instruments that produce high-resolution vertical maps of greenhouse gases, among many other atmospheric constituents.
In coming months, the A-Train will expand with the launch of NASA's aerosol-sensing Glory satellite and the carbon-tracking Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2
(OCO-2) satellite. In 2010, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) plans to launch the Global Change Observation Mission-Water (GCOM-W1), which will
monitor ocean circulation. Meanwhile, a fifth satellite, France's Polarization and Anistropy of Reflectances for Atmospheric Science coupled with Observations
from a Lidar (PARASOL), which studies aerosols, is easing out of an A-Train orbit as its fuel supplies dwindles. (NASA/GSFC)
I raise two issues in this post with respect to this webcast.
1. Clouds are not the only “wild card” as implied by the title of his talk. For example, Chapter 8 of the 2007 IPCC report, which Randall was
one of the two convening lead authors, was not a balanced assessment of climate models. As I wrote in
Chapter 8 of the IPCC Report is …. poorly written on this subject where while they write
“Evaluation of the land surface component in coupled models is severely limited by the lack of suitable observations. The terrestrial surface plays key
climatic roles in influencing the partitioning of available energy between sensible and latent heat fluxes, determining whether water drains or remains
available for evaporation, determining the surface albedo and whether snow melts or remains frozen, and influencing surface fluxes of carbon and momentum. Few
of these can be evaluated at large spatial or long temporal scales. This section therefore evaluates those quantities for which some observational data exist”
they fail to identify the rich peer-reviewed literature on this subject but only provide a very limited presentation on this subject in the Chapter.
Indeed, while land processes are discussed in the Report, the focus is on its role in the carbon budget and in its effect on the global average radiative
forcing.
To document missing papers….. we have cross-referenced Climate Science with the IPCC WG1 Report on just one aspect of the above two topics (regional
radiative forcing and nonradiative forcing), namely the role of land use change within the climate system [see the Appendix in the section Documentation Of
IPCC WG1 Bias by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Dallas Staley - Part II in Pielke
2008].
The highlighting by the NSF of the IPCC finding in the Workshop announcement for David Randall’s presentation that
“Clouds are “the largest source of uncertainty” in projections of climate change, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC)”
perpetuates the narrow view of the IPCC that
“Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and are dominated by the
emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, the most important of which is CO2. The adverse impact of these gases on regional and global climate
constitutes the primary climate issue for the coming decades.”
which is refuted in our article
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski,
E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol.
90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union.
The only robust, non-refuted hypothesis, as we show in our article, is that
“Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and involve a diverse range
of first-order climate forcings, including, but not limited to, the human input of carbon dioxide (CO2). Most, if not all, of these human influences on regional
and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades.”
I agree with David Randall that clouds are a wild card in the assessment of climate variability and long term change. However, there are quite a few “wild
cards” including the diverse range of effects of aerosols, of land use-land cover change, and of natural effects, all of which remain incompletely represented
in the multi-decadal global climate models. David Randall failed to include this broader perspective when he was convening lead author of Chapter 8 in the 2007
IPCC report, and appears to be persisting in this narrow view.
2. My second issue is that the NSF comes across as an advocate for a particular perspective (i.e. that there is a main”wild card”) without presenting to
reporters that there are other scientifically sound viewpoints in the climate science community.
The NSF is already funding research which compromises the scientific method; e.g. see
I urge reporters and others who participate in this webcast ask questions on other “wild cards” in the understanding and assessment of the
predictability of the climate system.
The e-mail announcement for their webcast is reproduced below
From: Whiteman, Lily M [mailto:lwhitema@nsf.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:58 AM
To: Whiteman, Lily M
Subject: NSF Webcast for Reporters: Will Clouds–the Wild Card of Climate Change- Speed or Slow Warming?
This is an automated e-mail. Please do not respond to this message.
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230
“Where Discoveries Begin”
For Immediate Release
10/20/2010
Media Contact:
Lily Whiteman, NSF, (703) 292-8310, _lwhitema@nsf.gov_
(mailto:lwhitema@nsf.gov)
_LIVE, INTERACTIVE WEBCAST FOR REPORTERS: WILL CLOUDS–THE WILD CARD OF CLIMATE CHANGE–SPEED OR SLOW WARMING?_
(http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=117748)
NSF invites media to participate in a webcast briefing on Thursday, Oct. 28 at 1:00 p.m., EDT
Cloud behavior will help determine how warm the planet becomes as climate change continues.
Credit: Kristina Rebelo
_Credit and Larger Version_
(http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?org=NSF&cntn_id=117748)
Clouds are “the largest source of uncertainty” in projections of climate change, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). This uncertainty arises because different types of clouds exert different forces on climate: Some clouds help cool the Earth and some clouds
help warm it. So far, no one knows which effect will win out as the climate continues to change. This uncertainty begs some of the most
critical (and most fascinating) questions about climate change: Will clouds help speed or slow global warming? Why is cloud behavior so difficult to
predict? And, in the midst of such uncertainty about clouds, how in the world are scientists learning to project the behavior of these ephemeral,
ever-changing, high-altitude phenomena? To help give the role of clouds in climate change its due, the National Science Foundation (NSF) will
host a webcast with a leading authority on clouds and climate change: David Randall, director of the Center for Multiscale Modeling of Atmospheric
Processes and a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. The webcast will be held on Thursday, Oct. 28 at 1:00 p.m.,
EDT.
Following the webcast, NSF will release a multi-media package about clouds and climate change titled, “Clouds: The Wild Card of Climate
Change.” This package–which will provide a wealth of information to reporters, policy makers, scientists, educators, the public and students of all
levels–will be posted on NSF’s website at _http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/_
(http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/) .
Who: Cloud and climate change expert David Randall, director of the Center for Multiscale Modeling of Atmospheric Processes and a professor of
atmospheric science at Colorado State University.
What: A media briefing via teleconference and webcast to discuss why clouds are the wild card of climate change.
When: Thursday, Oct. 28, at 1:00 p.m., EDT. How to Participate: Reporters in the United States may participate by teleconference or
Internet. To participate by teleconference, call (888) 603-7924. Passwords are needed to access the presentation and to ask questions during the live
event. To obtain the password to participate in the teleconference and to obtain the URL and password to access the webcast, e-mail
Lily Whiteman at _lwhitema@nsf.gov_ (mailto:lwhitema@nsf.gov) . Before and
during the event, e-mail questions for David Randall at webcast@nsf.gov.
######
NSF-MA 10-027
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science
and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, its budget is about $6.9 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000
universities and institutions. Each year, NSF receives over 45,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes over 11,500 new funding awards. NSF
also awards over $400 million in professional and service contracts yearly.
DURHAM, N.C. – A doubling of abnormally wet or dry summer weather in the southeastern United States in recent decades has come from an intensification of
the summertime North Atlantic Subtropical High (NASH), or "Bermuda High."
And that intensification appears to be coming from global warming, according to a new analysis by a Duke University-led team of climate scientists.
The NASH is an area of high pressure that forms each summer near Bermuda, where its powerful surface center helps steer Atlantic hurricanes and plays a major
role in shaping weather in the eastern United States, Western Europe and northwestern Africa.
By analyzing six decades of U.S. and European weather and climate data, the team found that the center of the NASH intensified by 0.9 geopotential meters a
decade on average from 1948 to 2007. (Geopotential meters are used to measure how high above sea level a pressure system extends; the greater the height, the
greater the intensity.)
The team's analysis found that as the NASH intensified, its area grew, bringing the high's weather-making western ridge closer to the continental United States
by 1.22 longitudinal degrees a decade.
"This is not a natural variation like El Nino," says lead author Wenhong Li, assistant professor of earth and ocean sciences at Duke University's
Nicholas School of the Environment. "We thoroughly investigated possible natural causes, including the Atlantic Multivariate Oscillation (AMO) and Pacific
Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which may affect highs, but found no links.
"Our analysis strongly suggests that the changes in the NASH are mainly due to anthropogenic warming," she says. (Duke University)
We don't understand what we are seeing, therefore it is gorebull warbling. Or maybe...
“At the end of World War II, there was a rapid increase in irrigation over the Ogallala Aquifer in the Great Plains of the United States via groundwater
withdrawal, and we hypothesize that this disruption of the local hydrological cycle has enhanced the regional precipitation. We examined station and gridded
precipitation observations for the warm season months over and downwind of the Ogallala over the 20th century. Increases in precipitation of 15–30% were
detected during July from the easternmost part of the aquifer to as far downwind as Indiana. The timing (1940s, July) and spatial pattern of the precipitation
increase are consistent with the history of Ogallala irrigation and mechanisms by which increases in evapotranspiration can affect convection. Additionally, we
conducted a vapor tracking analysis and found that evapotranspiration over the Ogallala Aquifer contributes to downwind precipitation and that the contribution
is greater when the evapotranspiration is higher. This makes it hydrologically possible that the irrigation development was associated with the observed
precipitation increases. Finally, there is no clear evidence that atmospheric circulation changes or modes of internal climate variability increased the July
precipitation. Further analysis of the influence of Ogallala irrigation on precipitation will include the controlled analysis of climate model simulations that
explicitly include irrigation.”
Text from the paper includes
“The effect of this human alteration of the natural water cycle on regional precipitation over this area is the subject of this study. We hypothesize that
the increase in irrigation over the 20th century resulted in a detectable enhancement of precipitation over the Great Plains. An analysis of long‐term
precipitation observations and simulations is combined with wind observations and vapor transport analysis to search for the link between irrigation and
increases in precipitation over the region.
The mechanisms linking increased irrigation and enhancement of precipitation are most likely related to the effects of increased ET on precipitable water and
convection over this region. The possibility of convection being influenced by irrigation is supported by the fact that most irrigation over the Ogallala occurs
in July and August (Figure 1c) when more than 80% of precipitation originates from thunderstorms [Changnon, 2001]. Convection is associated with the convective
available potential energy (CAPE) of the atmosphere, which increases with warmer and moister lower tropospheric conditions. Higher values of CAPE make
convection more likely when synoptic conditions are favorable for convection, or can be the difference between convection and no convection if synoptic
conditions are borderline favorable [Barnston and Schickedanz, 1984; De Ridder and Gallée, 1998]. It follows that if irrigation influences lower troposphere
temperature and moisture, it will impact CAPE and therefore convective precipitation.”
This excellent research contribution illustrates why fossil water irrigation introduces another additional
human climate forcing that was not assessed in the 2007 IPCC reports. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Proof-of-Concept Study Published in Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans
In a research paper published online Saturday in the Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, a publication of the American Geological Union (AGU), scientists
reported the southern Baffin Bay off West Greenland has continued warming since wintertime ocean temperatures were last effectively measured there in the early
2000s.
Temperatures in the study were collected by narwhals, medium-sized toothed Arctic whales, during NOAA-sponsored missions in 2006 and 2007. The animals were
tagged with sensors that recorded ocean depths and temperatures during feeding dives from the surface pack ice to the seafloor, going as deep as 1,773 meters,
or more than a mile.
Scientists have had limited opportunities to measure ocean temperatures in Baffin Bay during winter months because of dense ice and harsh conditions. Cost is
also a factor — it requires millions of dollars to mount a conventional expedition using an ice-breaking vessel and other specialized equipment and people. As
a result, for the past decade, researchers used climatology data consisting of long-term historical average observations rather than direct ocean temperature
measurements for winter temperatures in the area.
The published study reported that highest winter ocean temperature measurements in 2006 and 2007 from both narwhals and additional sensors deployed using
helicopters ranged between 4 and 4.6 degrees Celsius (39.2 and 40.3 degrees Fahrenheit). The study also found that temperatures were on average nearly a degree
Celsius warmer than climatology data. Whale-collected temperatures also demonstrated the thickness of the winter surface isothermal layer, a layer of constant
temperature, to be 50 to 80 meters less than that reported in the climatology data.
“Narwhals proved to be highly efficient and cost-effective ‘biological oceanographers,’ providing wintertime data to fill gaps in our understanding of
this important ocean area,” said Kristin Laidre from the Polar Science Center in the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory. “Their natural
behavior makes them ideal for obtaining ocean temperatures during repetitive deep vertical dives. This mission was a ‘proof-of-concept’ that
narwhal-obtained data can be used to make large-scale hydrographic surveys in Baffin Bay and to extend the coverage of a historical database into the poorly
sampled winter season.” (NOAA)
... they don't think that maybe these air-breathing critters actively selected less harsh conditions so they could survive a little more
easily? No matter, a couple of snapshots of data isolated in time are mildly interesting but provide no trend data, they just tell us that conditions were not
quite identical at the two sampling periods.
The Greens have accused Australia's gas industry of 'cooking the books' to hide a huge carbon emissions problem.
WA Greens Senator Scott Ludlam says a new analysis of publicly available industry figures, reveals "a massive expansion in Australian greenhouse gas
emissions within six years if all proposed new LNG projects go ahead."
The claims have opened up a war of words with the gas industry. It has hit back, accusing the Greens of "in essence declaring their support for coal to
continue to dominate electricity generation."
According to Senator Ludlam "the companies behind these gas projects claim that gas is a clean energy, but they don't talk about the massive emissions that
are caused when gas from high-CO2 gas fields is processed and that CO2 is stripped out and vented to the atmosphere." (SMH)
Earth to Greens, atmospheric CO2 is a resource in short supply. The more anthropogenic emissions, the greener the planet becomes.
EROEI is the ratio of usable energy that you get out of an energy source divided by the energy
you had to insert. The idea is that this ratio should be high. If it is smaller than 1 (or 1:1), the source is supposed to be unusable.
Hundreds of local revolts against wind farms have jeopardised the plan to use them to generate more than a quarter of Britain's electricity, figures seen by The
Independent reveal.
[Editor's note: Part I explained the unique character of the Denmark electricity situation as background to a more
detailed look at Danish exports/imports of electricity and CO2 emissions. This post and Part III will focus on exports/imports to show the
larger role that wind is having in exports. Part IV will then address CO2 emissions, providing the conclusion to this series.]
There is a range of views on the amount of Denmark wind-generated electricity that is exported. Any that rely on annual net exports should be very
suspect. Table 1 provides a summary of notable analyses, all of which at least use hourly net exports. All must be read for any comprehensive
understanding.
Table 1 – Summary of Notable Analyses of the Amount of Wind-Generated Electricity Exported by Denmark.
Bach and Andersen firmly dispute the CEESA critique of CEPOS, and both show substantial wind exports. Bach makes an interesting comment in his paper:
“Based on these observations it could be said that Germany and Denmark together have solved the
integration problems for about 7% wind energy, but only due to the common access to the regulation capabilities of the other Nordic countries, notably hydro
power in Norway.”
The case is strong for substantial exports of Denmark wind production as shown by Bach and Andersen, and supported by others such as Sharman. [Read more →] (MasterResource)
While governments invest heavily in wind power something
has been happening to the surface winds of the Northern Hemisphere—the winds have been slowing down. While the cause of this “stilling” remain uncertain,
surface winds have declined in China, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, the United States and Australia over the past few decades. A new study, published
online at Nature Geoscience, analyzes the extent and potential cause of changes in northern surface wind speeds over the past 30 years. In it,
researchers have found that surface wind speeds have declined by 5–15% over almost all continental areas in the northern mid-latitudes, and that strong winds
have slowed faster than weak winds. They also note that the observed decline of surface wind in many regions of the world is a potential concern for wind power
electricity production.
Wind has always been the most capricious of power sources, blowing inconstantly and varying direction unpredictably. Nonetheless, wind
represents the most economical of the renewable energy sources that are so en vogue in green circles. Now, in a just published paper, “Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface
roughness,” Robert Vautard et al. have re-analyzed wind data from 822 surface weather stations tracking wind speeds from 1979 to 2008. There
findings could have an impact on the nascent wind energy industry:
The decline of surface wind observed in many regions of the world is a potential concern for wind power electricity production, and has been
shown to be the main cause of decreasing pan evaporation. In China, a persistent decrease of monsoon winds was observed in all seasons. Stilling winds were also
evidenced over the Netherlands, in the Czech Republic, over the conterminous US and most of Australia. In Mediterranean regions, wind trends were non-monotonic
over the past decades.
Using data only from sites that had continuous historical records, the researchers found a common pattern across the middle latitudes of the
Norther Hemisphere. It seems that the wind has been declining almost everywhere:
We found that annual mean wind speeds have declined at 73% of surface stations over the past 30 years (Fig. 1a). In Europe, Central Asia,
Eastern Asia and in North America (Fig. 1a) the annual mean surface wind speed has decreased on average at a rate of −0.09, −0.16, −0.12 and
−0.07 m s−1 decade−1, respectively (−2.9, −5.9, −4.2 and −1.8% per decade), that is, a decrease of about 10% in 30 years and up to
almost 20% in Central Asia, where wind speed trends have not been studied so far. These numbers are all statistically significant (p<0.1% for the regression
coefficient). Tropical areas are not well covered by the data set. However the wind decline over South Asia is also about −5% per decade, and
−0.08 m s−1 per decade.
These data are captured in Figure 1 from the paper, shown below. The data are available from NOAA.
30-year surface (1979–2008) wind speed.
While noting that some time series may still exhibit heterogeneities, the authors' detailed analysis points to a a widespread wind stilling
trend that cannot be explained by drifting instruments or other systematic measurement errors. The authors' suggest that changes in surface processes could play
a major role in the surface wind stilling: “Surface winds are sensitive to changes in (1) surface roughness and (2) sensible heat fluxes modifying vertical
momentum fluxes through boundary layer convection. Wind trends do not exhibit strong diurnal variations, suggesting that roughness changes should dominate over
sensible heat flux changes as a cause of stilling.”
The increase in surface roughness could be caused by the growth of forests, changes in trees and forest distribution or changes in
agricultural practices. The average increase of about 1.1% per year of forest carbon sink at mid to high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere could be an
indicator of increased forestation. The ever expanding urban sprawl surrounding the world's cities may also play a part in diminishing surface winds. One way or
the other, humans are sure to be blamed for at least part of the slowdown. The overall trend is shown in the illustration below.
Time evolution of annual average surface wind speed.
The paper's conclusions suggests that 25–60% of the stilling could be due to a roughness increase caused by vegetation. Urbanization may
add extra roughness, but recent observations do not directly support this mechanism and even a gross estimate of increased roughness from urbanization could not
be found. This indicates that even the majority of the blame cannot be pinned on humanity. But what about the impact on wind power? Here is how the paper
concludes:
An important question is whether wind power energy production is likely to be affected by wind stilling in the future. Over the past
30 years surface winds underwent an average 10% decrease, with larger trends at stronger winds. As wind electricity production is much more efficient at
stronger winds, a continuation of such trends would lead to a major loss of wind power production. However, wind power is not taken at the surface but between
50 and 100 m, where trends should be weaker according to our three-dimensional analysis. In any case, the strong influence of land-cover change on wind speed
trends is good news because land use can much more easily be controlled locally than the large-scale circulation.
That last sentence is a bit of an understatement and the overall conclusion is a definite maybe. It appears that there may be some impact on
wind generation—as much as a 10% reduction of output—but there is little chance of finding ourselves living in a world becalmed. Even so, some of those
highly optimistic wind energy production numbers might need a bit of revision.
Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical. (Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth)
Sugar cane ethanol pioneer Brazil, which touts the efficiency and environmental qualities of its biofuel, could soon begin making it from less-efficient corn
to soak up excess grains in remote areas.
The combined industry and governmental steering committee for corn, which met on Wednesday, said it had commissioned a study by state researcher Embrapa to look
at the viability of making ethanol in corn-growing state Mato Grosso.
"It's very embryonic, only an idea. It would make use of corn, which is widely available in Mato Grosso, which is very distant from the south," said
Cesar Borges de Sousa, chairman of the joint committee known as the "corn sector chamber".
Ethanol biofuel has supplanted gasoline as the main fuel in Brazil's cars since the advent of flex-fuel engines, which can run solely on ethanol or gasoline or
both mixed. But the fuel struggles to compete with gasoline on price in areas far from the cane-growing states in the southeast.
The chamber's idea is to make cheaper ethanol locally to power cars and agricultural machinery and give producers an alternative outlet for their produce which,
for export, must otherwise travel hundreds of miles (kilometers) to the ports.
The corn would be processed at the handful of cane ethanol mills in the state to occupy them through some of the months-long shutdown period when they are
without cane to crush, de Sousa said. (Reuters)
Last week I attended the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s “global financial leadership” conference in Florida – I know, it was a rough old assignment,
but someone’s got to do it – in which Ian Goldin, a former vice president of the World Bank and now director of Oxford University’s Martin School,
lambasted the subsidies being doled out in America and Europe for the production of biofuels as “economically illiterate, environmentally destructive,
politically shortsighted and ideologically unsound”. It was a nice soundbite, but it also happens to be true. (Jeremy Warner, TDT)
CBO’s analysis of Obamacare predicts that it will reduce the amount of labor being used in the economy by roughly half a percent. Elmendorf states that
this impact will be small, but in reality the impact is small only in relative terms. For instance, a half-percent loss in jobs in the American economy today
would translate into about 750,000 additional Americans losing work. Continue reading... (The Foundry)
LONDON - A new double-strain polio vaccine is more effective than triple and single vaccines and will be a potent weapon in the battle to eradicate the
crippling virus, World Health Organization (WHO) scientists said on Tuesday.
In a study in the journal the Lancet, WHO experts said a study on the bivalent oral polio vaccine, known as bOPV, found it induced a "significantly higher
immune response" than triple vaccines.
This means that children in high-risk areas can be immunized against two key strains of the crippling virus with a single oral vaccine, said WHO scientist
Roland Sutter, and the vaccine could "get us to the finish line of polio eradication." (Reuters)
A new study from Sweden reports that “cash receipts could be a major source of exposure to the long-used but newly controversial chemical bisphenol A (BPA).”
Study author Tomas Östberg of the Swedish Jegrelius Institute reported in early October that receipts he analyzed contained an average of around 1.4 percent
BPA. Östberg then leapt to the conclusion that, “Because there is a risk that this may be a health hazard, the use of thermal paper that contains bisphenol A
should be minimized.” News of the study was picked up by European media, including the Stuttgarter Zeitung (Oct. 16), which advised readers in a
headline to “Steer clear of receipts.”
Östberg’s study, however, is a long way from constituting evidence that cash receipts present any sort of risk to workers or consumers.
First, as Östberg obliquely admits, it is not at all certain that BPA presents any sort of health risk at all, even if it is present in receipts, albeit to
a very small degree. It is important to keep in mind that BPA has been used commercially for more than 50 years, and despite all that use and exposure, there
are no published scientific studies or reports of workers or consumers being actually harmed by BPA.
Though BPA has become the subject of much controversy recently, that has mainly been due to unsubstantiated claims of BPA being a so-called “endocrine
disrupter” at low doses. None of these claims have been verified, validated or vindicated and only continue to resound because of constant repetition by
anti-chemical activist groups and a sympathetic-to-ignorant news media. Both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority deem
BPA to be perfectly safe at existing exposure levels.
Östberg’s study merely exploits the ongoing BPA controversy by reporting the presence of BPA in receipts — as if the existence of controversy makes
BPA’s presence in receipts dangerous.
Östberg fails to mention two recent studies that essentially debunk his own. It’s not important that receipts contain BPA so much as how much of the BPA
is typically absorbed from handling them.
A June 2010 study published in the journal Annals of Bioanalysis
and Chemistry by Swiss food regulators reported that a person repeatedly touching thermal printer paper for 10 hours/day, such as at a cash register, would
absorb 42 times less BPA than permitted by current safety regulations, which already have a very significant margin of safety. No workers or consumers would
normally be exposed to even such infinitesimal amounts.
A February 2010 study from the University of Zurich’s Centre for Xenobiotic Risk
Research reported that, “Dermal absorption (that is, absorption through the skin), is therefore at most a secondary absorption route for bisphenol A. The
primary absorption route is still dietary intake. For this route, daily total amounts of bisphenol A around 10,000 times higher are considered harmless for
adults.”
What can we conclude from these scientific studies? It is quite clear that the BPA-in-receipts controversy is just another scare contrived by anti-chemical
activists.
But why not simply short-circuit the controversy and replace BPA with another chemical as some have tried with so-called “BPA-free” receipts?
Aside from the fact that BPA-free receipts are more expensive, while providing no discernible health or safety benefits, there is the issue of allowing
anti-chemical activists to get away with using junk science and fear to smear a perfectly safe technology. Few chemicals have been as heavily scrutinized as
BPA, after all, and still there is no direct evidence indicating it poses any risk to health whatsoever.
BPA is a test case for the activists. If they get away with establishing vanishingly small exposures to BPA as a health hazard, they will use the precedent
to systematically eliminate other beneficial chemicals from society on an arbitrary basis. In the US, class action lawsuits involving BPA asking for billions of
dollars in compensatory damages have already been filed.
Chemicals have helped give western society the highest and healthiest standard of living it has ever enjoyed. We have regulatory systems that ensure these
chemicals are used safely. Those proven safeguards should not be abandoned in favor of wild allegations from irresponsible activists whose agenda is not to
educate the public, but to cause maximal alarm and fear, to undermine public confidence in the regulatory process — and to make money for themselves.
The sweet smell of fresh laundry may contain a sour note. Widely used fragranced products -- including those that claim to be "green" -- give off
many chemicals that are not listed on the label, including some that are classified as toxic.
A study led by the University of Washington discovered that 25 commonly used scented products emit an average of 17 chemicals each. Of the 133 different
chemicals detected, nearly a quarter are classified as toxic or hazardous under at least one federal law. Only one emitted compound was listed on a product
label, and only two were publicly disclosed anywhere. The article is published online today in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review.
"We analyzed best-selling products, and about half of them made some claim about being green, organic or natural," said lead author Anne Steinemann, a
UW professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs. "Surprisingly, the green products' emissions of hazardous chemicals were not
significantly different from the other products." (UW)
Uh... so does a field of wild flowers but never mind. If a substance has a detectable fragrance then it is by definition emitting chemicals
which trigger a response via your olfactory nerves, otherwise you couldn't smell it. This in no way implies these exposures to fragrant compounds are harmful.
Mike Shaw exhibits far more discipline than I and provides a deconstruction below:
It used to be "publish or perish." But now, anything—and I mean anything—can be published in a so-called scientific journal.
Here's Exhibit A: Fragranced consumer products: Chemicals emitted, ingredients unlisted, touted by lead author Anne C. Steinemann on her faculty
website at the University of Washington.
Basically, Steinemann's group looked at 25 common fragranced consumer products—laundry products, personal care products, cleaning supplies, and air
fresheners—and found certain volatile organic compounds being emitted from many of them. It is important to understand that this—in and of itself—is
absolutely meaningless.
Whatever harm that could conceivably come from these compounds could only be evaluated from EXPOSURE data, rather than content data. Consider, for example,
that we are all exposed to gasoline, which is quite toxic (far more than any of the compounds listed in Steinemann's article) as well as combustible. So what?
The plain empirical fact is that few if any people have ever died from "gasoline exposure."
And then there's the Article History. It was first received by the publisher (Elsevier) on 12 June 2009, and was then received in revised form on 3 August
2010. It was finally accepted on 17 August 2010.
Inasmuch as the lab work here was far from demanding, and no real conclusions were drawn, despite there being a "Conclusions" section in the
article, the publishing delay bespeaks the poor quality of the original work.
It is quite likely that the authors were forced to include the following disclaimers, as a condition of publication:
In the abstract...
Because the analysis focused on compounds emitted and listed, rather than exposures and effects, it makes no claims regarding possible risks from product
use.
And in the body of the article...
Finally, this study did not seek to assess, and makes no claims regarding, whether product usage would be associated with any risks.
You can bet, though, that the fear entrepreneurs will make all kinds of claims about risk, based on this pathetic piece of work.
You might ask why anyone would care about products that have been utilized with apparent safety for decades. Good question. Let's call it a perversion of the
scientific method. The classic scientific method first requires an observation. Then, and only then, a hypothesis is suggested to explain this observation, and
this hypothesis is tested by an experiment. If the hypothesis is verified by this experiment, it must be repeated by others, until its truth is accepted by the
scientific community.
Back in the day, carcinogenic chemicals were determined to be such after people had observed an unusually high incidence of a particular cancer in the cohort
of interest. Then, animal studies were done to verify the hypothesis.
Now, though, things have changed. Far too many "scientists," who are really little more than technicians, can achieve lifetime job security by
picking some chemical—especially one that is in wide commercial use—and give outrageous doses of it to a rodent. If an effect is observed, then
"further study is warranted" and the chemical is put on the bad list. It matters not in the least that empirically, in actual human experience, there
have been no observable ill effects.
Steinemann isn't even doing this. She is merely cataloging a list of chemicals. Shame on Elsevier for publishing this tripe, and shame on the granting
agencies for supporting it. (Shaw's Eco-Logic)
New research has provided the first evidence that 'gender bending' chemicals which find their way from human products into rivers and oceans can have a
significant impact on the ability of fish to breed in UK Rivers.
The findings from the four year study, led by the universities of Exeter and Brunel, has important implications for understanding the impacts of these chemicals
on ecosystem health and possibly on humans.
Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) disrupt the ways that hormones work in the bodies of vertebrates (animals with backbones), including humans.
They can be found in everything from female contraceptive drugs and hormone replacement therapy pills, to washing up liquid, with the most well studied EDCs
being those that mimic oestrogen (female hormone).
EDCs have been seeping into rivers through the sewage system for decades and have an observed effect on fish, altering male biology to make them more female –
hence the 'gender bending' reputation of these chemicals.
Until now, there has been no solid evidence to show the long-term impact of this effect on fish in the wild - but the new research focusing on wild roach in two
UK rivers (Bourne and Arun) has provided new evidence. (University of Exeter)
That a lot of human hormones (medicinal, synthetic and natural) are flushed in effluent is quite true, which is why we are quite hesitant
over the greenies' favored water recycling schemes. We should constantly try to improve effluent outfall quality within affordable limits.
A FEW weeks ago, an asteroid almost 30 feet across and zipping along at 38,000 miles per hour flew 28,000 miles above Singapore. Why, you might reasonably
ask, should non-astronomy buffs care about a near miss from such a tiny rock? Well, I can give you one very good reason: asteroids don’t always miss. If even
a relatively little object was to strike a city, millions of people could be wiped out.
Thanks to telescopes that can see ever smaller objects at ever greater distances, we can now predict dangerous asteroid impacts decades ahead of time. We can
even use current space technology and fairly simple spacecraft to alter an asteroid’s orbit enough to avoid a collision. We simply need to get this
detection-and-deflection program up and running. (Russell Schweickart, NYT)
Phthrrbt!
No matter how much is squandered on this boondoggle the next significant impact will still come as a surprise to whatever critters are on this rock at the time.
Granted, it is a virtual certainty that this dirty ball of ice and snow will get whacked by a planet killer in the next 100-odd million years but we really do
have much more immediate, certain and addressable problems deserving of the time, effort and finance. The only thing ever coming out of the NEO project is a
shitload of nonsense scares. Forget the Henny Penny thing, if we get clipped we get clipped and that's the luck of the draw.
MILAN - Future global food security may be at risk unless greater efforts are made to conserve and use the genetic diversity of cultivated crops and their
wild relatives, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said.
The world's cereals output needs to rise by 1 billion tonnes a year by 2050 to feed a population that is expected to grow by about 40 percent by then from 2005,
the FAO said in a report published on Tuesday, reaffirming its earlier forecasts.
Crop biodiversity is a strategic resource for sustainable development and eradication of hunger and it provides insurance against environmental calamities, the
agency said in the report on the state of the world's plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
Fast-growing, high-yield new crop varieties resistant to heat, drought, salinity, pests and diseases -- crucial to ensure food security in the face of climate
change -- can be developed using genetic information held in certain plants, the FAO said.
New seed varieties have accounted for 50 percent of the rise in crop yields in recent years with irrigation and fertilisers accounting for the rest of the
growth, it said. (Reuters)
Depending on the metric "recent years" a portion of the increase is actually due to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Over the
last 50 years that productivity gain has been substantial. Panic and climate superstition, however, have had a severely negative effect:
A global food crisis is “forecast as prices reach
record highs [1].” “Rising food prices and shortages could cause instability in many countries as the cost of staple foods and vegetables reached
their highest levels in two years.” “Global wheat and maize prices recently jumped nearly 30% in a few weeks while meat prices are at 20-year
highs.” “Meanwhile, the price of tomatoes in Egypt, garlic in China and bread in Pakistan are at near-record levels.”
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering whether to
approve for human consumption a genetically modified (GM) salmon that holds promise for satisfying the growing demand for seafood and to allow wild stocks to
revive. The science on “transgenics” is firmly on the side of approval. The more pressing debate—largely a consequence of unwarranted regulation—centers
on product labeling. Fortunately, that’s rather simple to remedy.
The AquAdvantage salmon, which grows twice as fast as its farm-raised cousin, was bred with a Chinook salmon gene for a hormone that accelerates growth in
the first year. Genetic material from an ocean pout, an eel-like species, was also introduced to keep the growth hormone active throughout the year. Continue reading... (The Foundry)
Outside of a report in Crain’s Chicago Business and a soft-pedaled article in the certain-that-cap-and-trade-will-happen trade publication Carbon Control News, the media has ignored the demise of the only voluntary U.S. effort at carbon trading.
CCX was sold earlier this year for $600 million to the New York Stock Exchange-listed IntercontinentalExchange (Symbol: ICE), an electronic futures and
derivatives platform based in Atlanta and London. ICE also acquired the European Climate Exchange as part of the transaction. The ECX remains open to
accommodate the Kyoto Protocol-required carbon trading among EU nations. The sale of CCX to ICE allowed climateers like Al Gore’s Generation Investment
Management and Goldman Sachs to cash out of investments in CCX.
At its founding in November 2000, some estimated that the size of CCX’s carbon trading market could reach $500 billion. The CCX was the brainchild of
Richard Sandor who used $1.1 million in grants from the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation to launch the CCX. Sandor received $98.5 million for his 16.5% stake in
CCX when it was sold. Not bad for an idea that didn’t pan out.
Incredibly (but not surprisingly), although thousands of news articles have been published about CCX by the lamestream media over the years, a Nexis search
revealed no news articles published about the demise of CCX in the five days since the CCX’s announcement.
With the demise of CCX carbon trading, only the still-pending Waxman-Markey bill is keeping cap-and-trade alive (technically, at least) in the U.S. According
to JunkScience.com’s Cap-and-Trade Death Clock, however, Waxman-Markey only has about 68 days of life left before it,
too, turns into a pumpkin. (Green Hell Blog)
- Agency move toward trading program expands executive power at the expense of democratic representation -
WASHINGTON, DC—The free market grassroots group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) today released a working paper engaging the debate over whether the EPA can
use the Clean Air Act to enact a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases (GHGs). The paper—entitled: Of Elephants and Mouseholes: How EPA Could Revive Cap-and-Trade—examines
the statutory structure of the Clean Air Act and identifies two existing programs that EPA could contort to enact a GHG cap-and-trade program. The paper also
includes a discussion of how cap-and-trade allows the EPA’s regulations to reach much further and accomplish more expansive goals than the Clean Air Act was
ever designed to cover. The paper is online here. Read the rest of this entry » (SPPI)
Upcoming Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules could have a “significant impact” on electric grid reliability by forcing the closure of many power
plants, according to a report Tuesday that EPA immediately attacked as a gloom-and-doom
scenario.
The North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) report could provide political ammunition to critics — including top GOP members of the powerful House Energy and Commerce
Committee — who allege EPA is
proposing onerous mandates.
“The pace and aggressiveness of these environmental regulations should be adjusted to reflect and consider the overall risk to the bulk power system,” the
report concludes. (Ben Geman, E2 Wire)
Energy reserves available to the power grid for peak use could be cut in half, says an industry report, as power plants are retired for noncompliance with
stiffer clean-air and clean-water rules.
Four federal environmental regulations to improve water and air quality could by 2018 chop by nearly half the amount of projected reserve energy available to
the US power grid, says a new report. (CSM)
What will happen to jobs, living standards and families under restrictive energy policies?
Pennsylvania is lucky. Even amid this prolonged recession and depressingly high unemployment (9.5% in PA), families and businesses in the Keystone State are
still paying just 9.4 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity.
That’s due in large part to the fact that Pennsylvania gets 53% of its electricity from coal. A lot of people vilify that black rock. But just think how
much easier it is to cool our homes and cook our food at this price – or operate a factory, farm, office, store, hospital, school, church … or government
agency.
Of course, 9.4 cents per kilowatt hour might seem like a lot to pay, compared to Indiana (where people pay only 7.1 cents), Kentucky (where electricity costs
just 6.3 cents), or West Virginia (where it’s a rock-bottom 5.6 cents a kWh).
But just think how much harder all that would be if we lived in California, which generates just 1% of its electricity with coal, and people pay 13 cents per
kWh; in Rhode Island, which gets no electricity from coal, and they shell out 16 cents a kWh; or just across the Delaware River in New Jersey, where families
and businesses have to cough up 14.9 cents per kWh, largely because the state uses coal to produce just 15% of its job-creating electricity. Read the rest of this entry » (SPPI)
It's going to be hard winning the Republican presidential nomination if you’re not a climate skeptic.
Recent comments from top White House and congressional contenders suggest an awkward mix of outright hostility or, at best, ambivalence toward the widespread
scientific consensus that humans are responsible for the warming planet.
Fueled by tea party rage, anti-government sentiment and hostility to anything attached to President Barack Obama, the 2012 GOP primary field is expected to run
to the right. If the midterm elections are any guide, any support for climate legislation – no matter how tepid – will be a black mark in the eyes of
Republican primary voters.
"I guess the answer to the question is I'm not sure," Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told POLITICO when asked his views on climate science. "I think
there's a real mix of data on that.
"Obviously, I think the question you have to ask yourself, one, is it occurring?" Thune added. "And even if you say 'yes' to that, two, is human
activity contributing to it? And even if you say 'yes' to that, then three is what are we going to do about it and at what cost?"
Candidates who aren't outright climate skeptics might be best served keeping their views a secret by instead challenging the economics associated with a
sweeping set of environmental regulations that cover everything from electricity to transportation fuels. (Politico)
Actually it should be completely impossible for any political aspirant to be elected adhering to climate superstition. Whether there is any
merit in the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis or not there is absolutely no upside in mitigation, the only possible course is adaptation, as it has always been.
"Carbon constraint" is simply whacko code for energy rationing and the correct response is: "No way! Not now. Not ever." Get over it.
Emissions from consumption growth have exceeded carbon savings from efficiency improvements in the global supply chain of products consumed in the UK,
according to new research by Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) at the University of York and the University of Durham.
Carbon dioxide emissions from UK consumption grew by 217 Million tonnes(Mt) of carbon dioxide from increased spending between 1992 and 2004 while cuts from more
efficient production only led to reductions of 148 Mt leaving a net growth of 69 Mt of carbon dioxide.
In previous research, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and partners found that while territorial CO2 emissions in the UK decreased between 1992 and 2004,
consumer CO2 emissions kept growing. Consumer emissions include CO2 released in the UK and the rest of the world for producing the goods and services demanded
by UK consumers. (York)
Actually everyone outside the EU knew alleged emission cuts were fantasy all along. Welcome to reality.
Most folks in developed countries try to be eco-friendly by recycling aluminum and glass containers, turning off lights, unplugging cell phone chargers,
driving more fuel-efficient cars, upgrading attic insulation; the list goes on and on. But as Peter Huber and Mark Mills report, “efficiency doesn’t lower
demand, it raises it.”
They explain that the pursuit of energy efficiency has been the “one completely consistent and bipartisan cornerstone of national energy policy since the
1970s.” And yet, even though overall energy efficiency has increased dramatically since that time, “demand has risen apace.” (Jack Dini, Hawaii Reporter)
For the last 20 years politicians, jet-setting bureaucrats and vested interests have been plotting how to make Climate Fools of the western world, taxing
industry and consumers to fund green schemes, carbon speculators and international wealth redistribution.
The fightback by sceptical scientists and public was greatly boosted on the first Climate Fools Day when, in October 2008, British politicians passed with
little dissent “The Climate Change Bill” a piece of legislation that future generations will come to accept was “the most absurd Bill that this Parliament
has ever had to examine”.
Since then, sceptics all over the world have exposed the lack of evidence, the manipulation of data, the misuse of scientific process, the corruption of vested
interests and the powerful influence of natural factors in climate cycles.
Despite the now discredited projections of dangerous global warming, the globe itself has continued its normal weather defining cycles such as El Nino, La Nina,
the Pacific Oscillations, the powerful solar cycles and the massive ebb and flow of oceans and atmosphere. On a longer time scale there is no evidence that the
globe’s long history of recurrent ice ages and violent episodes of volcanic and earthquake activity have suddenly ceased.
Unfortunately, a whole generation of Climate Fools will have to be rooted out of our parliaments before Climate Sense reigns again. We will then see the massive
flood of community resources currently being wasted on windmills, solar toys, alarmist junkets, silly subsidies and climate bureaucracy more sensibly directed
towards preparation for coping with the real natural cycles of heat and cold, floods and droughts, cyclones and earthquakes, vulcanism and ice ages. We will
then regret the destruction of industry and wastage of real energy opportunities now taking place.
Climate Fools Day will be celebrated today by organised meetings of sceptics in Westminster and Brisbane.
Brisbane: King George Square 12 noon. More info contact Tim Wells: timobrienwells@yahoo.co.uk
What much of the public is not aware, and what the US media has not examined and published, is the corrupt nature of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). Initial clues that show their corruption lie within the founding documents of the IPCC itself. (Michael R. Fox, Hawaii Reporter)
The IPCC’s assessment reports are widely regarded as the ultimate references on climate matters. Behind this esteem is a belief that teams of scientists
impartially evaluated a vast pool of information and together drafted and refined an impeccable document for each report. The gulf between this belief and
reality is in fact huge.
The problems were highlighted by “Glaciergate”, the IPCC’s flawed comments about the Himalayan glaciers.
This section of the IPCC report opened with comments about the area of Himalayan glaciers covering 3 million hectares, which is 30,000 sq. km., and said shortly
afterwards that the likelihood of them disappearing by 2035 is very high. In the next paragraph the report says that the glaciers are predicted to shrink from
500,000 sq. km. to 100,000 sq. km. by year 2035, which contradicts the earlier statements both in extent and state of retreat.
It appears that most of the IPCC’s text was a verbatim copy of passages from an article in the Indian magazine Down to Earth, not the source given in the IPCC
report, with quotes in that article becoming factual statements in the IPCC report. The retreat by the year 2035 was mentioned in the article but trace the
source of that information we find it was an incorrect transcription of year 2350 and the shrinkage to 100,000 sq. km. was a comment about the total of all
glaciers outside the polar regions.
How could these errors and inconsistencies appear in the IPCC report, supposedly the authority on climate matters?
The answer lies in the IPCC’s procedures and in the tasks assigned to authors, reviewers and review editors of the reports. (Quadrant)
I will have a series of posts on the RMS forecast and its significance closer to the end of November. The forecast and its evaluation provide some very
important lessons for catastrophe risk management, for the role of cat modeling firms in financial services and for the science of extreme events.
Meantime, those interested in a bit more background might have a look at this paper:
What a title. Roger Pielke Sr thinks that the article is very informative but it is not too hard to imagine how Judith Curry who is being discussed in this
way has to feel.
She explains that her description as a heretic to be excommunicated from the IPCC says more about the IPCC than about herself. Well, indeed, dictionaries show
that heresy is a change of beliefs that conflicts with a religious or similar dogma. So first of all, there must be a dogma - and then you can have heretics.
How bad are these datasets? How sloppy are the data records?
Western Australia
(WA) covers 2.5 million square kilometers (1 million square miles, about a third as big as the USA). The average of all WA stations over one month last year was
adjusted up by as much as a gobsmacking 0.5 degrees due to a database “bug” – which contributed to August 2009 being the hottest August on
record?! That’s one heck of a bug!
Could it get worse? Unbelievably, GISS seems to have lost data for key WA locations that an unpaid volunteer found easily in the BoM online records. GISS
only has to maintain copies of records for sixteen stations in WA* which have temperatures current to 2010, but in seven of them they are missing data,
and it affects the results. Are they random errors? No, shock me, four errors are upwards: in one case making the spring 2009 average temperatures for
Kalgoorlie-Boulder 1.1 C degrees warmer!
But with no-one auditing our BoM or NASA’s GISS, and no team jointly receiving raw data or regulating standards in either agency, temperatures recorded in
the field could potentially be listed in official records as being quite different, and who would know? It’s left up to volunteers like Chris Gillham, a
freelance journalist and web designer in Perth, to run a sharp eye over the data. Chris has been tracking WA data for the last two years and his site, Average Temperature Trends Across
Western Australia, has methodically, neatly exposed some major flaws.
Just how much can we trust any of the pronouncements coming out, and how significant are any of the “records”, even if the adjustments are fair, unbiased
and justified? The whole database is surely not “high quality” when bugs of that magnitude are running rampant and data goes missing that professionals
can’t find, but people who are not “paid to find warming” dig up without much trouble.
–JN
New questions about reliability of GISS and BoM data
Guest Post by Chris Gillham
Fresh doubts have emerged about the reliability of temperatures within the Goddard Institute of Space Studies Surface
Temperature Analysis database with revelations that missing data errors have appeared for various months in the 2009 records of Australian locations, even
though the correct mean temperatures are available from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).
In turn, the BoM data itself has seen adjustments that might leave researchers wondering about claims that Australia has suffered record high temperatures
over the past 12 months.
Western Australia (for scale, it's about 600 km from Perth to Kalgoorlie).
Showing some of the sites.
A BoM database bug: Oops, half a degree?
On September 1 last year, the BoM posted mean min and max temperatures on its website for the month of August 2009 at all its recording stations in Western
Australia (2.5 million square kilometres).
However, on November 17 the mean temperatures for all WA recording stations were adjusted upward by as much as .5 C for August 2009.
When questioned about the adjustments, the BoM confirmed it had suffered a database bug and the upward shift was a consequent correction for August 2009,
which the bureau says was the hottest August ever recorded in Australia.
GISS is “missing”data
The GISS database shows that in the following month, September 2009, there is missing data (999.9) at three Western Australia recording stations:
Despite the missing September data and as is evident in their tables, GISS has calculated the Spring (S-O-N) mean temperatures at those three locations as
17.5 C, 20.5 C and 17.7 C respectively.
Trouble is, the data isn’t “missing”. A quick search of the BoM website reveals the September 2009 mean temperatures were: More » (Jo Nova)
The article starts with the text [bold face added]
“A study published on 17 October 2010 in the journal Nature Geoscience shows that over the past three decades, surface wind speeds seem to have noticeably
decreased in several regions of the world, such as the United States, China, Australia, and in several European countries. Given the often inadequate quality
and heterogeneity of wind data measured by anemometers, no long-term study of the evolution of wind speeds on a global scale had been carried out so far.
However, after a detailed and thorough statistical analysis of the inconsistencies of wind measurements taken at 5412 stations resulting in the rejection of
85 % of them, an analysis of the remaining data revealed a major trend: over most land surfaces of the Northern hemisphere mid latitudes, winds have
decreased (see figure below). The study was carried out jointly by the
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l\u2019Environnement (LSCE) and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). It also shows
that over Asia, moderate to strong winds have decreased most rapidly.”
This study also attempts an explanation of the reasons for this decrease. Using a variety of data (datasets from reanalyses carried out by ECMWF or
other smaller scale simulations, satellite and radiosonde observations), the authors show that this decrease in surface wind speed can be largely
explained by an increase in vegetation and, to a smaller extent, by changes in the general atmospheric circulation over the past few decades.
Since, wind speed affects the vertical mixing of heat, this study implies there will be an effect on the surface temperature trends at these locations
also. Most, or all, of these sites presumably are where surface temperatures, used as part of the construction of a global annual average
surface temperature trend, are obtained.
The study also documents that the surface landscape changes at these sites sufficiently to alter the winds. They write “the authors show that
this decrease in surface wind speed can be largely explained by an increase in vegetation and, to a smaller extent, by changes in the general
atmospheric circulation over the past few decades.”
Such an increase in vegetation would also alter the temperatures. We have assessed this issue for locations in Colorado in our paper
“A daily 850–700 mb layer mean temperature, computed from the National Center for Environmental Prediction-National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP-NCAR)
reanalysis, and satellite-derived greenness values, as defined by NDVI (Normalised Difference Vegetation Index), were correlated with surface maximum and
minimum temperatures at six sites in northeast Colorado for the years 1989–98. The NDVI values, representing landscape greenness, act as a proxy for
latent heat partitioning via transpiration. These sites encompass a wide array of environments, from irrigated-urban to short-grassprairie. The explained
variance (r2 value) of surface maximum and minimum temperature by only the 850–700 mb layer mean temperature was subtracted from the corresponding
explained variance by the 850–700 mb layer mean temperature and NDVI values. The subtraction shows that by including NDVI values in the analysis,
the r2 values, and thus the degree of explanation of the surface temperatures, increase by a mean of 6% for the maxima and 8% for the minima over the period
March–October. At most sites, there is a seasonal dependence in the explained variance of the maximum temperatures because of the seasonal cycle of plant
growth and senescence. Between individual sites, the highest increase in explained variance occurred at the site with the least amount of anthropogenic
influence. This work suggests the vegetation state needs to be included as a factor in surface temperature forecasting, numerical modeling, and climate
change assessments.”
This another reason why there is a divergence between surface and lower tropospheric temperatures as we identified in our papers
The finding by ECMWF that there is long-term trend in wind speeds that is “largely explained by an increase in vegetation“,
supports the conclusion of significant effects on the assessment of the global annual land average surface temperature trend that are the result of
effects other than warming (or cooling) of the remainder of the troposphere. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
From CO2 Science Volume 13 Number 43: 27 October 2010
Subject Index Summary: Acclimation (Tree Species: Pine): Earth's pine trees appear to be well adapted
to positively respond to increases in the air's CO2
content under all sorts of environmental conditions.
Ocean Acidification Database:
The latest addition of peer-reviewed data archived to our database of marine organism responses to atmospheric CO2
enrichment is Smooth cauliflower coral [Stylophora
pistillata]. To access the entire database, click here.
Plant Growth Database:
Our latest results of plant growth responses to atmospheric CO2
enrichment obtained from experiments described in the peer-reviewed scientific literature are: Oilseed Rape (Hogy et al., 2010)and Water hyacinth (Liu et al., 2010).
Medieval Warm Period Project:
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 896
individual scientists from 531 separate research
institutions in 43 different countries ... and
counting! This issue's Medieval Warm Period Record comes from Bay of Vilaine,
Atlantic Coast of France. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database, click here.
(co2science.org)
A common promise among politicians is to “run the government more like a business.” The Obama Administration seems to have promised to have “government
run more businesses.” The latest in the line of government takeovers and mandates is the proposal to subject heavy-duty trucks to fuel-efficiency regulations.
These efficiency mandates are promoted as saving the vehicle operators money—the fuel costs supposedly go down more than the initial capital costs go up.
What this Administration does not seem to be able to understand is that businesses (both truck buyers and sellers) are already seeking out these efficiency
improvements.
Indeed, the EPA’s own analysis of the proposed regulations notes that the fuel efficiency for heavy-duty vehicles has improved about 1 percent per year for the past 30 years. This improvement came without any fuel-economy
standards—that is, entirely in response to market incentives for efficiency. Continue reading... (The Foundry)
On the campaign trail, President Obama is promoting his green jobs agenda as an antidote to high unemployment. And though it's an approach that doesn't
always attract bipartisan support, one aspect of it should — and has: the construction of a true national electricity grid.
One especially unusual and attractive aspect: it's a green construction project that can be financed privately. What's more, such investments, as Google makes
clear, will not need to be government-financed — just one reason that "grid" improvements have attracted rare, bipartisan support.
Few policies attract support from both Obama and Newt Gingrich. The development of a national inter-connected electricity grid is one of them. The president has
promoted what he describes as a "newer, smarter electric grid" that "will make our energy bills lower, make outages less likely and make it
easier to use clean energy."
Former Speaker Gingrich has chosen a different emphasis — but reached the same conclusion. "You've got to rebuild the electric grid," he said,
"because, as I keep telling all of my left-wing environmental friends, if you want people to drive electric cars, there has to be electricity."
(Gilbert E. Metcalf, IBD)
In Brussels earlier this month, members of the European Parliament voted to overturn a new drilling moratorium on European oil reserves offshore. And while
the U.S. Interior Department has lifted its offshore drilling moratorium too, getting the Gulf Coast back to business is a long way away.
Even by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s own admission, it will take weeks to issue new permits under tightened regulations. This political gamesmanship in
America is in stark contrast to the EU’s decisive vote for its own energy security.
For the past five months, small business owners, workers and consumers throughout the Gulf region have been unnecessarily punished by the U.S. Interior
Department’s extreme response to the BP Deepwater Horizon accident. This moratorium, moreover, ignored American energy companies’ solid track record of
employing high safety standards and the world’s best technology.
But our neighbors across the Atlantic were keen to recognize what was (and is) at stake. Perhaps Struan Stevenson, a member of the European Parliament, said it
best after he and his colleagues overturned the EU’s drilling ban. Stevenson stated, “We risked sending the global oil industry a terrible signal that would
have jeopardized millions, if not billions, of pounds-worth of orders for our state-of-the-art technology. Instead we have said that we will learn the lessons
of the Gulf of Mexico disaster without sending our valuable oil industry up in smoke”. (Raymond J. Keating, Townhall)
Drilling services giant Halliburton released its U.S. quarterly earnings report this week, highlighting record revenue generation due to expanded land-based
drilling operations and international activities. [Read More] (Michael J. Economides, ET)
China will reduce its exports of rare earth metals to the United States and Europe, but will not cut them off entirely, the head of the largest Western
producer of the minerals said on Tuesday.
"I don't believe that China is going to completely embargo the United States and the European Union as relates to rare earths," Molycorp Inc Chief
Executive Mark Smith told a conference on critical and rare metals in Washington.
"I do believe, however, that we're going to see reductions in the export quotas coming out of China."
China, which controls more than 90 percent of the global rare earths trade, last week denied reports it had halted shipments to Japan.
The reports, however, left other countries wary of similar cutbacks in the metals used in high-tech products -- so much so that the White House said President
Barack Obama could raise the issue at next month's G20 summit.
Rare earths comprise 17 minerals with magnetic, luminescent and other properties that go into solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars. Their price has
shot up 600 percent to 700 percent in the past few months, Smith said. (Reuters)
The European Union and the United States said on Tuesday they were pressing for solutions to concerns China may be exploiting its stranglehold on rare earth
metals, crucial in the making of everything from portable phones to wind turbines.
Officials and industry executives in Berlin and Washington warned of severe repercussions from a scarcity of the minerals with magnetic, luminescent and other
properties which go into products such as hybrid cars, solar panels and windmills.
The near monopoly China has in producing 97 percent of the world's supply of rare earths has been well-known among industrial users for years, but came under
the international spotlight after reports Beijing halted shipments to Japan over a territorial dispute with Tokyo last month.
A U.S. Department of Energy official said she was not aware of any U.S. renewable energy companies experiencing disruptions in rare earth metal shipments from
China, but said firms were worried about shortages developing. (Reuters)
[Editor’s note: This series is an extensive technical analysis of wind electricity in Denmark. The intent is to
develop: (1) plausible conclusions without resorting to extensive mathematics (except that provided by others) , and (2) a framework within which to evaluate
other claims of emissions relating to wind backup from fossil plants.]
According to wind proponents, Denmark is a model of wind energy use for electricity generation to be emulated. It is claimed or suggested that:
Denmark gets about 20% of its electricity from wind. [Note: This number is generation, not usage, which is a
crucial distinction with negative implications for the wind lobby's argument.]
Reduction in CO2 emissions is due in large part to increased wind electricity production.
These conclusions are superficial at best and invalid at worse. The analysis required to show this, however, is extensive and technical
because the Denmark power market is very unique and wholly unlike the market in the U.S. or the UK.
A Note on Sources
Recently the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has made claims about Denmark, based on data from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). This is at least
one step removed from the source for most of the information in this series, the Danish Energy Agency (DEA). Its report 2008 Energy
Statistics, and associated Excel worksheet tables, is one of the best
sources of comprehensive information on the Denmark electricity situation.
There is another source with very detailed
information, Energinet.dk, which is the Danish national transmission system operator for electricity and gas. It has been used for some more extensive
mathematical analyses that are referenced here, for example Bach. As will be seen,
even these have limitations because of the unique and complex nature of the Denmark electricity system.
As a result, this analysis purposely based more on logic than precise mathematical treatments, but building on the mathematical work of others. The
limitations in both cases are the complexities, which will be explained, but both approaches provide insights into the Denmark case. In the final analysis, all
available evaluations of the wind-generated electricity (this will frequently be referred to as just “wind”) realities in Denmark are speculative, but some
more plausible than others, and readers are left with having to draw their own conclusions.
Claims based on a quick reference to a few selected statistics should be seriously questioned, and this series provides a context within which all claims can
be evaluated. [Read more →] (MasterResource)
The NSW opposition has accused the state government of bungling its solar bonus scheme, saying over-generous feed-in tariffs will add $100 a year to
household power bills. (AAP)
In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Tennessee Governor Philip Bredesen explained how Obamacare has created
a situation where the state government and many of its employees will find it mutually advantageous to the get rid of the employer-sponsored insurance program
the state currently offers. As we have noted, Bredesen correctly acknowledges that it will be better for all parties if the state of Tennessee pays the fines
involved with not offering an insurance program and subsequently dumps many of its employees onto the federally subsidized insurance exchange.
Here’s how the Governor’s insightful logic works: Beginning in 2014, state exchanges will offer large subsidies to individuals and their families who
don’t receive health insurance through their workplace. Former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Cameron Smith have brought attention to generosity of these subsidies, noting that “a family earning
about $59,000 a year would receive a premium subsidy of about $7,200” beginning in 2014,” whereas “even a family earning about $95,000 would receive a
subsidy of almost $3,000.” As Heritage analysts have
suggested, employers and employees alike benefit from an employer dropping employer-sponsored health insurance and simply assisting employees in attaining
health insurance (with the help of the subsidies) in the exchanges. Continue reading... (The Foundry)
ObamaCare: Finding things we don't like in the Democrats' overhaul legislation is becoming an almost daily event. Add to the list the possibility that a
provision in the bill could be almost six times more costly than the initial estimate. (IBD)
In a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Henry J. Aaron, senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, writes
that rolling back and defunding Obamacare would create “zombie legislation … [i.e.,] a
program that lives on but works badly.”
If Aaron is looking for a B horror movie reference to describe the state of American health care under Obamacare, “Frankenstein” would be a much more
appropriate choice. Obamacare is a slipshod, pieced-together monster made of bad policy and covered in
bolts and scars from the legislative process.
Though proponents of the health care law may still be heard shouting, “It’s alive! It’s alive!,” the truth is that conservatives and liberals alike
recognize that, as Aaron puts it, “successful implementation poses remarkable challenges and will require adequate funding, enormous ingenuity, and goodwill
from federal and state officials, as well as cooperation from private insurers, businesses, and private citizens.” Continue reading... (The
Foundry)
Surely you know that HITECH is an acronym for Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, right? Well, you'd be all over this if you
were a vendor of any product related to electronic health records.
That's because the Feds are offering something close to $17 billion in incentive payments (out of an overall budget of $22 billion) for so-called
"meaningful use" of certified e-health record technology. President Obama's goal is to have us completely switched over to e-health records by 2014.
Naturally, there are all sorts of problems that will have to be addressed, including data security and patient privacy. And, there will be increased costs,
with absolutely no guarantee that outcomes would be improved. As decades of information technology have shown, no matter what the system, the people—and their
human limitations—are still the same.
My latest HND piece discusses this, and profiles a cool new company in this
space—LigoLab.
NEW YORK - Autism rates could be leveling off at just above one percent of children, Wisconsin researchers suggest.
Between 2002 and 2008, they found the number of kids in the state's special education autism category nearly doubled. But the increase was only seen in those
schools that started out with very few autistic kids, hinting that the statewide rates may be stabilizing.
Autism spectrum disorders, which range from mild Asperger's Syndrome to severe mental retardation and social disability, affect about one in 110 children in the
U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Nationwide, the number has been rising inexplicably over recent decades, and experts have argued about the reasons.
One possibility is that kids who used to be classified as mentally retarded, or just plain eccentric, are now getting an autism-spectrum diagnosis. Another,
more worrisome suggestion, is that some environmental factor could be impacting children's brain development.
The new study hints that at least some of the increase could be due to schools putting more and more kids in the autism category, said Matthew Maenner, a PhD
student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who worked on the new study.
"The prevalence of autism in special education doesn't seem to be the same everywhere, and it doesn't seem to be increasing at the same rate
everywhere," he said.
The findings, published in the journal Pediatrics, show that the statewide rate of children receiving special education for autism went from five to nine cases
per 1,000 over seven years.
Not all of these kids may have a medical diagnosis of autism, but Maenner said data on enrollment in special education programs are often used as a proxy for
the prevalence of disabilities. (Reuters Health)
MOSCOW - A heat wave that fanned wildfires and blanketed Moscow with acrid smoke pushed up the number of deaths in Russia by nearly a fifth in July and
August this year, according to a government report issued on Monday.
Nearly 56,000 more people died nationwide this summer than in the same period last year, said a monthly Economic Development Ministry report on Russia's
economy.
"In connection with the unusual heat, forest fires and smoke, in July of this year 14,500 and in August 41,300 more people died than during the same period
last year," a section of the report on demographics said.
Deaths from digestive and circulatory system diseases as well as from cancer had increased, according to the report. (Reuters)
Since there is no suggestion that brief bouts of hot weather cause cancer, especially cancer lethal within a single season, it is reasonable
to assume they mean people in poor health are more likely to expire during adverse conditions. Not quite the same headline though, is it.
The battle against childhood obesity is proving as difficult for governments as it often proves for people battling weight gain.
The evidence so far shows that many schemes to prevent childhood obesity have failed to make a significant dent in the girths of young Australians, a report by
Productivity Commission researchers has found.
The report assesses 27 programs, whose titles rang from Romp and Chomp to Tooty Fruity Vegie Project and whose aims include increasing exercise, improving diet
and cutting time sitting in front of screens.
While the programs may have had greater success encouraging healthier diets and exercise, ''some of the interventions are very expensive, making it unlikely
that their limited benefits outweigh the costs,'' say the commission researchers, Jacqueline Crowle and Erin Turner. (SMH)
Unless people are eating other people then government really has no business interfering in people's diets, ever.
The Environmental Protection Agency is looking to hire an environmental protection specialist who will help the agency accomplish its “environmental
justice goals."
The job, in New York City, pays up to $84,146 a year, and according to the job listing on the government Web site, "You do not need a degree to qualify for
this position."
The EPA says the ideal candidate will have at least one year of experience related to the position, which comes with a salary range of $53,500-$84,146 a year.
Any U.S. citizen may apply, and a background check is required.
The job description says the EPA is looking for people with "[k]nowledge of the theories and principles of environmental protection, especially as they
relate to issues of environmental justice and the impacts of environmental laws, policies, legislation and regulation on minority and/or low-income groups and
communities.” (CNSNews.com)
Germany's plans to hike an environmental tax by less than originally envisaged will tear a 350 million euro hole in the government's 2011 budget, a finance
ministry spokesman said on Monday.
Senior government members agreed to a tax reform plan on Sunday to hike tobacco duty instead of raising the environmental tax, known as Oekosteuer, as much as
previously proposed.
That would also mean tax income shortfalls for 2012 to 2014, the spokesman added. (Reuters)
So, they are admitting it's about revenue, not the environment?
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty activists get up to six years
Judge says six conspirators are not 'martyrs for a noble cause'
Five animal rights activists who waged a relentless campaign of "violence and terror" against companies and individuals linked to Huntingdon Life
Sciences were jailed today.
The campaign involved posting hoax bombs to homes and offices, making threats of violence, daubing abusive graffiti on property and sending used tampons in the
post.
Sarah Whitehead, 53, Nicole Vosper, 22, Thomas Harris, 27, Jason Mullan, 32, and Nicola Tapping, 29, were all members of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac).
They were given prison sentences of between 15 months and six years at Winchester crown court.
A sixth member of the conspiracy, Alfie Fitzpatrick, at 21 the youngest member of the group, received a 12-month sentence suspended for two years. (Guardian)
I always wonder why we are so tolerant in our treatment of the species-confused. If they are so incurably deranged they subjugate human
welfare below something (anything) else then why should society support them? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to drop them on the African veldt or far out
to sea where they can be at one with nature rather than bothered with their own species that they obviously value so little.
In The Rational Optimist, Matt Ridley offers example after spectacular example of a phenomenon that has
baffled me ever since I began covering environmental issues in my first job in journalism thirty years ago: to wit, that while the entire presumable goal,
purpose, and raison d’être of applied environmental science is to solve environmental problems, any environmental scientist who dares to suggest that
problems are being solved is asking for trouble. As Ridley observes, we have arrived at a state where even the most wildly irrational pessimism is
treated with reverence, while the most cautiously sober optimism is ridiculed.
SPPI NOTE: see these books for more on the
topics of species endangerment
Some of this is human nature and was ever thus; intellectuals, as The Rational Optimist reminds us, have been decrying modernism ever since
modernism began. Actually, I wouldn’t stop there: the belief in a lost golden age is as old as civilization, as is the intellectual vanity of casting oneself
as the lone uncorrupted voice in the wilderness. A few thousand years before Dostoevsky, Malthus, George Orwell, and The Rational Optimist, the Hebrew prophets were pouring out gloom and dismay with the best of them, dismissing
the superficial comforts of the civilized world and its material rewards as a fool’s paradise. Pessimism is what people with deep minds and deep souls have;
optimism is what idiots with vacant grins on their faces have.
The 1990 Greenpeace Report on Global Warming said, carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere naturally and unnaturally. They define unnatural as anything
humans do. It is part of the theme of environmentalism that humans shouldn’t be here or tolerated only if they behave as they are told. The other part of the
idea of unnatural is exploited to keep the people enthralled, fearful and therefore controlled. H.L.Mencken’s comment that, “The whole aim of practical
politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
applies and is proof of the political nature of events presented, directly or with implication, as unnatural.
The false idea is presented out of context then left uncorrected by lack of follow up. This is especially true if the story is a prediction. We need a media
vehicle to analyze the story in context followed by the aftermath. It’s time for a program on which doomsayers who profited financially or politically from
false stories and predictions confronted and held to account. Here are some recent stories that proved incorrect. (Tim Ball, CFP)
Indonesia could match Brazil's success in slowing deforestation but needs far more aid from rich nations such as the United States, Japan and the European
Union, Norway's environment minister said on Monday.
Norway has signed a $1 billion climate deal with Indonesia, under which Jakarta has agreed to impose a two-year ban on new permits to clear natural forests.
Norway has already released $30 million of the funds, with the bulk to be paid out later after Indonesia proves greenhouse gas emissions have gone down and an
independent audit is done.
But more aid is needed to save Indonesia's forests, said Norwegian environment minister Erik Solheim. (Reuters)
Cost of meat, sugar, rice, wheat and maize soars as World Bank predicts five years of price volatility
Rising food prices and shortages could cause instability in many countries as the cost of staple foods and vegetables reached their highest levels in two years,
with scientists predicting further widespread droughts and floods.
Although food stocks are generally good despite much of this year's harvests being wiped out in Pakistan and Russia, sugar and rice remain at a record price.
(Guardian)
One wonders on what basis they make these predictions of drought and flood? The move to biofuels is a problem but that is strictly an idiotic
greenie-caused phenomenon that can be undone at the stroke of a pen.
Farming methods must be low-impact, organic and low-carbon to protect natural resources for the long term (Guardian)
Queen Elizabeth, The Second. Long may She reign. Queen Elizabeth, The Second. Long may She reign. Queen Elizabeth, The Second. Long may She
reign. Queen Elizabeth, The Second. Long may She reign. Queen Elizabeth, The Second. Long may She reign. Queen Elizabeth, The Second. Long may She reign. Queen
Elizabeth, The Second. Long may She reign. Queen Elizabeth, The Second. Long may She reign. ...
So, we read that Hollywood, Al Gore’s group, rent-seeking industry and other green groups have been joined by the rest of the usual suspects-Google, Bill Gates-in opposing
Proposition 23, a ballot initiative to delay their state’s energy rationing law which will soon take effect. That is, barring voter intervention putting a
temporary stay on this economic suicide pact until the state’s economy recovers somewhat.
I should think that’s about all one needs to know about Proposition 23.
Still, all of that money to protect the global warming industry’s gravy train seems to be having an effect among telephone survey respondents. But it
remains a close one. And that’s why they suit up and play the game.
Green activists and allied rent seekers like to portray themselves as the underdogs against big business in their environmental causes. The battle over
Proposition 23 - the California ballot measure to suspend the state’s global warming law until unemployment is under control - is certainly no exception.
But they have David and Goliath backwards here; those spending to defeat the measure and keep California cap and tax in place have outgunned supporters of
reform by at least 3 to 1.
Compared to the $9 million or so in favor of Prop 23, including most from oil companies, the $28
million to kill this measure has gotten relatively little attention. Only a minor percentage of this amount has come in the form of…
For some, global warming is the sinister cause of every problem plaguing the world-even the conflict between India and Pakistan.
This misapprehension has apparently taken hold of Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to Bob
Woodward's new book, Obama's Wars, Holbrooke believes there is a "global warming dimension" of the India-Pakistan conflict.
"In one discussion about the tensions between Pakistan and India," Woodward wrote, "Holbrooke introduced a new angle. 'There's a global-warming
dimension of this struggle, Mr. President,' he said."
Woodward wrote that Holbrooke's "words baffled many in the room." It's not hard to see why. (Sen. James Inhofe, Human Events)
The 2
nd anniversary of “Climate Fools Day” is almost upon us and it is starting to attract the attention of UK MP's. This year's
Climate Fools Day Rally will be held Wednesday, October 27
th 2PM at Parliament and we encourage all climate skeptics who can to attend. Our friends at Climate Realists have posted the following update on the planned festivities:
When Piers Corbyn mentioned to me recently that several MP's were going to attend the second anniversary of the “Climate Fools Day” rally held at the Houses of Parliament on the 27th October, I had to pinch myself. Two years have
nearly passed since the signing of the UK “Climate Change Bill” and wow have attitudes to “deniers” changed, all of a sudden we (flatearthers, and
anything else the misinformed public want to call us) have become a group of people politicians want to take more seriously.
There has been a lot of talk in the UK about public spending “cuts” recently , and we could now be part of a review that could save
billions if not trillions world wide. But first things first, we hope the MP's who attend the "Climate Fools Day" meeting come away with some basic
scientific facts about “Man Made” climate change and spread the news through their various constituencies that the sky is not, and never has been, falling!
This will mean that MP's rather then having a strategy of trying to win votes by saving mankind from certain death by co2, can now can go out
and win votes about what they can save on “green" tax” outlined below by Christopher Booker, who will ALSO be attending the meeting.
For more information on “Climate Fools Day” see comments from Piers on http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6514,
more to follow very soon and note, there are still some seats available, contact Piers direct for more information.
Modern environmentalism and its “global warming dogma” has replaced communism as the costliest, anti-democratic mistake of our time. [Read More] (Peter C.
Glover, ET)
A United Nations panel has proposed merging the two tracks of its Joint Implementation (JI) emissions cutting mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, the JI
Supervisory Committee (JISC) said.
Under JI, companies can invest in carbon-cutting projects in nations that signed up to emissions targets under Kyoto, and in return receive emissions reduction
units (ERUs), which can be used toward their own corporate emissions targets or sold for profit.
Currently, countries can either issue carbon credits for emissions reductions made themselves -- known as Track 1 -- or let the U.N. do an independent
assessment, under Track 2.
The proposal would see the establishment of a unified track in place of the two distinct regulatory tracks, the panel said. (Reuters)
Doesn't matter how many "tracks" they have, all lines lead to global taxation - and the answer is "No!".
Airline passengers could be hit with a new global tax on the cost of tickets in a bid to raise more than $100 billion annually to help developing countries
adapt to climate change, according to a U.N. report due to be published in November.
The tax, to be imposed on all international flights worldwide, could add up to $8 to the cost of an average airline ticket for an international flight. (NewsCore)
The Government's £1bn "green" tax grab has caused further controversy, with claims it will delay investment on environmental measures and cause
companies to waste money on unnecessary changes.
Businesses with energy bills of more than £500,000 per year had been expecting to receive money back for making specific energy efficiency improvements
It emerged this week that 5,000 companies will have to pay the Treasury £12 for every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, after the Government announced changes
to the Carbon Reduction Commitment Scheme.
Businesses with energy bills of more than £500,000 per year had been expecting to receive money back for making specific energy efficiency improvements.
However, they will now receive no rewards and only be penalised for emissions. It is now unclear exactly how the scheme will work and its enforcement has been
delayed for a year from 2011 to 2012. (TDT)
BusinessGreen: As the Energy Saving Trust's energy saving week gets underway today, energy secretary Chris Huhne reveals negotiations on the future of the
EST and the Carbon Trust are likely to continue for several more months (James Murray for BusinessGreen)
JULIA Gillard's climate change committee to explore carbon price options reflects the precautionary principle in the climate change debate.
This principle has revolutionised international and Australian environmental science and environmental law. The precautionary principle has driven the
international movement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it has been ignored in the public debate. It is also the reason that climate sceptics could never
win.
The principle appears in Article 3 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992. It is one of the four principles of ecologically sustainable
development.
Those principles have been absorbed into Australian environmental law at commonwealth and state levels since 1991.
In a speech given in December 2009 at a symposium in honour of retired judge Paul Stein, chief judge Brian Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court
described the effect of the precautionary principle which appears in NSW legislation in similar terms to Article 3 of the 1992 Climate Convention:
"In essence, the principle operates to shift the evidentiary burden of proof as to whether there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental
damage," he said.
"Where there is a reasonably certain threat of serious or irreversible damage, the precautionary principle is not needed and is not evoked . . .
"But where the threat is uncertain, past practice had been to defer taking preventative measures because of that uncertainty.
"The precautionary principle operates, when activated, to create an assumption that the threat is not uncertain but rather certain.
"Hence, if there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and there is the requisite degree of scientific uncertainty, the precautionary
principle will be activated. (Josephine Kelly, The Australian)
The greatest triumph of misanthropists has been to enshrine the inversion of rational caution into law and legislation. They have done this
to circumvent cost-benefit analysis because there really is nothing "green" that delivers greater benefit than cost, only illusions and warm, fuzzy
feelings. If correctly applied precaution dictates that we evaluate the enormous known negative effect on the disadvantaged of increasing the cost of energy,
slowing development and reducing trade opportunities for the world's poor nations to finance their development and enhance the living standards of their
population. We then weigh this against the necessarily heavily-discounted slight possibility of extreme harm generated by that development and energy
availability and try to determine whether the net result will be a plus or minus for the bulk of humanity. For the misanthropist the balance is always against
human enterprise and development while the rational always realize the only possible course is one of no regrets. It really is a case of develop or die and
misanthropists would prefer you did not develop.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
- Omar Khayyám
Scratch off the Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research from the alarmist list. No kidding!
The European Institute For
Climate and Energy has a new piece written by Raimund Leistenschneider that takes a look at two interesting papers dug up from 2003. I wonder if Rahmstorf
and Schellnhuber are going to feign amnesia on this. Big hat tip to NTZ reader Ike! (NTZ)
Here’s something that you can bring to the bank: With regard to global warming, the major purveyors of news in the industrialized world will be climbing
down from their various versions of frenzied alarmism. Here’s something else that you can bring to your banker: the climb-down will be sneaky. On the other
hand, when the series of editorial re-positionings is visible to casual members of the public at all, it will be beyond awkward. (Harold Ambler, Talking About
Weather)
1:30 p.m., Oct. 25, 2010--As the ice-capped Arctic Ocean warms, ship traffic will increase at the top of the world. And if the sea ice continues to decline,
a new route connecting international trading partners may emerge -- but not without significant repercussions to climate, according to a U.S. and Canadian
research team that includes a University of Delaware scientist.
Growing Arctic ship traffic will bring with it air pollution that has the potential to accelerate climate change in the world's northern reaches. And it's more
than a greenhouse gas problem -- engine exhaust particles could increase warming by some 17-78 percent, the researchers say. (UDaily)
Sadly the contemporary warming phase appears to have petered out and Arctic shipping will remain a wistful dream for the most part. Maybe the
next item will help :)
A decade of commercial space flight would have a devastating impact on climate change and global temperatures, according to a new study.
Scientists believe that vast amounts of black soot created by a new generation of spacecraft could lead to temperatures in polar regions rising by as mush (sic)
as one degree Celsius.
The study comes as the dream of whisking tourists edged closer to reality with the official opening of the runway at the world's first commercial spaceport by
Sir Richard Branson.
The billionaire said he expects flights for space tourists to begin in nine to 18 months, and he will be among the first passengers. (Daily Mail)
Adam Lea, of University College London, shares these interesting hurricane factoids related the the remarkable dearth of US hurricane landfalls in recent
years. His comments are reproduced here with his permission:
As the 2010 hurricane season (with 10 hurricanes) starts to wind down I thought I would share a few statistics on how unusual this season has been historically
for its lack of US hurricane landfalls:
1. Since 1900 there is no precedent of an Atlantic hurricane season with 10 or more hurricanes where none has struck the US as a hurricane. The five previous
seasons with 10 or more hurricanes each had at least two hurricane strikes on the US.
2. The last precedent for a La Nina year of the magnitude of 2010 which had no US-landfalling hurricane is 1973.
3. Since hurricane Ike (2008) there have been 16 consecutive non US-landfalling hurricanes. Such a sequence last happened between Irene (1999) and Lili
(2002) with 22 consecutive non US-landfalling hurricanes, and between Allen (1980) and Alicia (1983) with 17 consecutive non US-landfalling hurricanes.
4. The period 2006-2010 is one of only three 5-year consecutive periods without a US major hurricane landfall (the other two such periods were 1901-1905 and
1936-1940). There has never been a six year period without a US major hurricane landfall.
5. Historically one in four Atlantic hurricanes strike the US as a hurricane. Thus the recent dearth in strikes should be 'corrected' in the next few years.
Lots of “hottest years ever” during the last five years. GISS says 2010 is the hottest year ever so far, ahead of 2005. NCDC
says that 2010 is tied with 2007 so far as the hottest year
ever. We are told that glacial and sea ice melt have been at record levels over the last five years. The Met Office tells us that ocean heat content is at the highest level on record.
Lets do the math. The two things which affect global sea level are glacial melt and water temperature. Given that both of these are supposedly at record
levels. sea level would have to be rising at a record rate over the last five years. There is no other option.
In fact, it has done just the opposite. Over the last five years, sea
level rise rates have significantly declined, from 3.5 mm/year to 2.0 mm/year. Identical to the rise rate for the last century.
MIT study finds that more intense storms will occur in the Southern Hemisphere
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- Weather systems in the Southern and Northern hemispheres will respond differently to global warming, according to an MIT atmospheric
scientist's analysis that suggests the warming of the planet will affect the availability of energy to fuel extratropical storms, or large-scale weather systems
that occur at Earth's middle latitudes. The resulting changes will depend on the hemisphere and season, the study found.
More intense storms will occur in the Southern Hemisphere throughout the year, whereas in the Northern Hemisphere, the change in storminess will depend on the
season — with more intense storms occurring in the winter and weaker storms in the summer. The responses are different because even though the atmosphere will
get warmer and more humid due to global warming, not all of the increased energy of the atmosphere will be available to power extratropical storms. It turns out
that the changes in available energy depend on the hemisphere and season, according to the study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Yeah, I know Nature doesn’t have human emotions, give me a break. I’m aware it is unscientific and dare I call it atavistic and perhaps even socially
unseemly to say Nature “hates” straight lines, but hey, it’s a headline, cut me some poetic slack.
My point is, everyone is aware that nature doesn’t deal in straight lines. Natural things move in fits and starts along complex paths, not straight from
point to point. Phenomena have thresholds and edges, not slow linear changes at the perimeter. Tree branches and coastlines are jagged and bent. Things move in
arcs and circles, relationships are complex and cyclical. Very little in nature is linear, particularly in complex systems.
Forcing is generally taken to mean downward radiation measured at the TOA (top of atmosphere). The IPCC says that when TOA forcing changes, the surface
temperature changes linearly with that TOA forcing change. If there is twice the forcing change (twice the change in solar radiation, for example), the IPCC
says we’ll see twice the temperature change. The proportionality constant (not a variable but a constant) that the IPCC says linearly relates temperature and
TOA forcing is called the “climate sensitivity”.
Figure 1. Photo of impending change in climate sensitivity.
Today I stumbled across the IPCC justification of this linearity assumption.
This is the basis of their claim of the existence of a constant called “climate sensitivity”. I quote it below.
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — New University of Florida research puts to rest the mystery of where old carbon was stored during the last glacial period. It turns out
it ended up in the icy waters of the Southern Ocean near Antarctica.
The findings have implications for modern-day global warming, said Ellen Martin, a UF geological sciences professor and an author of the paper, which is
published in this week’s journal Nature Geoscience.
“It helps us understand how the carbon cycle works, which is important for understanding future global warming scenarios,” she said. “Ultimately, a lot of
the carbon dioxide that we’re pumping into the atmosphere is going to end up in the ocean. By understanding where that carbon was stored in the past and the
pathways it took, we develop a better understanding of how much atmospheric carbon dioxide the oceans can absorb in the future.” (UF)
It would b really easy to dismiss this as "Wow, they've discovered warm soda effect" but it is more important than that -- they
have finally admitted not having much idea about Earth's carbon cycle.
Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petrobras said Friday that the drilling of a new exploratory well at the offshore Tupi field confirms potential
recoverable reserves of between 5-8 billion barrels of oil equivalent. (MercoPress)
Laxenburg, Austria – 26th October 2010 -- A new assessment of future scenarios that limit the extent of global warming cautions that unless current
imbalances in R&D portfolios for the development of new, efficient, and clean energy technologies are redressed, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction
targets are unlikely to be met, or met only at considerable costs. (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis)
Despite special-interest pleading there will be no reduction in greenhouse emissions in the foreseeable future and as the prophesied
apocalypse fails to materialize, embarrassed silence over "carbon-free" energy and the finance and effort wasted trying to address climate
superstitions.
Britain’s “big six” energy companies will this week warn Chris Huhne, secretary of state for energy, that the government’s proposed “floor price”
for carbon emission permits is not enough of an incentive for them to invest in new nuclear power stations.
Executives from the companies, including Centrica, EDF Energy and Scottish Power, now owned by Iberdrola, are due to make their views clear at a dinner with Mr
Huhne on Wednesday.
The industry has reached a consensus position with all companies agreeing that some form of additional incentive is required. Options range from a feed-in
tariff to guarantee the price for low-carbon electricity to payments to companies as reward for having available generation capacity. (Financial Times)
In 2007, the Spanish government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero passed a law that guaranteed solar power producers a price for power more than
10 times the 2007 average wholesale price paid to conventional energy suppliers. The generous subsidies sparked a rush to solar, and taxpayer costs mounted.
Today, the government owes
$172 billion to renewable energy investors, but it doesn’t have the means to meet its obligations in the face of rising budget deficits. As a result, more
than 50,000 other Spanish solar entrepreneurs face financial disaster.
The Obama administration on Monday proposed the first ever fuel efficiency and emissions standards for big tractor trailers and other commercial trucks.
(Reuters)
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The media in some parts of the state won't tell any good stories about natural gas so the industry is buying advertisements to tell its
side, said Corky DeMarco, executive director of the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association.
"The problem is, in certain areas, nobody wants to write the story that's coming from us," DeMarco told University of Charleston business students,
alumni, and invited guests on Tuesday. "They want to write the sensational, the fictional."
Natural gas drilling in the Appalachian basin has become a high-profile business during the past several years as companies learned how to drill horizontal
wells and fracture, or "frack," the Marcellus Shale to release natural gas.
The new drilling know-how is re-shaping the industry. There's talk that the Marcellus Shale gas field may contain 500 trillion cubic feet of gas. Instead of
talking about running out of natural gas within 10 years - a prevalent discussion within the industry in the 1970s - the discussion is about having up to 90
years of proven and potential supply. (Charleston Daily Mail)
Amid the ongoing controversy over the environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing in natural gas production, Halliburton Co. is planning to disclose what
chemicals it uses in the process on a new website set to go live Nov. 15, according to an industry publication.
Upstreamonline.com reported that Richard Logan, U.S. technology manager at Halliburton (NYSE: HAL) said the Houston-based oil services company would release a
list of chemicals used in the process. He made his comments at the World Trade Group’s E&P Technology Summit in Houston Oct. 22.
Logan also said the company was in the process of developing new hydraulic fracturing fluids that were more environmentally friendly.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has come under public scrutiny recently over accusations the process — which involves pumping fluid into the ground to help
extract natural gas — harms local groundwater. During the past few years, use of the process has increased as companies move to access difficult to reach
natural gas reserves. (Houston Business Journal)
Findings raise new concern: could uranium show up in groundwater?
BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Scientific and political disputes over drilling Marcellus shale for natural gas have focused primarily on the environmental effects of pumping
millions of gallons of water and chemicals deep underground to blast through rocks to release the natural gas.
But University at Buffalo researchers have now found that that process -- called hydraulic fracturing or "fracking"-- also causes uranium that is
naturally trapped inside Marcellus shale to be released, raising additional environmental concerns.
The research will be presented at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Denver on Nov. 2. (UB)
Unfortunately not likely to yield any useful (or interesting) amounts of uranium.
Centrica has effectively shelved its £1.5bn plan to build two gas storage facilities in the North Sea and Irish Sea unless the Government finds a way to
subsidise the proposal. (TDT)
Why should the taxpayer subsidize any such thing? The UK and Europe should get fracking and ensure they are producing plentiful gas supplies
as and when required.
One of the arguments used by critics of nuclear power is that
there is not enough uranium to power a nuclear world for an extended time. The energy hungry world would just be trading looming oil shortages for uranium
shortages, they claim. As with most anti-nuclear scare-mongering these charges are totally bogus. MIT has just released a major report on the nuclear fuel cycle
that finds uranium supplies will not limit the expansion of nuclear power in the US or around the world for the foreseeable future. It suggests that nuclear
power, even using today’s reactor technology with the wasteful once-through fuel cycle, can play a significant part in satisfying the world's future energy
needs.
The MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) report focuses on what is known as the “nuclear fuel cycle”—a concept that encompasses both the kind
of fuel used to power a reactor and what happens to the fuel after it has been used. Currently, most of the world’s reactors run on newly mined uranium that
has been enriched, though a few run on plutonium. After the fuel has been used it is either stored on site or disposed of underground—the “once-through”
fuel cycle adopted during the Carter administration. It is possible to reprocess spent fuel, creating new reactor fuel from what would otherwise be waste.
The new study suggests an alternative fuel cycle utilizing an enriched uranium-initiated breeder reactor in which additional natural or
depleted uranium is added to the reactor core at the same rate nuclear materials are consumed. This much simpler and more efficient self-sustaining fuel cycle
produces no excess nuclear materials. Such reactors can also recover 50 times as much energy per kilogram of mined uranium as a conventional light water
reactor. For more on future reactor designs see The Energy Gap.
The report—the latest in a series of broad-based
MITEI studies of different aspects of energy—was produced by 10 faculty members, three contributing authors, and eight student research assistants, with
guidance from a 13-member expert advisory panel from industry, academia, and nonprofit organizations. A summary report of the study was released on September 16. The full report, including
all the appendices, will be released later this year.
Ernest J. Moniz, director of the MIT Energy Initiative and co-chair of the new study, says the report’s conclusion that uranium supplies
will not limit growth of the industry runs contrary to the view that had prevailed for decades—one that guided decisions about which technologies were viable.
“The failure to understand the extent of the uranium resource was a very big deal” for determining which fuel cycles were developed and the schedule of
their development, he says.
“There has been very little research on the fuel cycle for about 30 years,” says Charles Forsberg, MIT research scientist in nuclear
engineering and executive director of the study. “People hadn’t gone back and looked at the underlying assumptions.” What the researchers found was that,
at any reasonable expected growth of nuclear power over this century, the availability of uranium will not be a constraint.
There’s an additional benefit to the enriched uranium-initiated breeder reactor concept—it would provide a built-in protection against
nuclear weapons proliferation. Large amounts of separated plutonium, a nuclear-weapons material, are needed to start the breeder reactors in the traditional
fuel cycle. In contrast, the starting uranium fuel could not be used for a weapon.
The fast reactor fuel cycle.
Just as important, since fuel costs account for only 2-4 percent of total nuclear electricity generating costs, even a big increase in
uranium costs would have only a minor impact on electricity prices. The MIT researchers estimate that, even if the global nuclear enterprise expanded by a
factor of 10 in this century and all the reactors operated for 100 years, uranium prices would increase only by about 50 percent.
In France, well over 1000 metric tons of spent fuel is reprocessed every year without incident at the La Hague chemical complex, on the
Normandy coast. La Hague receives all the spent fuel rods from France’s 59 reactors. The sprawling facility is operated by the state-controlled nuclear giant
Areva, and has racked up a good environmental record. The French effort clearly shows that reprocessing does not need to be the dangerous mess that other
countries, including the United States, have made of it in the past.
France uses an improved version of the 63-year-old Purex process (“plutonium-uranium extraction”), which was developed during the
Manhattan Project. Areva says the separation equipment employed is more compact than its predecessors and generates less waste. The major products of the
separation are uranium and plutonium. The uranium consists of the isotopes
235U and
238U, making up 95 percent of the spent fuel. The plutonium accounts for a little more than 1 percent.
Even the largest of France’s reactors, which can produce 1300 megawatts, generate just 20 canisters of high-level waste per year. According
to Areva, it’s about a factor of 10 reduction in the mass of highly radioactive waste needing to be stored under the most stringent conditions, and a four- or
fivefold reduction in volume relative to leaving a plant’s spent fuel unseparated.
The French nuclear fuel reprocessing system.
According to Peter Fairley, reporting in IEEE Spectrum, the
US has a new reprocessing scheme called Urex+, developed at Argonne National Laboratory to be more proliferation-resistant than La Hague’s. Urex+ coextracts
plutonium together with other transuranic elements present in spent fuel. Such a mixed fuel can be “burned” in a breeder reactor but, because highly
radioactive isotopes contaminate the material, making a bomb from it would be dangerous and very difficult.
Burton Richter, a Nobel laureate who leads the DOE’s science panel on nuclear waste separations (and also serves on the board of Areva
Enterprises), acknowledges that breeder reactors are DOE’s endgame. ”Everybody is in agreement that the right system ultimately results in multiple recycles
in fast [breeder] reactors, so that’s where things are going,” Richter says. Here is how Fairley summed things up in his 2007 article:
With visions of nuclear electricity ”too cheap to meter” long gone, the case for breeder reactors has shifted from creation of new fuels
to management of spent fuels. Without breeder reactors, the case for reprocessing is less than compelling. Considered in isolation, the economic arguments for
and against reprocessing are a wash. Most of the arguments concerning security and terrorism, too, seem moot.
In the US, nuclear power now represents 70 percent of all zero-carbon electricity production. This poses a dilemma for green wingnuts and
eco-alarmists—which is worse, global warming or nuclear power? While no new US plants had been ordered for 30 years, 27 new license applications have been
submitted since new regulations were instituted to streamline the process, but that is not
nearly enough. Meanwhile, China, India, and other nations have accelerated
construction of new plants.
All the alarmist talk from the likes of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the National Resources Defense Council is just that—emotion
based alarmist propaganda. MIT says there is plenty of uranium, even without developing thorium. As a bonus, recycling fuel greatly reduces the nuclear waste
storage problem. China's accelerated nuclear building program shows that cutting through government red-tape and eliminating superfluous law suits dramatically
reduces construction costs as well. With biofuels proving to be a bust, clean coal a scam, geothermal coming up dry and people having second thoughts about wind power, now is the time for nuclear energy.
Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.
Health Care: The more we know about ObamaCare, the more we find out it wasn't designed to cut costs but to eventually eliminate private insurance coverage
and create a government-run system.
Provisions of the Democrats' health care overhaul started to become law only a month ago, yet the list of companies dropping medical benefits for their
employers is piling up.
Mega-firms such as AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere and Verizon are among those that are either considering ending coverage for their employees or have already
chosen to do so.
It's not just the big companies eliminating benefits, either. Smaller employers are doing the same. Larry M. Elkin, president of Palisades Hudson Financial
Group, wrote Thursday in the Business Insider: "For 15 years, I have taken pride in paying the full cost of health insurance for every full-time Palisades
Hudson employee who wanted it. This month marks the last time I will do that."
Elkin said that every one of his employees has the option of staying on the company plan. But those who choose that route "will have to pay the entire cost
— ranging from $574 to $683 per month — themselves, through payroll deductions."
And where will those who don't opt for staying on the company plan go? Maybe they end up leaning on the government along with the 46 million or so other
uninsured Americans the Democrats are trying to cover.
Elkin is not acting out of spite because he doesn't like the Democrats. He's acting rationally, as any good businessman should. (IBD)
It’s almost impossible for a modern American to imagine what an outbreak of rinderpest, a viral cattle disease, would have looked like. But when the
disease was at its worst — in Britain in the mid-1860s and South Africa in the 1890s — the spectacle must have been horrifying. Rinderpest spreads rapidly
and kills nearly every animals it infects.
It is well worth celebrating the extinction of this disease in the wild. The last known case occurred in Kenya in 2001, and this past week the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization declared it eradicated globally.
Rinderpest is only the second infectious disease in history to be wiped out, after smallpox, which was declared eradicated in 1980. They share a similar
history, since both diseases were among the first to be treated by inoculation in the 18th century. Eradication was also made possible by the fact that neither
diseases mutated rapidly, which would have made the task that much harder.
There is, of course, a long list of infectious diseases humanity would like to see eliminated. The next likely virus to be eradicated is polio, a possibility
that seems almost incredible to anyone old enough to remember the polio outbreak in the United States in the early 1950s. But part of that memory is the
discovery, soon after, of the Salk vaccine and its successor, the Sabin oral vaccine.
In the past decade alone, hundreds of millions of children around the world have been vaccinated. Only a few remaining cases of polio have been found in Nigeria
and Tajikistan. With continued effort, this disease may also vanish from the planet in the very near future. (NYT)
WASHINGTON - Up to a third of U.S. adults could have diabetes by 2050 if Americans continue to gain weight and avoid exercise, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention projected on Friday.
The numbers are certain to go up as the population gets older, but they will accelerate even more unless Americans change their behavior, the CDC said. (Reuters
Life!)
At least once a week, when I open the newspaper there seems to be some fresh new panic about the tsunami of childhood obesity that is crashing on our golden
sandy beaches which a generation or two ago were filled with healthy bronzed young men and women who were either training for the next Olympic Games or about to
pull on a pair of battered Dunlop Volley sandshoes, borrow a beaten up old wooden racquet and fly off to win Wimbledon.
Yep, every time a politician opens his or her mouth (usually on the way to a four course five star lunch at a taxpayer funded Parliamentary Dining Room) they
sadly shake their heads, wobble their double chins and lament the rise of the TV obsessed Generation XXL. (Duncan Fine, The Punch)
NEW YORK - The hope that a simple blood test could help doctors identify patients likely to develop high blood pressure or heart disease is dashed by the
findings of a new study published in the American Heart Association's American Heart Journal.
After analyzing data from more than 3,500 healthy people followed for as long as 20 years, a team of researchers concluded there is no association between blood
magnesium levels and the probability of developing high blood pressure or heart disease in the future.
Researchers are always looking for good markers to identify people at risk of disease that might be forestalled with early intervention.
Magnesium is known to be important to the proper functioning of cells, and animal studies have found low blood levels of magnesium seem to raise blood pressure
while higher magnesium intake wards off hardening of the arteries. (Reuters Health)
Can the Endangered Species Act (ESA) compel America to de-industrialize?
My colleague William Yeatman alludes to this question at the end of his post on yesterday’s Heritage Foundation symposium,
“Saving the Polar Bear or Obama’s CO2 Agenda?”
The short answer is yes and no. Yes, because once the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed the polar bear as a “threatened species” on the
supposition that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are melting the bear’s Arctic habitat, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) logically requires
that people stop engaging in CO2-emitting activities. This is worrisome, because CO2 emissions come from energy use, which in turn derives from economic
activity. There is hardly any economic activity in the modern world that does not, directly or indirectly, cause or contribute to CO2 emissions. Hence,
almost…
A U.N. meeting to set targets to fight rising animal and plant extinctions inched on Friday toward agreement, but rich and poor countries remained split over
details of a new framework on genetic resources. (Reuters)
The government is drawing up plans to sell off publicly owned forests in a move that could see private developers allowed to clear ancient trees to make way
for holiday resorts, golf courses and adventure playgrounds.
The plan is designed to raise funds to help to pay off the Budget deficit, but has been met by opposition from some of Britain's highest-profile nature lovers.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs plans to dispose of about half the land looked after by the Forestry Commission, raising fears that the
trees will disappear to be replaced by amusement parks and other ventures. The Forestry Commission holds about 1.85 million acres of woodland, about a third of
which may be sold off, in one the biggest land sales in British history. (Independent)
Land purchases by foreign investors in poor countries and the growing use of bio-fuels are boosting pressures on agricultural farmland and helping make 500
million small farmers hungry, a U.N. envoy said this week.
Each year, up to 30 million hectares (the equivalent to Italy’s territory) of farmland are lost due to severe degradation, conversion to industrial use and
urbanization.
On top of that, more than a third of large-scale land acquisitions -- which last year reached some 45 million hectares -- are intended to produce agro-fuels
rather than food, according to the World Bank. (MercoPress)
Production of sustainable certified palm oil needs to increase about fivefold in the next five years, to meet buyers' commitments, the British unit of
Swedish oils manufacturer AAK said on Friday. (Reuters)
The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.
That's a scientific fact.
Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.
That too, is a fact. (NPR)
In fact every year Earth's temperature cools about 3.8 °C from July to January while atmospheric CO2rises. This makes an immediate lie of their opening premise:
"The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises" because exactly the opposite happens for
half of every year. Conversely, as the planet warms with the northern hemisphere summer season biospheric activity draws down the available resource with
atmospheric CO2 lows occurring around September and peaks around April/May.
Midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites DeMint and Inhofe have received over $240,000. (Guardian)
So, I guess everyone must ignore the anti-Proposition 23 campaign because it's been tainted by huge donations -- from politically-connected
Democrats! Stupid game...
China's push to reduce growing greenhouse gas pollution is impressive but the "juggernaut" nonetheless faces a daunting rise in emissions, the top
U.S. climate change envoy said after what he called helpful talks.
The United States' chief climate change negotiator Todd Stern was in Beijing seeking to narrow rifts over the building blocks of a proposed new pact to fight
global warming driven by greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and other human activity.
China is the world's biggest total emitter of such greenhouse gases, having surged past the United States, the world's second biggest emitter and long the
world's largest.
China's efforts to slow greenhouse gas emission growth by encouraging cleaner energy and more efficient production deserved praise, but its projected rise will
be testing, said Stern.
"China's got a juggernaut of an economy, and it's no criticism that the emissions trajectory that China faces is a daunting one," he told a news
conference after his talks with Chinese negotiators. (Reuters)
China is helping to feed the biosphere and its people. Good for them!
The eco-themed science fiction movie Avatar helped cement James Cameron's standing as one of Hollywood's most strident environmentalists.
Now, in a gesture that perfectly captures the fractious spirit of a polarised nation, comes the inevitable backlash: a political attack advert entitled
"James Cameron – Hypocrite".
A week ago, it emerged that the Oscar-winning film director had put his money where his mouth is by donating $1m of his personal fortune to opponents of
Proposition 23, a ballot measure facing voters in California at the coming mid-term elections which would suspend the state's landmark law combating climate
change. Supporters of the proposition weren't going to take that lying down, though. On Thursday, they returned fire by releasing a short film that claims to
highlight a Titanic-sized gulf between Mr Cameron's somewhat magisterial proclamations regarding the importance of combating climate change, and his actual
lifestyle.
"He's fighting Proposition 23 because he says we should use less fossil fuel," notes the film. "But if Cameron succeeds, it will mean higher
prices and job losses." It proceeds to quote a recent newspaper interview in which he discussed global warming, telling a reporter that "we are going
to have to live with less". The camera then cuts to aerial footage of the three adjacent homes that Cameron inhabits in the hills of Malibu. Although they
each have heated swimming pools, and together boast more than 24,000 sq ft of living space, the properties have not a single energy-saving solar panel or
windmill between them. "He also owns a 100-acre ranch in Santa Barbara, a JetRanger helicopter, three Harleys, a Corvette, a Ducati, a Ford GT, a
collection of dirt bikes, a yacht, a Humvee fire truck, and a fleet of submarines," continues the narrator. "And yet he demands WE live with less?
James Cameron: HYPOCRITE." (Independent)
Oh, The Sindy would like you to note that Cameron buys indulgencies, so it's perfectly alright for him to hog resources you should do
without. Not hypocritical at all, you see.
Global warming may not be the apocalyptic problem that climate Cassandras like Al Gore claim, but it is real and we need to do something about it. The question
is what. (IBD)
The bigger question is "what is desirable about a carbon-free energy future?" and the only rational answer is "absolutely
nothing."
Climate science has painted itself into a corner, seriously damaging the public’s faith in the field — as precious a commodity as there is in civil
society. Like lab rats that will do anything to keep the cocaine flowing, climate scientists, universities, and federal laboratories are addicted to the
public’s money.
The latest illustration of this sad new reality is the letter of resignation from the American Physical Society (APS) of one of the lions of science, Harold
Lewis, emeritus professor at University of California–Santa Barbara.
In his letter, Lewis rightly states that it is the global-warming-research industry, “with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted
so many scientists, and has carried APS with it like a rogue wave.” Specifically, Lewis objects to the heavy-handed way in which APS quashed and impeded any
attempt to modify its outrageous 2007 “national policy” statement on climate change.
The statement is remarkably misleading, and commits the same rhetorical mayhem as similar statements from the American Geophysical Union and the American
Meteorological Society. APS’s solemn declaration — “The evidence is incontrovertible. Global warming is occurring.” — has recently been part and
parcel of all such statements.
But to a scientist, to declare that the planet is warming is like announcing that the sun will rise tomorrow. One fact of the matter is that we are still
emerging from an ice age, as evinced by the massive glaciers and ice fields on Greenland. Ice ages are defined by large accretions of ice being displaced
abnormally equatorward. Eventually, most of Greenland should look like Scotland, which suffered a similarly lingering glaciation from which it eventually
escaped. The other fact is that we are putting carbon dioxide in the air and, everything else being equal (dangerous words in science), there should be some
additional warming.
The important word is “some.” The real questions are, “how much, and how fast?” (Patrick J. Michaels, NRO)
There is video available here of a lecture given by Professor Mike Hulme entitled
"How do Climate Models Gain and Exercise Authority?". Hulme asks whether deference towards climate models is justified and whether we should have
confidence in them. I think the answer is "We don't know".
Challenging Models in the Face of Uncertainty - Conference Keynote: Professor Mike Hulme (UEA): How do Climate Models Gain and Exercise Authority?
We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe.We also spatially aggregate model
output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic
(30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially
integrated projections are also poor.
The paper is examining the claim presented in the introduction of the paper that
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global circulation models (GCM) are able to “reproduce features of the past climates and
climate changes” (Randall et al., 2007, p. 601).
What the authors of the Anagnostopoulos et al 2010 paper have found is that [highlight added]
It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local
performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the
correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.
There is discussion of this paper in two accompanying articles.
The first paper is a comment on the Anagnostopoulos et al 2010 paper. It is
Wilby 2010 should be read also in its entirety, One excerpt, for example, reads
“Even if we could build perfect climate models, uncertainty about future economic and demographic pathways, natural forcings by solar and volcanic
activity, and a host of non climatic pressures, mean that regional hydrological projections would still be highly
uncertain. In other words, characterizing uncertainty through concerted scientific action may be a tractable proposition, but there appears to be no immediate
prospect of reducing uncertainty in the risk information supplied to decision makers.”
The second article is an editorial from the Editor of the journal
In this article, in which they summarize the perspective of the Anagnostopoulos, et al 2010 and Wilby 2010 papers, they include the
excerpts from the text [highlight added]
Simply put, the current suite of climate models were not developed to provide the level of accuracy required for adaptation-type analysis. They
were designed to provide a broad assessment of the response of the global climate system to greenhouse gas (GHG) forcings, and to serve as the basis for
devising a set of GHG emissions policies to slow down the rate of growth of GHGs, and, by this, to mitigate global warming impacts. To expect more from
these models is simply unrealistic at this time, as they do not even perform well as weather prediction models.
However, it should be understood that RCMs (regional climate models) operate under a set of boundary conditions set by whatever GCM is being used. Hence, if the
GCM does not do an adequate job of reproducing the climate signal of a particular region, the RCM will simply mimic those inaccuracies and biases, and propagate
the uncertainties even further, albeit at a regional scale. It is not clear how the coupling of a RCM to a flawed GCM can provide more refined insights,
any more than can statistical downscaling.
An editor’s obligation is to publish papers that advance the state of science and of understanding that science. Hydrologists and water management
professionals (hydrological and hydraulic engineers) have entered the scientific debate in force, because the GCMs are being advocated for purposes they
were not designed for, i.e. watershed vulnerability assessments and infrastructure design. They are now examining whether these models are suitable,
using their own perfectly legitimate and peer reviewed methods, as well as statistical tools developed over the course of a century of practical
applications. They are not climate sceptics, but are sceptical of the claims of some climatologists and hydroclimatologists that these models are well suited
for water management applications.
Our response to the question posed in the title of this editorial is that, while they are getting better, climate models are not (up to) ready for
“prime time” yet, at least for direct application to water management problems.
These papers are open to discussion until April 2011. The Editor of the Hydrological Sciences Journal, Zbigniew Kundzewicz,
is commended for his serving as a facilitator of all perspectives on the issues raised in the Anagnostopoulos et al 2010 paper. If the Anagnostopoulos et
al conclusions are robust, it raises the question on the value of spending so much money on providing regional climate predictions decades into the future
(e.g. see).
(Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
While not really “secret”, one might describe it that way because unlike the many things Dr. Mann has been doing lately, there wasn’t one peep
of press coverage about it. He helped organize this conference, and as we know Dr. Mann doesn’t shy away from reporting to the press on anything that helps
his stature. Surprisingly, the usual science writers didn’t mention it, and you’d think they would, given all the major players that converged in Portugal
for this event. So, it seems like they may have missed it too. Portuguese blogger “EcoTretas” only got word of this from a tip about a related story in a
Portuguese newspaper. His essay is below, and there’s a lot more after that. – Anthony
A usual reader of the blog sent me yesterday an
interesting news from a Portuguese newspaper. It deals with the classic Medieval
Warm Period problem, in the most green Portuguese newspaper. I immediately recognized one of the worst environmental journalists in Portugal, dealing with
one of my favorite issues. Interestingly enough, Ricardo Trigo, a portuguese climatologist, was trying to explain the pseudo-science behind climate change and
global warming, confusing things like Greenland’s vikings and Maunder’s Minimum.
The stories of a warming world continued into the late 1950s as the media inertia plowed forward adding to the warming stories of the 1930s and 40s. The
Atlantic Ocean had been warming since the mid 1920s. [Read More] (Art Horn and
Michael J. Economides, ET)
I was very disappointed to read erroneous information, in an otherwise very informative article, in the Scientific American by
Michael D. Lemonick titled
which seeks to isolate Judy Curry as being an outlier from her climate science colleagues [the article, of course, is useful in that it does expose the
attempt by some to marginalize anyone who differs from the IPCC viewpoint, and Michael Lemonick is commended for doing that].
The text in his article, however, includes the header of one of its sections which implies she is gone
Almost a year has passed since the release of the East Anglia emails. And despite all that has happened, there are some repeated indications that the climate science community just doesn't get it. One
example can be found in Michael Lemonick's apologia delivered in
response to criticisms from climate scientists aghast that he would give the "crank" Judy Curry a forum in Scientific American. Curry is a professor at Georgia
Tech, and a widely published and well-respected atmospheric scientist (at least in most circles).
Lemonick includes a section in his blog post titled "Is it Irresponsible to Discuss Curry's Views?" and he writes:
Some people see Curry as a whistleblower; others (including many climate scientists) think she’s a bit of a crank. . .
Simply by giving Judith Curry’s views a respectful airing, I’ve already drawn accusations of being irresponsible — and it’s valid to raise the question
of whether giving her any sort of platform is a bad idea.
Lemonick makes clear in his blog post that he doesn't think much of Curry's views and that he sides with her critics. But at the same time he offers some
subtle but good advice to the climate scientists who have been apparently lobbying him behind-the-scenes:
I also argue, as you’ll see in Scientific American, that the vehement reaction of climate scientists, while perfectly understandable, might be akin to the
violent reaction of the human immune system to some bacteria and viruses — a reaction that’s sometimes more damaging than the original microbe.
What are these guys so afraid of that they continue to seek to stage manage public debates? Lemonick doesn't name names and I am not aware of any climate
scientists who have gone public calling for the silencing of Judy Curry. So far that action is all behind-the-scenes. Have these guys learned
nothing? It seems that way.
Curry blogs here. You can judge for yourself if her views are irresponsible or should be silenced. (Roger Pielke
Jr.)
William Connolley, the climate propagandist-in-chief at Wikipedia, has been officially denied the right to edit articles related to the climate for half a
year.
I was somewhat skeptical about the results of this gesture but I still tried what it meant. The first action I took was to restore the section about the
ClimateGate and the tree reconstructions at the page about Keith Briffa because it's
clearly the most important section of that page that actually justifies why Keith Briffa deserves his own Wikipedia entry.
The section was quickly erased by a user called Stephan Schulz. He threatened me with some sanctions if I edited the article again and so did another jerk
called Tony Sidaway (a notorious transvestite and scientologist) - on my talk page.
This nasty scum never hesitates to spread lies about distinguished scientists - e.g. the NIPCC members - and blackmail everyone who is inconvenient for them.
What to call people who accept man-made climate change? A US magazine has come up with some odd suggestions, reports Geoffrey Lean.
What's in a name-call? In the great global warming slanging match, those accepting man-made climate change probably win on politeness, usually calling their
opponents "sceptics", though sometimes "deniers". Sceptics, on the other hand, retort with "warmists", when they're feeling
generous, "eco-Nazis" when they're not.
But now Grist, an American green web magazine, has been trying to find its own name for what it calls People who Care about Climate Change and Clean Energy (or
PCCCCEs). That's never going to catch on but, believe me, the scores of apparently serious suggestions for alternatives are almost all equally dire. What price
"decarboners", "balancers", "planeteers", "terranauts", "transitionists", "anthro-adaptors", or the
equally verbose "People for a Prosperous Future for the Next Generation"? Or the self righteous ("stewards", "saviours",
"concerned citizens", "the sane bunch", or even just "parents") and the weird ("earth angels", "lightbulb
heads", "neo-earthlings" and the Tolkienesque "Frodosapiens")? But I did rather warm to the "warmist" who suggested
substituting "hotties".
You'd have thought that they'd be better off without a special name: after all, they are in the majority. But Grist picked "climate hawks", though it
did somewhat spoil things by initially running a picture of a vulture. It cited Donald Rumsfeld, of all people – he defined a hawk as someone who "leans
forward", whatever that may mean – and decided the term evokes "a visceral sense of both peril and resolve". I suppose it might just resonate
in the US, but here, surely, it's for the birds. (Geoffrey Lean, TDT)
The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on Australians and Americans to join the world in celebrating Climate Fools Day on October 27th.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that Climate Fools Day was named by protestors outside the British House of Commons on 27th October 2008
when the house was debating the Climate Bill.
Forbes explained: “As the first October snow in 70 years blanketed the House (and a big swathe of Europe), MP’s droned on about the need to fight global
warming. “For six hours MP’s reassured one another about the desperate need to be the first government in the world to saddle its unfortunate people with a
burden estimated at £15 billion a year. As snow continued to blanket Westminster, only two MP’s questioned the huge cost and dubious benefits from the energy
taxes and green energy rorts they were imposing.”
Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth's climate, is a remarkably flexible ideology. Calling it "global warming"
for many years, advocates then renamed the crisis "climate change" after the unexpected cooling of global surface temperatures from 2002-2009. Last
month, John Holdren, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, urged everyone to start using the term "global climate disruption."
What's next -- "catastrophic climate calamity"? (Steve Goreham, American Thinker)
In order to get climate legislation passed, it is essential to exaggerate or fabricate crises. A good example is Australia, which is widely reported by the
MSM to be in an historic drought due to global warming.
The Australian
BOM shows about 3% of the country in drought over the last three years. Meaning that 97% of the country is not having a drought.
Now let’s look closer at the numbers. Over the last 12 months, Australian rainfall has been 125% of normal, with most of the country above normal.
Over the last 24 months, Australian rainfall has been 118% of normal, with most of the country above normal.
Over the last 36 months, Australian rainfall has been 110% of normal, with most of the country above normal.
How many more years will the press continue to lie about Australia? (Steven Goddard, Real Science)
German Weather Service meteorologist Christoph Hartmann writes what I think is a surprising essay on measuring precipitation, and the errors in doing so.
Indeed Hartmann says precipitation may be understated by up to 50%, or much more at some locations. (No Tricks Zone)
James Hansen and others say that we owe it to our Grandchildren to get this climate question right. Hansen says “Grandchildren” with a capital G when he
speaks of them so I will continue the practice. I mean, for PR purposes, Grandchildren with a capital letter outrank even Puppies with a capital letter, and I
can roll with that.
In any case Hansen got me to thinking about the world of 2050. Many, likely even most people reading this in 2010 will have Grandchildren in 2050. Heck, I
might have some myself. So I started to consider the world we will leave our Grandchildren in 2050.
In a recent post here on WUWT, Thomas Fuller floated a proposal that we adopt a couple
of degrees as the expected temperature rise over the century. He says in
the comments to his thread that Continue reading →
(WUWT)
The IPCC says that the expected change in temperature arising from a change in forcing is equal to the change in forcing times the climate sensitivity. The
IPCC provides values we can use to estimate the total human and natural forcing change since 1850. The IPCC also proves estimates for the climate sensitivity.
These can be multiplied to provide the IPCC expected temperature change since 1850. The value derived (best estimate per IPCC numbers = 1.4 °C warming since
1850) is twice the observed warming (HadCRUT best estimate = 0.7°C warming since 1850).
Recently I became puzzled by what seems to be a glaring discrepancy in the official IPCC numbers. The IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity is +3 [+2 to +4.5]
°C per doubling.
We also have the IPCC estimate of the change in forcing since 1750, in Watts per square metre (W m-2). The human contribution to that forcing is given by the
2007 IPCC Summary for policymakers as:
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high
confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to
+2.4] W m-2.
This represents the best estimate plus [lower and upper bounds].
A number of people have said Hey, in your previous post,
the missing forcing is going into the ocean, so it’s still “in the pipeline”. I had considered that, but it didn’t make sense. I’ve taken a closer
look, and it still doesn’t make sense.
According to the IPCC calculations in that post, about 0.7 W/m2 was missing. Let us assume that it is going into the ocean. Here’s my numbers, please check
them. The spreadsheet doing the calculations is here.
The temperatures in the arctic have indeed risen in recent years and ice has declined, bottoming out in 2007 but it is not unprecedented nor unexpected. The
arctic temperatures and arctic ice extent varies in a very predictable 60-70 year cycle that relates to ocean cycles which are likely driven by solar changes.
In 2007, NASA scientists reported that after years of research,
their team had assembled data showing that normal, decade-long changes in Arctic Ocean currents driven by a circulation known as the Arctic Oscillation was
largely responsible for the major Arctic climate shifts observed over the past several years. These periodic reversals in the ocean currents move warmer
and cooler water around to new places, greatly affecting the climate. The AO was at a record low level last winter explaining the record cold and snow in middle
latitudes. A strongly negative AO pushes the coldest air well south while temperatures in the polar regions are warmer than normal under blocking high pressure.
See post here.
We agree. And indeed both oceans play a role. In the record-setting (since satellite monitoring began in 1979) summer melt season of 2007, NSIDC noted the
importance of both oceans in the arctic ice.
“One prominent researcher, Igor Polyakov at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, points out that pulses of unusually warm water have been entering the
Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which several years later are seen in the ocean north of Siberia. These pulses of water are helping to heat the upper Arctic
Ocean, contributing to summer ice melt and helping to reduce winter ice growth.
Another scientist, Koji Shimada of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, reports evidence of changes in ocean circulation in the Pacific
side of the Arctic Ocean. Through a complex interaction with declining sea ice, warm water entering the Arctic Ocean through Bering Strait in summer is being
shunted from the Alaskan coast into the Arctic Ocean, where it fosters further ice loss. Many questions still remain to be answered, but these changes in ocean
circulation may be important keys for understanding the observed loss of Arctic sea ice.”
The Pacific warm mode favors more El Ninos and warmer water in the far northern Pacific including the Bering Straits. The PDO flipped into its warm mode in
1978 and the arctic temperatures began to warm and ice began to melt.
Frances et al. (GRL 2007) showed how the warming in the arctic and the melting ice was related to warm water (+3C) in the Barents Sea moving slowly into the
Siberian arctic and melting the ice. She also noted the positive feedback of changed “albedo” due to open water then further enhances the warming.
The International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks showed how arctic temperatures have cycled with intrusions of Atlantic water
- cold and warm.
See how quickly the arctic ice reacts to warming of the Atlantic sea surface temperatures in 1995 (source Cryosphere Today). This marked a second leg down.
We have seen large swings after the big dip in 2007 following a peak in Atlantic warmth in 2004-2005.
Although the PDO and AMO are measured differently, both reflect a tri-pole of ocean temperatures. Both have warm north and tropics and cool relative to
normal in between in the positive phase and cold north and tropics and warm in between in the negative phase. By normalizing the two data sets and then adding
the two, you get a measure of net warmth or cooling potential for both global and arctic temperatures. See how well the sum tracks with the arctic temperatures.
Though we don’t have measurements of ice extent, there are many stories and anecdotal evidence that arctic ice was in a major decline from the 1920s to 1940s.
Dr. Willie Soon has shown how the arctic temperatures match the solar Total Solar Irradiance (Hoyt/Schatten/Willson) well. Correlation is poor with CO2.
Though the current spike in the Atlantic temperatures and more high latitude blocking may cause another spike of melting in the next few winters as warm
water from the AMO pop the last year works its way into the arctic, longer term you can expect arctic temperatures to decline and ice to rebound as the Pacific
stays cold and the Atlantic cools and the sun stays in its 213 year Eddy minimum.
That doesn’t preclude some very cold and snowy winters short term. In 2008 glaciologist Bruce Molnia reported a bitterly cold Alaskan summer of 2008
following a La Nina winter with extreme cold and heavy snows resulted in area glaciers to expand, rather than shrink for the FIRST TIME IN RECORDED
HISTORY. Summer temperatures, which were some 3 degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain much longer, leading to the increase
in glacial mass for the first time in at least 250 years.
See PDF here. See Verity Jones recent post on the arctic data here. See more on glaciers and icecaps here. (Icecap)
The lingering ecological impact of BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster was highlighted again this weekend when the US Coast Guard said that an area of
discoloured water south of New Orleans could be oil from the spill.
Jeff Hall, spokesman for the Unified Area Command, said tests could determine if the suspected oil is from the BP spill, although there also appears to be an
algae bloom in the area that may account for some of the discolouration.
The Coast Guard sent two flights over the West Bay area near Venice, Louisiana, on Saturday. Two boats also went out to check the waters. Mr Hall said that
tests would be done today on water samples from an area where a marine investigator believes there is an algae bloom near Venice.
The area of discoloured water there was about 2.5 miles long and 300 yards wide. About 10 miles away, Mr Hall said, a crew spotted what appears "some kind
of silvery, weathered oil".
Six months after the BP oil spill started, the federal government maintains much of the oil is gone from the Gulf. But independent researchers say they are
discovering significant amounts of crude below the sea's surface, including on the ocean floor. They fear the oil that remains could harm species lower down the
food chain.
In recent weeks, local fishermen have reported seeing what they said appeared to be miles-long strings of weathered oil on the sea. (Associated Press)
The peak oil movement, now trying to turn itself into a pro-government-intervention political movement, draws the wrong conclusion by logically progressing from
the wrong assumption.
This post revisits this wrong assumption: fixity. From mineral fixity, it is concluded that every act of production and consumption leaves less
supply. In this Harold Hotelling world, costs must go up and prices
must go up….
But going from the natural science, perfect knowledge, hypothetical world to the real world, just the opposite is true. There is not a fixed supply,
known or unknown, from which extractions leave less supply for the future. Costs do not have to go up, and neither do prices.
Try answering this question to see how the peak oilers have it wrong for the business/economic real world. Do we have more or less oil today than when the
nation was founded in 1776? Does the world have more or less oil in 2010 than in 1910?
The natural-science answer is that in a physical sense, there is less oil today that then by the amount of extraction. But in a social science sense,
we have much more oil today than in 1776 or in 1910 because today’s supply is inventoried and produced from known reservoirs. The same promises to hold true
in the future in a consumer-driven, entrepreneur friendly world. [Read more →] (MasterResource)
KOOSKIA, Idaho — As U.S. Highway 12 hugs the serpentine banks of the Clearwater and Lochsa Rivers here, road signs bear the silhouettes of the 19th-century
explorers Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, with Mr. Lewis pointing off into the distance.
He is not pointing the way for big oil companies, says Lin Laughy, whose gravel driveway abuts the road.
But to Mr. Laughy’s dismay, international oil companies see this meandering, backcountry route as a road to riches. They are angling to use U.S. 12 to ship
gargantuan loads of equipment from Vancouver, Wash., to Montana and the tar sands of Alberta in Canada. The companies say the route would save time and money
and provide a vital economic boost to Montana and Idaho.
The problem, said Mr. Laughy, is that the proposed loads are so large — and would travel so slowly — that they would literally block the highway as they
rolled through. According to plans submitted to state regulators, some of the shipments would weigh more than 600,000 pounds, stand as tall as a three-story
building, stretch nearly two-thirds the length of a football field and occupy 24 feet side-to-side — the full width of U.S. 12’s two lanes for much of its
course through Idaho.
Mr. Laughy and his wife, Borg Hendrickson, have sued the state to stop the shipments by Imperial Oil and ConocoPhillips, arguing that the loads would threaten
the integrity of Idaho’s historic portion of U.S. 12, as well as the safety of communities that depend on it as the main road in and out of the area.
National environmental groups and climate change activists are supporting their efforts, seeing a broader opportunity to stall development of Canada’s oil
sands, which they denounce as a dirty source of energy. (NYT)
Rice University think tank will strategize on environmentally sound policies on oil, gas, coal
Rice University has created a Green Carbon Center to bring the benefits offered by oil, gas, coal, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and other energy sources
together in a way that will not only help ensure the world's energy future but also provide a means to recycle carbon dioxide into useful products. (Rice
University)
Spain's industry ministry said on Friday it planned to increase the minimum proportions of biofuels to be mixed with conventional fuels to 6.1 percent in
2013 from 5.83 percent in 2010.
The increase in requirements to mix biofuels with conventional fuels -- known as minimum blend -- will take place gradually, reaching 5.9 percent in 2011, and
6.0 percent in 2012, the ministry said in a statement.
The European Union wants renewable fuels to account for 10 percent of member states' transport fuel by 2020. (Reuters)
No sooner did I write a column about the world-wide protest movements against
wind projects than a press release landed, describing yet another protest to occur this Tuesday in Fergus, Ontario. The naked ambition of this one will be on
stark display, in the form of a re-enactment of Lady Godiva’s legendary ride through Coventry, England, centuries ago. The original Godiva (seen here in John Collier’s famous painting) protested
the oppressive taxation levied on her subjects by her husband, the Lord.
Legend has it that the nude ride by the virtuous Lady succeeded – her husband was shamed into lessening the burden on his subjects.
In hopes of repeating the original success, Tuesday’s Godiva promises to wear nothing but her long blond locks, to protest plans by German multinational wpd to erect wind turbines
in the area, the first of three proposed farms. Lady Godiva will lead a procession that will meet with wpd Canada Corporation officials.
A sneak peak at Tuesday’s steed can be found here. To see
the steed mounted, you are welcome to join the other 1,000 expected at the protest, beginning at 6:00 pm in the parking lot in front of Centre Wellington
Sportsplex, 550 Belsyde Ave E, Fergus. Map: http://bit.ly/bucZ9s.
In the 1980s, citizens in countries throughout the world organized to fight the nuclear plants that were being proposed for
their communities. It would become the largest environmental protest movement in history, and a successful one, with nuclear expansion plans all but killed
throughout the Western world. Nuclear plants were not only ruinously expensive, the leaders of the campaigns argued, but environmentally risky, unlike
conservation and renewable technologies such as wind power. The environmentalists’ success was all the more striking given nuclear power’s popularity before
the protests — its public approval exceeded 90%.
In the 2000s, citizens throughout the world are again organizing, this time in possibly greater numbers and against wind power, the very technology that many
saw as a desirable alternative to nuclear. Like nuclear in its early days, wind power enjoys great popular support — it is typically the public’s most
popular form of electricity generation. Also like nuclear power, that support is likely to quickly collapse, and for many of the same reasons. Read More » (Financial Post)
SINGAPORE - Malaria kills around 205,000 people in India each year, more than 13 times the estimate made by the World Health Organization, researchers said
on Thursday.
WHO, the public health arm of the United Nations, estimates that approximately 15,000 people a year die from malaria in India, and 100,000 adults worldwide.
The researchers called for both figures to be urgently revised so they do not hurt funding for prevention, rapid diagnosis and treatment.
"If you do not know the disease in any area, your requirement of drugs and all that (will not) be correct. Your control program will suffer, it's really
important to know these figures correctly," Vinod Sharma of India's National Institute of Malaria Research said in a telephone interview.
The new numbers would boost WHO's estimate of around 860,000 malaria deaths a year, most of whom are children under five, to more than a million, but WHO
disputed the analysis.
Sharma said WHO based its estimates on figures provided by governments and it would be important for governments to put in place reliable disease surveillance
systems. India detects only 1,000 malaria deaths each year, he added.
The study, led by Prabhat Jha of the Center for Global Health Research at the University of Toronto in Canada, was published in The Lancet medical journal.
The team sent field workers to 6,671 areas in India from 2001 to 2003 to interview families of 122,000 people who died.
The data suggested that about 205,000 people died from malaria in India each year - 55,000 young children, 30,000 children aged 5-14 and 120,000 people 15 and
older.
"If WHO estimates of malaria deaths in India or among adults worldwide are likely to be serious underestimates, this could substantially change disease
control strategies, particularly in the rural parts of states with high malaria burden," the researchers wrote. (Reuters)
New research finds two malaria mosquito strains could become immune to effects to control them
Two strains of Africa's most notorious malaria mosquito are evolving into new species, research has shown.
The discovery has implications for combating malaria, since it means the insects could become immune to control strategies.
Scientists studying the mosquito anopheles gambiae, which is chiefly responsible for spreading malaria in sub-Saharan Africa, found two strains were rapidly
diverging in their genetic make-up, despite appearing physically identical. (Press Association)
When EPA was founded in December of 1970, there was no shortage of serious environmental issues to tackle. Water pollution was symbolized by taconite
tailings being dumped into Lake Superior in Silver Bay, MN, and the travesty of fires on Ohio's Cuyahoga River—the most notable of which occurred on June 22,
1969. Air pollution was widespread, and many people remembered the killer smog that occurred in London in 1952, as well a stateside version in Donora, PA four
years earlier.
No doubt, remarkable progress has been made in cleaning up the environment, and EPA deserves the lion's share of the credit.
However, within the very DNA of the agency is a strong dose of chemophobia. Even though the "science" in Rachel Carson's Silent Spring has been
thoroughly debunked, her work is still cited with great reverence on EPA's website in "The Birth of EPA." Sadly, the tortured thoughts of Carson, an
embittered woman dying of breast cancer, would have been just that, until the agency banned DDT.
Cold comfort to the millions of Africans—who died from malaria as a direct result of this—that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find someone who
still thinks the banning was a good idea. (Michael D. Shaw, HND)
I generally concur with Shaw with one notable exception -- the EPA is Johnny-come-lately to environmental improvement and is responsible for
far more harm than good. Far from the EPA deserving "the lion's share of the credit" I consider them a complete and irredeemable disaster, a
misanthropic stain to be expunged from society.
The health care legislation that Congress enacted earlier this year, contrary to much of today’s overheated rhetoric, does many things right. But it does
almost nothing to reform medical malpractice laws. Lawmakers missed an important opportunity to shield from malpractice liability any doctors who followed
evidence-based guidelines in treating their patients.
As President Obama noted in his speech to the American Medical Association in June 2009, too many doctors order unnecessary tests and treatments only because
they believe it will protect them from a lawsuit. Instead, he said, “We need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, let doctors
focus on practicing medicine and encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines.”
Why does this matter? Right now, health care is more evidence-free than you might think. And even where evidence-based clinical guidelines exist, research
suggests that doctors follow them only about half of the time. One estimate suggests that it takes 17 years on average to incorporate new research findings into
widespread practice. As a result, any clinical guidelines that exist often have limited impact.
How might we encourage doctors to adopt new evidence more quickly? Malpractice reform could help — possibly a lot.
The academic literature tends to play down the role of medical liability laws in driving up health care costs. Doctors themselves, however, almost universally
state that malpractice statutes lead to extraneous testing and treatment. (Peter Orszag, NYT)
WASHINGTON - The H1N1 swine flu virus may be starting to mutate, and a slightly new form has begun to predominate in Australia, New Zealand and Singapore,
researchers reported on Thursday.
More study is needed to tell whether the new strain is more likely to kill patients and whether the current vaccine can protect against it completely, said Ian
Barr of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Reference and Research on Influenza in Melbourne, Australia and colleagues.
"However, it may represent the start of more dramatic antigenic drift of the pandemic influenza A(H1N1) viruses that may require a vaccine update sooner
than might have been expected," they wrote in the online publication Eurosurveillance.
It is possible it is both more deadly and also able to infect people who have been vaccinated, they said. (Reuters)
Oregon has boosted wind energy projects with a vengeance in recent years, adopting a renewable power standard and tax breaks that have helped spread wind
farms across the state's northern reaches and into eastern Oregon.
Now comes the Oregon Public Health office, which announced Thursday that it's embarking on a public health assessment of wind farms, kicking off with three
"listening sessions" next month in LaGrande, Pendleton and Arlington to hear residents' health concerns tied to the spinning blades.
The health issues are part of a broader backlash in Oregon and nationwide from critics who complain of negative impacts on scenery, property values, wildlife
and tourism.
The growing number of wind farms has led to more complaints about their health effects, said Sujata Joshi, an epidemiologist in the environmental public health
office. Health concerns raised to date focus on noise and vibration generated by the huge turbines. (Scott Learn, The Oregonian)
Chemicals known as oxygenated volatile organic compounds (oVOCs) affect environment, human health
October 21, 2010
Vegetation plays an unexpectedly large role in cleansing the atmosphere, a new study finds.
The research, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., uses observations, gene expression studies, and
computer modeling to show that deciduous plants absorb about a third more of a common class of air-polluting chemicals than previously thought.
The new study, results of which are being published this week in Science Express, was conducted with co-authors from the University of Northern Colorado and the
University of Arizona. It was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF), NCAR's sponsor.
"Plants clean our air to a greater extent than we had realized," says NCAR scientist Thomas Karl, the lead author. "They actively consume certain
types of air pollution." (NSF)
The Hollywood self-described "elite" are distributing the Ecoterrorist Media Awards (EMA) to each other. If your stomach is really strong, here is
18 minutes of some juicy stuff for you.
Please be careful when watching this video. If it makes you throw up, I apologize in advance. If you don't see any video, go to the individual page of this entry.
Needless to say, the abbreviation EMA was chosen to partially steal the fame of the Emmy: these green nuts are parasiting on the Emmy's achievements. They're
parasiting on many other things, too.
IN MOST intergovernmental conferences, the issues are not crucial or the agreements have been hammered out in advance. But the current diplomatic shindig,
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), breaks the mould on both counts. At stake is the future of the planet and a deal looks nearly impossible.
(Economist)
And so it begins. With all the shamelessness of a Goldman Sachser trading in his middle-aged wife for a hot, pouting twentysomething called Ivanka, the green
movement is ditching “Climate Change”. The newer, younger, sexier model’s name? Biodiversity. (James Delingpole)
Saving vulnerable indigenous crop diversity is key to developing crops in the future and promoting healthier diets
SYDNEY (22 October 2010)—Hoping to save the vulnerable varieties of bananas painted by the artist Paul Gauguin, rare coconuts, and 1,000 other unique
varieties of staple fruit and vegetable crops across the Pacific, crop specialists from nine islands have launched a major effort to preserve the indigenous
diversity of foods that are deemed critical to combating diet-related health problems.
"Through this project we will bring together 1,000 unique samples of Pacific crops for long-term conservation," said Dr. Mary Taylor, Manager of the
Centre for Pacific Crops and Trees (CePaCT) at the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). "Crop collections in the Pacific are very vulnerable; all
they need is a disease outbreak or a cyclone to destroy the entire collection. These collections are essential if we are going to maintain traditional Pacific
crops for future generations."
For example, only a few of the varieties of the orange- and yellow-fleshed Fe'i banana, famously painted by former Pacific island resident Gauguin, are still
found in farmers' fields. Studies by Dr. Lois Englberger from the Island Food Community of Pohnpei in the Federated States of Micronesia have shown that these
bananas are an excellent source of beta-carotene, essential for the production of vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency—causing blindness, greatly weakened immune
systems and even death in infants—is now common in parts of the Pacific. Good beta-carotene levels in the diet also help protect against non-communicable
diseases such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease that are now at epidemic rates throughout the Pacific Islands. (Burness Communications)
The New York Times’ editorial writers have apparently spent the last 11 months in a Rip Van Winkle-like state of unconsciousness when it comes to climate
change.
Monday‘s lead editorial, “In Climate Denial Again,” railed about the 19 of 20 or so
Republican Senate candidates who do not “accept the scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for global warming.” The Times contrasted those
deniers with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report, the group’s “most definitive statement on the human contribution to
climate change,” and a 2000 promise by George W. Bush to cap carbon dioxide emissions
But nowhere in the editorial did the Times recall Climategate or the other related global warming-related “gates” that the November 2009 scandal touched
off—all of which, no doubt, helped make skeptics of 95% of Republican Senate candidates. So here’s a quick recap of what happened over the past year to the
legendary scientific “consensus” on global warming.
Last November, a host of private and candid e-mails between climate alarmist-scientists stored at the University of East Anglia (UK) somehow made its way
into the public domain and history. Like a shot heard around the world, the e-mails instantaneously validated what the climate skeptics had been saying for more
than a decade about the alarmists — that they had cooked the books on global warming science and then conspired to silence and belittle their critics.
Most famously, the e-mails revealed that the alarmist community was aware and, indeed, even proud of the scientific fraud known as the “hockey stick” —
a graph purporting to show that global temperatures had been stable over the last millennium and then had spiked upwards during the 20th Century, impliedly due
to human activities. All this was expressed in an e-mail that featured the infamous Climategate phrase “Mike’s trick… to hide the decline.”
As it turns out, the reason a “trick” was needed to “hide the decline” was that, in reality, the hockey stick data used to show global temperatures
spiking during the 20th Century actually showed a decline in the later part of the 20th Century — the precise opposite phenomena that the alarmists claimed to
have occurred. But the inconvenient data was intentionally deleted and replaced with other, more cooperative data.
Perhaps the real significance of Climategate is that it opened the floodgates of pent-up global skepticism. Climategate was followed in rapid succession by
glacier-gate, rainforest-gate, Pachauri-gate and NASA-gate.
Glacier-gate exposed the much-repeated and IPCC-official falsehood that global warming was going to cause the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by
2035. This myth was used by Sen. John Kerry to whip up frenzy about Himalayan melting leading to regional water shortages and, ultimately, war between India and
Pakistan.
As it turns out though, there never was any scientific study or evidence that the glaciers were going anywhere soon. The IPCC claim about the glaciers was
based on a mere 1998 telephone interview with an obscure Indian scientist that was reported in the New Scientist magazine, which by the way, is not anywhere
close to a peer-reviewed science journal.
Amazon-gate involved another IPCC claim that global warming was going to destroy 40% of the Amazon rainforest. Once again the sourcing of the factoid was
dubious. It came from a report put together by the World Wildlife Fund, a radical green activist group. The report had not been independently peer-reviewed or
validated.
Glacier-gate and Amazon-gate opened up the IPCC and its chief Rajendra Pachauri to a great deal of criticism and made Pachauri vulnerable to inquiries about
his various conflicts of interest.
Though he positioned himself as the impartial head of the Nobel Peace prize winning IPCC, in reality Pachauri has had ties to many energy companies,
including companies that planned on profiting from carbon trading. Reminiscent of another major UN scandal — oil-for-food — Pachauri-gate helps explain how
glacier-gate and Amazon-gate happened.
The still ongoing NASA-gate involves the systematic distortion of global temperature readings by the U.S. government. As revealed by a team of skeptics
riding the Climategate wave, NASA researchers were exposed as improperly manipulating
temperature data to produce claims such as “2005 was the warmest year on record.”
The researchers showed how NASA had been gradually trimming the number of temperature stations (from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,000 now) and then
averaging temperature data in such a way as to produce synthetically warmer temperatures. The 2005-warmest-temperature-claim was, in fact, based on a
temperature “data base” that had no original temperature data.
A fascinating aspect the past year’s meltdown in climate alarmism is that most of the facts underlying the developments weren’t newly discovered — at
least to climate skeptics.
Glacier-gate, for example, was flagged at my web site JunkScience.com in 1998 when the claim was first made. The hockey stick had been publicly exposed and
debunked in 2006, including in congressional hearings and by the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council. NASA’s skewing of temperature data
was also a familiar topic of concern among skeptics.
Climategate was the straw that broke the alarmists’ back. The rapid-fire succession of glacier-gate, Amazon-gate and Pachauri-gate left global warming
alarmism reeling. It now seems that the deniers are those who insist that Climategate and its progeny have not smashed the public confidence in the 50-year-old
climate alarmism hypothesis.
But there is one lesson in physical science that the New York Times and its fellow alarmists will learn when they wake up from their stupor of denial — it
takes a lot less time to pop a bubble that it does to create one.
Mr. Milloy is the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com. His columns and op-ed pieces have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Financial
Times, and Los Angeles Times. He is the author of “Green Hell,” a
new book from Regnery Publishing.
Cap and trade legislation is dead. The left abandoned
the policy this summer when it became clear it was a liability. Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) told Politico:
“You can’t use cap and trade anymore because it is like manure on the trough. It’s defined, and people are opposed to it.” But that doesn’t mean the
left has abandoned plans to hike up our nation’s energy costs in a vain attempt to save the world. All they did was pick a new a set of government mandates
and repackage it as Renewable
Electricity Standards (RES). Don’t be fooled. The goal (reducing emissions) and mechanism (raising energy prices) are still the same. As is the result:
millions of lost jobs at a time when unemployment already is hovering around 10%.
Following the demise of cap and trade, a key initiative touted during his campaign, President Obama has admitted defeat on his proposed climate change legislation. Two main problems
exist. First America’s citizens are fearful of his plans to “fundamentally change America.” Then, the topic has been in the public debate for the two
years of attempted passage and people have come to see it as a hidden tax. At a time when the country is in an economic war, people know we can ill-afford
additional costs.
After Harry Reid announced that cap and trade is dead, the President has begun talking
about doing the same basic legislation in “chunks“-think bits and pieces that
will slip through unnoticed by…
This afternoon I attended an informative panel, “Saving the Polar Bear or Obama’s CO2 Agenda?,”
on how the Endangered Species Act is easily manipulated by environmentalist lawyers intent on gumming up economic activity. The panel was videotaped, so you can
see it for yourself at the Heritage Foundation’s website. If, however, you don’t have an
hour, then here are the highlights:
Robert Gordon of the Heritage Foundation cited the Iowa Pleistocene snail. Seemingly, the snail is a smashing success story. It was listed as an endangered
species in 1978, and after implementing protections, the snail recovered. Indeed, it far-exceeded the criteria first set out to de-list. Nonetheless, the Obama
administration upgraded its peril. Why? Because, the Obama administration says, the snail…
But that doesn't stop him from wanting to tell the rest of what to do.
Last March Cameron said he wanted to call the "deniers" out to a high noon debate and he even invited me to a debate in Aspen. Cameron kept putting
barriers in the way, but even when I agreed to all his conditions he bailed out at the last minute.
He may be scared to debate, but he is not scared to spend money so that others can hear about his opinions. And he is not afraid to spend money to tell
the rest of us we have to live with less.
Cameron has just given $1m to
help defeat California's Prop23 which will overturn the Global Warming Bill. If Cameron succeeds and Prop 23 is defeated energy bills will go up - prices will
increase and yet more jobs will flee the state.
Cameron has already told us that we are "going to have to live with less" but it seems that living for less is just for us and not for him.
Nothing has or will change in James Cameron's lifestyle.
To see just how much of a "Prop 23 hypocrite" James Cameron is watch the video.
A study conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies tested a sample of 2,030 Americans
from across the country on their knowledge of climate change. The results, which were announced last week, reveal that only 63 percent of Americans believe that
global warming is happening, with just 57 percent knowing the basics of the greenhouse effect. The results will be used to help various organizations, such as
museums or government agencies, plan better global warming outreach efforts, said Anthony Leiserowitz, the Director of the Yale Project on Climate Change and a
research scientist at the School of Forestry. (Yale Daily News)
There is more to communication of uncertainty than tone and content — the audience must also be considered, which brings us to the BBC. Like the IPCC, the BBC
is an easy target for critics, who leap on claimed examples of bias and errors of judgement. And, like the IPCC, the BBC has launched a review of its
procedures, in its case, the impartiality and accuracy of its science coverage. All radio, television and online content is under scrutiny, but it seems likely
that the review will address news coverage in particular, and, within that, climate change. (BBC insiders think that complaints from climate sceptics prompted
the review.)
The terms of reference for the review define science as “statements, research findings or other claims made by scientists”. In reality, perhaps the most
common complaint from scientists about the corporation's coverage of global warming is the exposure handed to sceptical non-scientists, such as former UK
chancellor Nigel Lawson. This is the source of the long-standing 'false balance' problem. The BBC Trust, which is running the review, should take a stricter
line here. If BBC staff want to use non-experts to criticize widely accepted science, they must explain this lack of expertise to the audience, and why the BBC
has invited them to participate. Too many of those responsible for news and current affairs at the BBC, and across other media, consider themselves primarily in
the entertainment business. It is generally not a lack of scientific understanding by reporters that produces poor science content, as often alleged, but that
straight news coverage of science is often thought to make for poor entertainment.
Nature misses a central point that the BBC appears to understand, specifically, that scientific debates are not ultimately about science, but embedded in
a broader political debate. The BBC's terms
of reference for the review states:
It will assess news and factual output that refers to scientific findings, particularly where the science is itself controversial and where it relates to public
policy and political controversy. "Science" in this context will be defined to include not just the natural sciences but also aspects of technology,
medicine and the environment that entail statements, research findings or other claims made by scientists.
By this definition, any claim made by a politician such as Lord Lawson is not "science." Rather it is politics, and politicians of all
persuasions invoke science to justify their political views. To expect that the BBC would add a disclaimer to any utterance by a non-scientist who invokes
science in political debate that calls attention to their qualifications to issue such an utterance is nonsensicle.
Now, when the BBC engages competing experts to address factual disputes, should the BBC be in the business of assessing their expertise? This too is
problematic.
Here is an example: Last February I appeared on BBC Newsnight with Chris
Field to discuss the IPCC's misrepresentation of the science of disasters and climate change. Should the BBC have pointed out to its audience that
Prof. Field, while widely respected in his own field, has absolutely no expertise in disasters and climate change and that his appearance on the show was simply
a function of his role as an official in the IPCC? In other words, he was there to mount a public relations defense, as he was not scientifically
qualified to actually engage the substance as an expert. Following Nature's logic the BBC should have warned its audience that there was only one
person in that debate who had published in the area being debated. Silly, huh?
The scientific community too often takes the public to be fools and characterizes the media as incompetent. The result of this orientation is to demand
that the public be protected from hearing certain views, with the gatekeepers the scientists themselves. As such debates are ultimately about politics,
such a role would place scientists in the authoritarian position of determining who gets to speak (or at least how those allowed to speak are portrayed) on
important public issues.
When politicians make political claims justified by appeals to science of any sort, a responsible media will evaluate those claims by calling upon relevant
experts. The role of the media is not to evaluate the legitimacy of politicians to participate in public debate based on the quality of their judgments
(if so, public debate might suddenly become very quiet;-). Arguably the media has erred on the side of not challenging certain claims made in political debate,
hence the current BBC review. Nature has little to complain about.
The scientific community, particularly as related to climate change, continues to struggle with an authoritarian impulse, characterized by continued efforts to
serve as gatekeepers to public debate and efforts to delegitimize views that they disagree
with. The reality is that public opinion on climate change is plenty strong enough for action (the UK has the strongest national legislation for
emissions reduction of any nation), and over the long term, the media has done a good job covering climate change. In fact, if the media has made mistakes
in the past, it has been in being too deferential to those in the scientific community who seek to limit debate and discussion. Nature's current
views represent steps back rather than forward. (Roger Pielke Jr.)
Expressing concern over implication of climate change, former US vice-president Al Gore today said more than 90 countries had recorded all time high
temperature this summer.
"We are seeing many consequences due to climate change... as a result more than 90 countries recorded all time high temperature this summer", he said.
He was delivering the key thematic oration titled 'Thinking Green' during the inauguration of 20th World Congress of the World Society of Cardio Thoracic
Surgeons. (ANI)
The signs of climate change were all over the Arctic this year -- warmer air, less sea ice, melting glaciers -- which probably means this weather-making
region will not return to its former, colder state, scientists reported on Thursday.
In an international assessment of the Arctic, scientists from the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark and other countries said, "Return to previous
Arctic conditions is unlikely." (Reuters)
A federal judge has ordered the Obama administration to review whether polar bears are endangered under US law.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan wants the Interior Department to clarify a decision by the administration of the former President George W. Bush that polar
bears were merely threatened rather than in imminent danger of extinction.
Dirk Kempthorne, the former Interior Secretary, said in May 2008 that the bears were on the way to extinction because global warming was causing the rapid
disappearance of the Arctic Sea ice upon which they depend. But he stopped short of declaring them endangered, which had it been declared would have increased
protections for the bear and make oil and gas exploration more difficult.
Along with the listing, Mr Kempthorne created a "special rule" stating that the Endangered Species Act would not be used to set climate policy or
limit greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and melting ice in the Arctic Ocean. (TDT)
Durwood Zaelke's emergency plan for tackling climate change ranges from the Montreal protocol to carbon-negative barbecues
Barbecues that remove CO2 from the air could play a role in the fight against climate change according to Durwood Zaelke, a leading expert on rapid responses to
global warming.
This year's outdoor cooking season might be over, but Zaelke suggested at last week's 10:10 talk that from next summer consumers should start demanding
barbecues that do their bit for the planet by generating rather than consuming charcoal – or biochar.
Zaelke's idea is based on a stove designed for use in the developing world by Rob Flanagan. The stove creates heat by turning wood or other biomass into
charcoal, a process that releases combustible gases.
Once the cooking is over, most of the carbon from the fuel remains in the stove in the form of charcoal. This can then be mixed in with soil, a process that
sequesters the carbon for thousands of years and boosts crop productivity. (Guardian)
Al Gore is nervous about a vote in California, aliens will save us from global warming and the awful truth about the cost of renewable energy hits home in
Spain, Germany and Australia. (Daily Bayonet)
A strengthening La Nina weather phenomenon will grip the United States this winter, bringing warmer, drier weather across the South and cooler, moist
conditions in the far northern and western parts of the country, government forecasters said on Thursday.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said a "moderate to strong" La Nina looks to become one of the strongest on record throughout the
winter -- making it the most dominant factor influencing weather across the country.
"I do believe that really the story of this winter is likely to be the dry conditions across the South," said Mike Halpert, deputy director of NOAA's
Climate Prediction Center.
"It's something we've seen very consistently with many of these La Ninas in the past," he told reporters, adding the dry weather could set the stage
for drought or near drought-like conditions early next year. (Reuters)
Hmm... ocean cycles phases are not in the same configuration as they have been while we have been observing the El Niño Southern
Oscillation. We really don't know what to expect but Australia has certainly been experiencing wetter than expected conditions. Will the American South
be dry this winter? Maybe... but predictions are really hard to make, especially about the future ;-)
In order to understand recent behavior of polar ice and have some visibility into the future, we need to look at it from an historical perspective. A good
place to start the investigation is Greenland, which is often described by official sources as experiencing a meltdown. The BBC has famously warned us "If
the ice cap were to completely disappear, global sea levels would rise by 6.5m (21 feet)."
The press release starts with the text [highlight added]
The United States and many other heavily populated countries face a growing threat of severe and prolonged drought in coming decades, according to a new
study by National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist Aiguo Dai. The detailed analysis concludes that warming temperatures associated with climate
change will likely create increasingly dry conditions across much of the globe in the next 30 years, possibly reaching a scale in some regions by the end of the
century that has rarely, if ever, been observed in modern times.
Using an ensemble of 22 computer climate models and a comprehensive index of drought conditions, as well as analyses of previously published
studies, the paper finds most of the Western Hemisphere, along with large parts of Eurasia, Africa, and Australia, may be at threat of extreme drought this
century.
In contrast, higher-latitude regions from Alaska to Scandinavia are likely to become more moist.
Dai cautioned that the findings are based on the best current projections of greenhouse gas emissions. What actually happens in coming decades will
depend on many factors, including actual future emissions of greenhouse gases as well as natural climate cycles such as El Niño.
The new findings appear this week as part of a longer review article in Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. The study was supported by
the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.
“This article reviews recent literature on drought of the last millennium, followed by an update on global aridity changes from 1950 to 2008. Projected
future aridity is presented based on recent studies and our analysis of model simulations. Dry periods lasting for years to decades have occurred many times
during the last millennium over, for example, North America, West Africa, and East Asia. These droughts were likely triggered by anomalous tropical sea surface
temperatures (SSTs), with La Niña-like SST anomalies leading to drought in North America, and El-Niño-like SSTs causing drought in East China.
Over Africa, the southward shift of the warmest SSTs in the Atlantic and warming in the Indian Ocean are responsible for the recent Sahel droughts. Local
feedbacks may enhance and prolong drought. Global aridity has increased substantially since the 1970s due to recent drying over Africa, southern Europe, East
and South Asia, and eastern Australia. Although El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), tropical Atlantic SSTs, and Asian monsoons have played a large role
in the recent drying, recent warming has increased atmospheric moisture demand and likely altered atmospheric circulation patterns, both contributing to the
drying. Climate models project increased aridity in the 21st century over most of Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East, most of the Americas,
Australia, and Southeast Asia. Regions like the United States have avoided prolonged droughts during the last 50 years due to natural climate variations, but
might see persistent droughts in the next 20–50 years. Future efforts to predict drought will depend on models’ ability to predict tropical SSTs.”
This UCAR press release and the article itself are not scientifically robust. Buried within this material are the significant cavaets:
1. “Dai cautioned that the findings are based on the best current projections of greenhouse gas emissions. What actually happens in
coming decades will depend on many factors, including actual future emissions of greenhouse gases as well as natural climate cycles such as El Niño.”
2. “Future efforts to predict drought will depend on models’ ability to predict tropical SSTs.”
In other words, there is NO way to assess the skill of these models are predicting drought as they have not yet shown any skill in SST
predictions on time scales longer than a season, nor natural climate cycles such as El Niño [or the PDO, the NAO, ect].
Funding of multi-decadal regional climate predictions by the National Science Foundation which cannot be
verified in terms of accuracy is not only a poor use of tax payer funds, but is misleading policymakers and others on the actual skill that exists in predicting
changes in the frequency of drought in the future. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Paleobotanical data for Africa are generally meager and uneven for the Cenozoic
The landscape of Central Africa 65 million years ago was a low-elevation tropical belt, but the jury is still out on whether the region's mammals browsed and
hunted beneath the canopy of a lush rainforest.
The scientific evidence for a tropical rainforest at that time is weak and far from convincing, says paleobotanist Bonnie F. Jacobs at Southern Methodist
University in Dallas.
Fossil pollen from Central and West Africa provide no definitive evidence for communities of rainforest trees at the beginning of the Cenozoic, says Jacobs, an
expert in the paleobotany of Africa soon after dinosaurs had gone extinct. It was the start of the age of mammals, and Africa was largely an island continent.
(Southern Methodist University)
My reaction to the ongoing refinery strikes and fuel depot blockades in France was probably best described as bewilderment, until it occurred to me that they
could have a significant effect on what consumers elsewhere pay for gasoline and diesel, including here in the US. [Read More] (Geoffrey Styles, ET)
Yesterday on this site I explained why a “Do
Nothing Congress on Ethanol Would Do a Lot of Good.” I also mentioned that today, a coalition of free market groups would be publishing an
open letter advising Congress to let the clock run out on tax favoritism and trade protection for corn ethanol.
The groups issuing the joint letter are the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), Freedom Action, the American Conservative Union, Freedom Works,
National Center for Public Policy Research, and National Taxpayers Union.
CEI’s press release appears below. It includes commentary by
yours truly on Obama Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s announcement of new biofuel initiatives at a press conference this morning, a link to the coalition
letter, and a link to video excerpts of a speech in 2006…
The government is offering more than $1.5 billion in assistance, from field to filling station, to bring next-generation biofuels to market, Agriculture
Secretary Tom Vilsack said on Thursday.
Vilsack said the aid would assure renewable fuel consumption reaches 36 billion gallons by 2022, with the bulk of it coming from non-food sources such as grass,
algae or woody plants. (Reuters)
At today’s press conference announcing new Obama administration biofuel initiatives (see here, here, and here), Ag
Secretary Tom Vilsack mentioned that USDA has a memorandum of understanding with
the Federal Aviation Administration to develop bio-based alternatives to jet fuel. Vilsack’s press release describes the MOU as follows:
The Secretary also announced jointly with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a five year agreement to develop aviation fuel from forest and crop
residues and other “green” feedstocks in order to decrease dependence on foreign oil and stabilize aviation fuel costs. Under the partnership, the agencies
will bring together their experience in research, policy analysis and air transportation sector dynamics to assess the availability of different kinds of
feedstocks that could be processed by…
London, Oct 20 (CTK) - Britain wastes billions of pounds on wind parks and solar panels because politicians do not dare to challenge scientists' exaggerated
claims about global warming, Czech President Vaclav Klaus said in an interview for yesterday's issue of British daily The Times.
Klaus said British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron makes a mistake when he says he will be heading the "greenest" government in history.
Klaus said Britain's planned investment of 100 billion pounds into seaside wind plants is exorbitantly high and will raise energy prices.
Klaus, whom The Times labels the highest-placed global warming sceptic in the world, said this is wasting Britain's as well as his money. (Prague Daily Monitor)
Converting acid rain chemicals into useful products
Power plants that burn fossil fuels remain the main source of electricity generation across the globe. Modern power plants have scrubbers to remove sulfur
compounds from their flue gases, which has helped reduce the problem of acid rain. Now, researchers in India have devised a way to convert the waste material
produced by the scrubbing process into value-added products. They describe details in the International Journal of Environment and Pollution. (Inderscience
Publishers)
Given that "acid rain" is another problem that wasn't then recovering some value is at least a step in the right direction.
Spain’s move to subsidize solar proved utterly unsustainable
Some foreign — and even domestic — solar equipment manufacturers are complaining that Ontario’s buy-local policies will
cost investment and jobs. It takes some gall to criticize dumb and damaging initiatives when your existence depends on them.
A group of photovoltaic producers — led by Japan’s Mitsubishi Electric Corp. — is complaining that to receive Ontario’s super-premium rates for solar
energy, projects must have a 60% local content. This, bleat the solar robber barons, is bad for the economy!
It’s Saturday. I’m testing a new solar powered vaccine refrigerator that uses ice packs rather than batteries to store energy and maintain cold
temperatures. This is a key component of the distribution chain for vaccines and part of a global effort to eradicate polio and other preventable diseases.
Solar energy is my passion, field of study, and occupation. It started when I was 13 years old, a time of the Arab oil embargo and gasoline lines at the
pump. Only later did I realize that the long lines were caused by misguided government price controls, not a tiring mineral-resource base.
Today, our government is again engaged in misguided energy activism, policies that mandate inappropriate solutions to real and imagined problems.
Such is the case with grid-tied solar panels, an energy alternative which fails to effectively address either energy security or environmental concerns.
Although unintended by state and federal lawmakers, preferences and mandates for political correct energies will ultimately stifle creativity and generate false
solutions to our energy dilemma.
Sunny Arizona–Cost-Prohibitive Solar
Solar Photovoltaic (PV) electric panels are far too expensive to provide a sustainable energy alternative to homes and businesses already connected to the
electric utility grid. The on-grid solar industry and associated jobs are artificial and only exist because of special government favor.
The solar industry today is a bubble ready to burst. It is similar in many ways to the housing market bubble created by easy mortgages enabled by government
favor. When the subsidies end, the solar bubble will burst, and much of the industry and jobs therein will vanish overnight. [Read more →] (MasterResource)
NEW YORK - The antibiotic-mocking MRSA bacteria seem to be thriving better in the US than in the UK, according to new government data.
They show Americans are more than six times as likely as Britons to contract the superbug in the community, although rates of hospital infections are about the
same.
"This is the first time we compared rates of MRSA bloodstream infections between US and England," said Dr. Fernanda Lessa, of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention in Atlanta. "So, the findings are new to us."
That's despite the fact that MRSA -- or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus -- was first discovered in the UK and didn't make it across the Atlantic
until several years later.
It is estimated that, in 2005, it caused severe infections in nearly 95,000 Americans, killing more than 18,500 of them.
According to the new government statistics, published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, about 29 per 100,000 people in the US contract a MRSA
bloodstream infection every year, compared to 11 Britons.
And when looking only at infections presumed to be acquired outside of hospitals, the difference was even bigger: 22 cases per 100,000 in the US and 3.5 in the
UK.
"It underlines once again that MRSA is a problem that we need to take more seriously," said journalist Maryn McKenna, who published a book, SUPERBUG,
about the bug earlier this year.
The question is, why the big difference?
The study tapped into data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the UK Health Protection Agency, and differences between the two
surveillance systems could be involved. (Reuters Health)
People who are struggling to lose weight should start paying for their supermarket shopping in cash, a new study suggests.
The diet tip stems from a study that found shoppers who used a credit or debit card to pay had more junk food in their trolleys than cash shoppers.
According to the report's authors, the pain of paying in cash can curb impulsive urges to buy treats.
"Credit card payments, in contrast, are relatively painless and weaken impulse control," they said.
The study, from the academics at America's Cornell and New York State universities, looked at the behaviour of 1,000 individuals shopping at the same store over
a period of six months.
Around half of the shopping trips involved cash payments, while the other half, which were larger, average spends, were paid for by card.
When paying for their groceries by card, shoppers spent significantly more on impulsive items classified as "vice products" than when they paid by
cash.
Meanwhile, the proportion of so-called "virtue products", or the essentials they set out for, remained the same. (Hazel Baker, Sky News Online)
Nevada and Hawaii researchers complete study of Kilauea health clinic records
RENO, Nev. – Kilauea Volcano on Hawaii’s big island has been erupting on its east rift since 1983. But, in March 2008, an additional eruption vent opened at
the volcano’s summit, resulting in about triple the amount of sulfur dioxide gas (SO2) emissions drifting to the local community of Ka’u, raising health
concerns over the risks associated with exposure to “vog,” as the islanders refer to this volcanic air pollution. (UNR)
Rice farmers could boost their yields by 50 percent with a new method that uses less water Oxfam America said on Wednesday as climate change and drought
threaten the staple crop.
Growing rice -- considered the major calorie source for about half the world's population -- is water-intensive, accounting for as much as one-third of the
planet's annual freshwater use, said Oxfam, a development group.
Rice farmers normally rely on flooding their fields to keep seeds covered in water throughout the growing season.
But the new method, known as the System of Rice Intensification, or SRI, involves planting seedlings farther apart, keeping fields moist instead of flooding
them, transplanting seedlings to fields earlier and weeding manually, Oxfam said in a report.
Farmers using SRI in parts of Africa, Southeast Asia and India have been able to produce as much as 50 percent more rice with less water, and often with less
labor, said the report, written with U.S.-based nonprofit Africare and the Worldwide Fund for Nature. (Reuters)
If approved by the California electorate in two weeks, Proposition 23 would suspend the implementation of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
("AB32") until the state unemployment rate declines to 5.5% or less for four consecutive quarters.
AB32 mandates a reduction in California greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, or about 25% to 30%. That goal can be achieved only by reducing
aggregate energy consumption in the state, and to a small extent by substituting "green" power in place of fossil fuels.
All government regulation creates economic effects, whether the regulations are beneficial on net or not. One central impact of AB32 will be on employment. If
that impact is small, then the argument in favor of Proposition 23 would be weakened. If the employment effect is large, then the opposite would be true.
A new statistical analysis published by the Pacific Research Institute casts considerable light on this question. In brief: Implementation of AB32 would reduce
annual employment growth by 1 percentage point between 2010 and 2020, and the employment loss in 2020 would equal about 5% of the working-age population.
(Benjamin Zycher, IBD)
Canadian provinces moving to cut their greenhouse gas emissions are facing a setback if California, a key partner, decides the battle against global warming
should wait for better economic times.
British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario plan to launch a carbon cap-and-trade market with California and New Mexico in 2012 -- a market scheduled to be joined
later by Manitoba and at least four additional U.S. states.
But Californians will vote in November on a ballot proposition to put the state's climate agenda on hold for years, and the Republican candidate in the
gubernatorial race promises a pause as well.
California is the political force behind the Western Climate Initiative, a group of U.S. states and Canadian provinces that plan to set up a carbon trading
market, and is by far the group's largest economy. So a step back by California would have both an economic and psychological impact.
"Losing California would be a major blow to the WCI and possibly to carbon trading systems elsewhere in North America ... and quite possibly to the
developing international carbon market," Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller's office warned in a report this week. (Reuters)
Good chance to kill or at least seriously weaken all this misanthropic crap. YES on Proposition 23!
Tesco Plc and Cambridge University will be among 5,000 U.K. organizations forced to pay 3.5 billion pounds ($5.5 billion) in fees for emitting carbon as part
of plans to balance the U.K. government budget.
The Treasury said today the money, generated from sales of Carbon Reduction Commitment permits sold to organizations ranging from supermarkets to hospitals and
universities, will go to the government instead of being redistributed back to the participants of the program.
“The big shock to U.K. industry will be the change in policy on the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme," Roman Webber, head of the U.K. energy practice at the
accountancy firm Deloitte LLP, said in a statement. This ‘‘may turn a previously revenue neutral scheme into a carbon tax." (Bloomberg)
As if anyone seriously thought politicians could resist the revenue stream from so ubiquitous a tax as one on energy... How naive could
people be?
Panel agrees new guidelines and management restructure, with Pachauri still at the helm.
It has been a hellish year for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its beleaguered chairman, economist Rajendra Pachauri.
In late 2009, as the world pored over e-mails taken from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, UK, the IPCC was rocked by
revelations about mistakes in its most recent climate assessment report. A storm of criticism over Pachauri's handling of the affair followed, along with
allegations of conflicts of interest that put him under intense pressure to quit.
At the end of the IPCC's plenary meeting last week in Busan, South Korea, however, Pachauri was still firmly in charge. No attempt was made to force him to step
down, says Ottmar Edenhofer, chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and co-chair of the IPCC's working group on
climate-change mitigation. But he is on notice, Edenhofer adds. "Governments made it very clear that they expect him to make changes," says Edenhofer
— both to improve the IPCC's climate assessments and to foster greater public and political confidence in its work. (Nature News)
Global warming may just be statistical fluctuations
By Václav Klaus
The global warming dispute starts with a doctrine which claims that the rough coexistence of climate changes, of growing
temperatures and of man-made increments of CO2 in the atmosphere — and what is more, only in a relatively short period of time — is a proof of a causal
relationship between these phenomena. To the best of my knowledge there is no such relationship between them. It is, nevertheless, this claim that forms the
basis for the doctrine of environmentalism.
It is not a new doctrine. It has existed under various headings and in various forms and manifestations for centuries, always based on the idea that the
starting point of our thinking should be the Earth, the planet or nature, not man or mankind. It has always been accompanied by the plan that we have to come
back to the original state of the Earth, unspoiled by us, humans. The adherents of this doctrine have always considered us, the people, a foreign element. They
forget that it doesn’t make sense to speak about the world without people because there would be no one to speak. If we take the reasoning of the
environmentalists seriously, we find that theirs is an anti-human ideology.
This blog entry is just a collection of links related to Václav Klaus's talk in the U.K. where he was invited by Nigel Lawson's and Benny Peiser's
foundation.
Professor Hal Lewis's resignation from the American Physical Society challenges the scientific — as opposed to the merely politically expedient — basis
of the "consensus" on global warming. (Charlie Martin, PJM)
Major programmes and projects to tackle climate change under the remit of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) were left largely untouched.
(Independent)
A newly published paper written by a University of Nebraska-Lincoln researcher and his team could influence the way scientists think about global warming and
its effects.
Researchers found that a major pulse of ancient global warming may have been more complex than scientists previously believed. This pulse of warming may have
been preceded or even caused by an earlier pulse of warming, said Ross Secord, assistant professor of Earth and atmospheric sciences and curator of vertebrate
paleontology at the University of Nebraska State Museum.
"That has implications for climate models designed to predict the consequences of future global warming," he said. (PhysOrg.com)
Models aren't and can't be designed to predict the consequences of future global warming for the simple reason we can not and probably never
will be able to predict future climate. Sheesh!
10/10/10 and 350.org based on urban legend, not science
"We are very energized and enthusiastic about millions of people coming together and making this the biggest day of climate action ever," said a young
German activist wearing a 350.org T-shirt at Berlin's 10/10/10 demonstrations on Sunday. Campaigners around her, and indeed, "people at 7,347 events in 188
countries," according to organizers, danced, sang, planted trees and picked up garbage as part of the massive worldwide 10/10/10 Global Work Party.
What's that all about? And what is so special about 350?
Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, explained: "It's the boundary condition for a habitable planet. We're already past it. We're at 390 parts per million
[of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere]. That's why the Arctic is melting. That's why Australia is burning up ... . If we put very much more carbon into the
atmosphere, we'll pass the kind of tipping points ... that mean we'll never be able to get back there, even if we stopped driving every car and powering every
factory. ...We're fighting to keep real collapse at bay."
Mr. McKibben asserts that only misguided "climate change deniers" disagree with the urgent need to reduce humanity's CO2 emissions to avoid climate
catastrophe.
But he is wrong.
First, no rational scientist denies that climate changes. As professor Tim Patterson of the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa
testified before a parliamentary committee, "Based on the paleoclimatic data I and others have collected, it's obvious that climate is and always has been
variable. In fact, the only constant about climate is change; it changes continually."
Scientists such as Mr. Patterson obviously would deny that they deny climate change - they are denial deniers.
If anyone could rationally be labeled a climate-change denier, it would be one of those who hold the absurd view that our climate was tranquil until we started
to emit significant amounts of CO2. (Tom Harris, The Washington Times)
WASHINGTON — The US Gulf Coast, battered by hurricanes and a devastating oil spill, faces cumulative losses of 350 billion dollars if it fails to address
the effects of climate change, a new study said Wednesday.
The joint research by insurance firm Swiss Re and energy company Energy Corporation warns that Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama face annual losses of
two to three percent of GDP by 2030 if they fail to act. (AFP)
Bear attacks have shot up in Japan this year and sightings of the animals have spiked, a trend blamed on climatic changes and shifting land use patterns,
officials and media reports said on Wednesday. (AFP)
WASHINGTON — A federal judge ordered the Obama administration on Wednesday to review whether polar bears, at risk because of global warming, are endangered
under U.S. law.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan wants the Interior Department to clarify a decision by the administration of former President George W. Bush that polar bears
were merely threatened rather than in imminent danger of extinction.
Sullivan's request, made at a hearing Wednesday in federal court, keeps in place the 2008 declaration by the Bush administration.
Former Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said in May 2008 that the bears were on the way to extinction because of the rapid disappearance of the Arctic Sea ice
upon which they depend. But he stopped short of declaring them endangered, which had it been declared would have increased protections for the bear and make oil
and gas exploration more difficult.
Scientists predict sea ice will continue to melt because of global warming.
Along with the listing, Kempthorne created a "special rule" stating that the Endangered Species Act would not be used to set climate policy or limit
greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and melting ice in the Arctic Ocean.
The Obama administration upheld the Bush-era policy, declaring that the endangered species law cannot be used to regulate greenhouse gases emitted by sources
outside of the polar bears' habitat. If the bears are found to be endangered, however, that could open the door to using the Endangered Species Act to regulate
greenhouse gases. (CP)
In our view, Daniel Greenberg's book review of 'The Climate Fix' by Roger Pielke Jr (Nature 467, 526–527; 2010) does a disservice to your readership by besmirching the
integrity of the climate-research community.
The relevance of Greenberg's minor interactions with the Marshall Institute to his review of my book is left for the reader to discern, but presumably it
disqualifies him from something. If Mann et al. want to actually comment on my book, there are far more direct ways of doing so. I suspect that a critique of a
review of my book is the closest that these activist scientists will get to actually engaging it.
In the letter, they also take issue with Greenberg's use of a quote from Steve Schneider. They fail to mention that my book presents the full quote as well as
Schneider's response. For some odd reason Nature did not point out to its readers all of the organizations that Mann, Ehrlich and Rahmstorf
have contributed to as speakers or report writers. That would just be silly, wouldn't it? (Roger Pielke Jr.)
Sea levels around the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic have risen since the mid nineteenth century and the rate of sea-level rise has accelerated over
recent decades, according to newly published research. The findings are as expected under global warming and consistent with observations elsewhere around the
globe. (NERC)
They do eventually get around to mentioning: "Longer-term data from the Falklands, and from many other locations, are needed to
establish whether the apparent acceleration in sea-level rise is due to increased global warming, or the result of some kind of decadal fluctuation."
Driving a car increases global temperatures in the long run more than making the same long-distance journey by air according to a new study. However, in the
short run travelling by air has a larger adverse climate impact because airplanes strongly affect short-lived warming processes at high altitudes. The study
appears in ACS' Environmental Science & Technology, a semi-weekly journal. (ACS)
Bangladesh and India are the countries most vulnerable to climate change, according to an index on Wednesday that rates the Nordic region least at risk.
British consultancy Maplecroft said its rankings showed that several "big economies of the future" in Asia were among those facing the biggest risks
from global warming in the next 30 years as were large parts of Africa. (Reuters)
It is true that significant cooling will harm low-income, population-dense countries far more than the relatively affluent developed
countries but that isn't what they are talking about here.
“Climate change policies currently focus on reducing the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, but pay limited attention to feedbacks between the
land surface and the climate system. Forests and woodlands play an important role in the climate system by buffering climate extremes, maintaining the
hydrological cycle and sequestering carbon. To reduce the potential impact of climate variability and change on society and the environment, therefore, requires
a broader focus of environmental sustainability and resilience that is underpinned by the restoration of feedbacks between vegetation and climate. We urge a
stronger integration of land use and climate change policies, a virtual halt to all deforestation, and an acceleration of investment in strategic reforestation,
especially in tropical and sub-tropical regions, supported by a comprehensive global forest monitoring program. Without these actions, the degradation of the
Earth’s ecosystems will continue exacerbated by, and exacerbating, variability and changes in temperature, precipitation and extreme weather events.”
The conclusion reads
“The role of terrestrial ecosystems, especially forests and woodlands, in the climate debate has predominantly focused on their potential for carbon
sequestration. We argue it is critical to adopt a broader perspective of the role of forests and other ecosystems in the climate debate, policies and actions.
This requires global and regional climate policies which recognise the climate regulation function that forests and woodlands play through moderating regional
climate variability, resisting abrupt change to existing climate regimes, as well as underpinning the hydrological cycle. This is especially important in the
tropics and subtropics. Failure to acknowledge and adopt this broader perspective on dealing with the problem of climate change will result in sub-optimal
solutions at the global scale and possible severe and irreversible damage at the regional scale.”
This is yet another paper that documents why we need a broader focus on the role of humans in the climate system than just the effects due to the
radiative effect of added CO2. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
U.S. environmental groups filed a suit on Wednesday against British-based oil giant BP Plc saying the world's worst offshore spill inflicted "ongoing
unlawful" harm on endangered wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico.
The suit is one of thousands of damages cases to stem from the spill from BP's blown-out undersea Macondo well, which between April and July dumped millions of
gallons (liters) of oil into the sea, fouling coastlines in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. The well was capped in mid-July.
But while the bulk of the cases have been brought by affected individuals, like fishermen, hoteliers and companies, this one brought by conservation groups
focuses on endangered sea turtles, whales, birds and Florida manatees.
The case was filed in federal court in Louisiana six months after the DeepWater Horizon rig explosion that triggered the spill. It says that these species were
harmed by the leaked oil but also that oil in the ocean continues to do them harm. (Reuters)
Study near Gulf of Mexico spill site finds surprisingly high methane uptake by microbes
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Oct. 20, 2010 -- Microbes living at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico may consume far more of the gaseous waste from the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill than previously thought, according to research carried out within 100 miles of the spill site.
A paper on that research, conducted before the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded six months ago today, will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal Deep-Sea
Research II. It describes the anaerobic oxidation of methane, a key component of the Gulf oil spill, by microbes living in seafloor brine pools.
"Because of the ample oil and gas reserves under the Gulf of Mexico, slow seepage is a natural part of the ecosystem," says Peter R. Girguis,
associate professor of organismic and evolutionary biology at Harvard University. "Entire communities have arisen on the seafloor that depend on these
seeps. Our analysis shows that within these communities, some microbes consume methane 10 to 100 times faster than we've previously realized." (Harvard)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears poised to approve a controversial TransCanada pipeline carrying tar-sands-based crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to
Texas despite pushback from House Democrats and environmental groups. (E2 Wire)
Research presented in Albuquerque looks at effect of captured and stored carbon dioxide on minerals
WASHINGTON, D.C., (Oct. 20, 2010) -- The capture and storage of carbon dioxide in deep geologic formations, a strategy for minimizing the impacts of greenhouse
gases on global warming, may currently be technologically feasible. But one key question that must be answered is the ability of subsurface materials to
maintain their integrity in the presence of supercritical carbon dioxide -- a fluid state in which the gas is condensed at high temperature and pressure into a
liquid. (AIP)
In a story today about the surging profits of Peabody Energy (a major American coal producer), Climatewire (subscription required) quoted Peabody Chairman
and CEO Gregory Boyce as saying that coal is entering a “demand super cycle” due to exploding Chinese growth. According to Mr. Boyce, “China now forecasts
that 290 gigawatts of coal-fueled generation will come online from 2011 to 2015.” He calls the demographic trends in China “overwhelming.”
Two quick snap responses:
There’s a silly meme being bandied about by the mainstream media that China is winning some sort of green energy great game with America. In fact, China is
building two coal fired power plants every three weeks, while in the U.S., environmentalist lawyers recently celebrated the scuttling of 100…
Congress has a rare opportunity to shave $25-30 billion from the national debt, ease consumers’ pain at the pump, and scale back political manipulation of
energy markets by literally doing nothing.
At the stroke of midnight on December 31 of this year, statutory authority for the 45¢ per gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) and the 54¢
per gallon tariff on imported ethanol will expire.
For economic, humanitarian, and environmental reasons, Congress should sit back and let the grim policy reaper sweep these special-interest giveaways into
history’s dustbin, as I explain this week on National Journal’s
Energy Blog.
Tomorrow, at the National Press Club, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will discuss the Obama Administration’s “strategy” to grow the biofuel
industry.
The EPA recently approved a 50% increase in ethanol blends for cars manufactured after 2006, moving from E10 to E15. This means that gas stations are now
free to offer E15 as well as E10 as options at the pump. It isn’t likely that many gas stations will be taking…
DRAMATIC growth in households installing rooftop solar panels is driving energy retailers to demand higher electricity prices.
Consumers have rushed to install photovoltaic panels to take advantage of the government's incentives - worth about $6200 for a typical household - and state
government subsidies.
The nation's biggest energy retailer, AGL Energy, this week applied to South Australia's pricing regulator to increase power bills by $7.58 per megawatt hour
next year - translating to an average of 3 per cent per bill - just to pass on the costs associated with the government's scheme to encourage household-level
renewables. The development will put further pressure on the Gillard government over its handling of climate change policy, with warnings that power prices are
surging because of the extension of "very expensive" renewables and state-based schemes in the absence of a carbon price. (Annabel Hepworth, The
Australian)
by Daren Bakst and Carlo Stagnaro
October 20, 2010
Several months ago, a study by
the anti-nuclear group North Carolina Waste Awareness Network (NC WARN) gained worldwide exposure by
concluding that solar power is cheaper today than nuclear power.
The New York Times ran an article highlighting the findings,
but the article was so criticized that the newspaper’s editors responded with what amounted to an apology.
NC WARN’s startling, untenable conclusion is the subject of this post, which is based on a longer paper.
The group’s central graph (Figure 1), which took the media hook, line, and sinker, shows a steep decreasing cost curve for solar over time
coupled with a pronounced increasing cost curve for nuclear.
Figure 1. Generation costs from solar and nuclear power according to Blackburn and Cunningham (2010).
But nuclear power is less, not more, expensive than solar power. It is also reliable, or in industry terms, dispatchable, which adds value that is
not reflected in simple cost comparisons.
Flawed Methodology
NC WARN estimates the cost of nuclear power by increasing the estimates from one single piece of literature (Cooper 2009). (We will discuss this later.) With
regard to the costs of solar power, they employ the following formula: [Read more →] (MasterResource)
Wind energy is the environmentalists’ great energy hope but two inconvenient truths seem to come between fantasy and reality. [Read More] (Tony Rose and Michael J. Economides, ET)
We Americans are often told we must end our “addiction” to oil and coal, because they harm the environment and Earth’s climate. “Ecologically
friendly” wind energy, some say, will generate 20% of America’s energy in another decade, greatly reducing carbon dioxide emissions and land use impacts
from mining and drilling.
These claims are a driving force behind the cap-tax-and-trade and renewable energy bills that Congress may try to ram through during a “lame duck” session
– as well as the Environmental Protection Agency’s economy-threatening regulations under its ruling that carbon dioxide “endangers human health and
welfare.”
It is true that we are commanded to be good stewards of the Earth and resources God gave us. We should conserve energy, use it wisely, and minimize harmful
impacts on lands and wildlife. But we also need to safeguard our health and that of our neighbors, preserve jobs, and help poor families build wealth and
improve their standard of living. I want all children, not just mine, to have a better future. (Pastor Jay Dennis, CFP)
RICHMOND - The first important decision in U.S. state lawsuits over federal healthcare reform will be announced in the next few months, a federal judge told
a hearing on Monday.
The case involves arguments over government power, taxes, and if President Barack Obama misled the American public.
Judge Henry Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Richmond said he would reach a decision "by the end of the year" in the
lawsuit Virginia filed over part of the health system overhaul that requires individuals to buy health insurance or pay a federal fine.
Virginia is suing because it passed its own law before the reform plan was approved prohibiting the U.S. government from compelling a citizen to buy insurance.
Both the state and the U.S. government plan to appeal if Hudson's decision is not in their favor.
"This court is just one brief stop on the way to the Supreme Court," Hudson said. (Reuters)
That's the title of my HND piece from 11 October. We're playing a bit of catch-up
here.
The article starts off as a follow-up to the previous week's effort
on obesity, and then takes a look at what happens when health care goes big time. For one thing, it has become disease care, not health care, since there's no
money in prevention, except for a few over-hyped diagnostics. Even then, it's a bit of a stretch to call that stuff "preventive."
Adding to the confusion is the apparent attitude that the best health care program is one that's free. Talk about cognitive dissonance. Is there anything
else in people's lives that is supposed to be so terribly important, yet no one wants to pay for it?
It's a wonder he didn't get sick of the taste first.
A Westchester man who says he ate 10 cans of tuna a week for nearly two years is suing Bumble Bee Foods for allegedly giving him mercury poisoning.
Lee Porrazzo of White Plains told The Post he and his roommate and workout partner, Roland Muccini, would make regular runs to the local Stop & Shop to load
up on cans of tuna fish thinking they were eating healthy.
"There was tuna in my diet every day, just about," Porrazzo said. "I thought it was the cleanest source of protein."
But the 48-year-old BMW salesman said he was soon plagued by a mystery malady that gave him chest pains and sent him to the hospital "believing he was
having a heart attack," according to his White Plains federal court suit.
He's blaming it on the canned tuna and wants unspecified damages for breach of warranty and negligence from the fish cannery. But he's also suing the
supermarket chain -- for putting the tuna on sale. (New York Post)
The numbers in the linked piece are immediately suspect:
mercury is filtered by your kidneys and excreted in urine and the normal test for mercury levels involves testing urine levels, not blood;
the population normal urine mercury content, including industrial workers and dentists exposed to higher mercury vapor levels, is below 10 micrograms/liter
(µg/l);
urinary output is concentrated about 10 times greater than blood levels which would make the cited "23 micrograms per liter, more than twice the
normal amount" about right for urinary content but mean levels are 1.1 µg/L in blood and 0.43 µg/L in serum, suggesting it is extremely likely
someone has confused the two results;
urinary output of 23 µg/l would not be considered unusual following elevated exposure or chelation with DMPS or DMSA ("provoked testing"
following administration of a mercury scavenger), nor would it indicate any form of health hazard.
This guy may not be feeling too well due to his bizarre and restricted diet but there is nothing at all here to wave any warning flags about mercury or tuna
fish. I respectfully suggest that rather than litigation Mr Porrazzo should try a balanced diet and a life.
WASHINGTON, D.C., (Oct. 19, 2010) -- In remote, rural areas of southwestern China, villagers cook and dry their clothes by burning pieces of coal they pick
up off the ground. This fuel releases a toxin that may be poisoning millions of people, according to an ongoing investigation by chemists at the University at
Buffalo in New York. The researchers are presenting their work today at the AVS 57th International Symposium & Exhibition, which takes place this week at
the Albuquerque Convention Center in New Mexico.
The toxin in question is fluoride, which binds to calcium in the human body and causes the disease fluorosis. This condition, which affects millions in China's
Guizhou province, can cause dental problems, such as discolored and pitted teeth, as well as joint pain, muscular degeneration, and deformities in joints and
the spine.
Worldwide, the most common source of excess fluoride is polluted water. But according to Joseph Gardella, a chemist at UB who has collaborated on a research
project with Professor Handong Liang of the China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing (CUMTB), polluted coal may also be to blame. (American Institute
of Physics)
You need to read the whole thing to find:
Yatzor's imaging showed that -- like purer coals burned by power plants -- the carbon in the coal itself contained little fluorine. However, the inorganic
clay used as an additive for coal-burning and as a binder in briquette-making by local residents showed very high levels of fluorine.
The scientists are still investigating exactly how this fluorine enters the human body. It might be inhaled in the particles produced when coal is burned in the
villagers' closed, ventless huts. It could also be ingested; preliminary analyses of food samples such as chilies and corn have shown high levels of the
toxin.
Not actually the coal at all then but the high fluorine clay soils of the region.
Long term exposure to low-level air pollution may increase the risk of severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to researcher s in
Denmark. While acute exposure of several days to high level air pollution was known to be a risk factor for exacerbation in pre-existing COPD, until now there
had been no studies linking long-term air pollution exposure to the development or progression of the disease. (American Thoracic Society)
Hmm... not sure they've got far with this one either. Guesstimated exposures and strongest association with preexisting conditions. Not
exactly a barn-burner.
ATLANTA — Nearly 17% of U.S. medical costs can be blamed on obesity, according to new research that suggests the nation's weight problem may be having
close to twice the impact on medical spending as previously estimated. (AP)
Eating no more than three pieces of meat a week could prevent around 45,000 early deaths and save the NHS £1.2 billion each year, according to new research.
(TDT)
Was this research brought to us by Peta, perchance, or maybe some other animal libber nutcases?
Chris Packham, the wildlife presenter, has called on world leaders to limit population growth in order to stop the mass extinction of species including
tigers and pandas. (TDT)
I'll only support population reduction if it begins (and ends) with the misanthropists.
The European Union announced plans on Tuesday to temporarily ban the use of animal cloning for food production, while allowing imports of food derived from
the offspring of clones from the United States and elsewhere.
The report from the European Commission followed a call by EU lawmakers in July for a total ban on food derived from cloned animals and their traditionally bred
offspring, citing ethical concerns over the industrial production of cloned meat. (Reuters)
CHURCHVILLE, VA—Green visionary, Dixon Despommier, of Columbia University has proposed growing our food in city high-rises, to cut food transport energy
use. The bad news is that city farming would be impossibly expensive—as it always has been. The good news: the high-rise farms will never be built.
Another project, the Sky-farm Project was proposed in 2007, as a 58-floor skyscraper that would produce as much food as an 800-acre farm! But the U.S. farms
more than 400 million acres of land—equal to 500,000 skyscraper farms! Those sky-towers would cost billions.
Cropland in Iowa costs an average of $6,000 per acre or about $5 million for an 800 acre farm. An acre or so of usable land In Manhattan might cost about the
same $5 million, but construction costs would be enormous.
Each floor of each high-rise would have to support either water-soaked soil or the water for hydroponic production. Ten thousand cubic feet of water per floor
would weigh 620,000 pounds. Two hundred people plus their office furniture might weigh only 40,000 pounds.
Replacing sunlight with “grow lights” would take an enormous amount of electricity. Bruce Bugbee, a crop physiologist at Utah State says “We’re talking
gigawatts of power, just huge amounts of power [to grow crops indoors] compared to free sunlight outside.” With glass walls, the winter heating would be
costly too.
What about city taxes. What about higher labor costs—or would the city folks volunteer to work free?
The proposed Sky-Farm was to produce fruit, vegetables, pigs and chickens. However, you couldn’t grow enough feed in greenhouse conditions to support more
than a few pigs or chickens, so you’d have to import most of their feed. Think about four pounds of grain for each pound of pork you harvest. Would it really
be less expensive to ship millions of tons of grain into downtown New York than to truck in some pork chops?
I wonder how New Yorkers would feel about having mid-town slaughterhouses. Would there be the irony of trucking in grain to raise chickens and hogs in mid-town,
trucking the creatures out of town to be slaughtered and processed, then trucking the meat back into town—all to save fuel?
The real irony is that transportation takes only about 3 percent of the energy used in providing our food. Diesel trains and ships are marvelously
energy-efficient. Even a well-laden diesel truck doesn’t use much more fuel than four autos. (CGFI)
It has been 25 years since West Virginia had an open Senate seat, so Monday night’s debate was a bit of a novelty for Mountain State voters. But the four
Senate hopefuls wasted little time in the hourlong debate to make the case that they should win the special election to fill remaining two years of the the late
Sen. Robert Byrd’s unexpired term in the Senate.
The match-up pitted West Virginia’s two-term governor, Joe Manchin, against businessman John Raese, a former head of the state Republican party making his
fourth attempt at statewide office in West Virginia. The two heavy-hitters were also joined by Jesse Johnson, the candidate from the Mountain Party who brought
an intellectual flair to the meet, and Jeff Beck, the Constitution Party candidate who called several times for the repeal of the 17th amendment, the amendment
that allows the general public to elect senators.
In the state that John McCain won by 13 points in 2008, Raese called repeatedly for a small federal government with few federal solutions. “What I want to do
in the United States Senate is to bring back the spirit of America, it’s called capitalism and free enterprise,” Raese said.
Manchin, on the other hand, spent much of the debate as he has spent much of the election so far — distancing himself from President Barack Obama and
Democrats in Washington.
“I will be independent, I have always been independent,” Manchin said. “When you see what’s happening in this country, I’m as mad as you are. When
[elected officials] put their parties first and they put their own ambitions before they put this country, that’s got to change.”
Manchin repeatedly rapped the president for his energy reform legislation, known as cap and trade, that would charge carbon emmitors (sic), especially
coal-fired power plants, for the carbon they release into the atmosphere. “It would be the ruin not only of this state but of the entire economy,” Manchin
said. “We need to mine every lump of coal we can. … That’s how we’re going to have a secure and a free nation.”
Raese agreed with Manchin on the potential dangers of the legislation for the state, but took his argument one step further by calling global warming “a
myth,” and adding that the idea that man causes global warming is also a myth. “I don’t believe in that myth,” Raese said. (US Political News)
SALINA, Kan. — Residents of this deeply conservative city do not put much stock in scientific predictions of climate change.
“Don’t mention global warming,” warned Nancy Jackson, chairwoman of the Climate and Energy Project, a small nonprofit group that aims to get people to
rein in the fossil fuel emissions that contribute to climate change. “And don’t mention Al Gore. People out here just hate him.”
Saving energy, though, is another matter.
Last Halloween, schoolchildren here searched for “vampire” electric loads, or appliances that sap energy even when they seem to be off. Energy-efficient LED
lights twinkled on the town’s Christmas tree. On Valentine’s Day, local restaurants left their dining room lights off and served meals by candlelight. (NYT)
Sad news for you, guys, candlelight ain't "cleaner energy". Efficiency is generally good but for the most part the "saving
energy" mantra is simply rationing in disguise.
California Treasure Bill Lockyer is retaliating against two Texas-based refiners that are supporting Proposition 23, the California ballot initiative to
rollback the state’s global warming law until unemployment (now at 12.4 percent) recedes to 5.5 percent.
… state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a former attorney general, urged the state’s largest public employee investment funds to divest themselves of Valero and
Tesoro stock.
Lockyer sent a letter to the public pension funds, known as CalPERS and CalSTRS, asking them to rid themselves of any stock connected to the refiners Valero
and Tesoro. Lockyer charged the companies with attempting to constrain gasoline supplies in California to ensure profits for years to come — and opposing the
state’s climate change law as a means to ensure that constraint.
“CalPERS and CalSTRS should not be investing in Texas oil companies that hurt the California economy, no more than they should invest in companies that
spend millions of shareholder dollars to undermine California’s environmental laws and the state’s green energy industries and green tech jobs,” Lockyer
wrote.
Lockyer, a board member at CalPERS, is expected to ask the board tomorrow to divest Valero and Tesoro holdings during a meeting.”
It was also reported to this blog that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who views the global warming law as his signature accomplishment, kept Chevron out of the
Proposition 23 battle by threatening the company with adverse tax measures.
A proposition is on the ballot to suspend California's green job initiatives until unemployment goes way down.
In order to satisfy the admonition that “California has to be a leader” — a rationale shallow even by the standards of political sloganeering — the
Golden State enacted in 2006 the Global Warming Solutions Act (“AB32”), mandating a reduction in purported greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
This obviously was a large prospective tax on conventional energy use. But even in the land of Hollywood fantasies and San Francisco nuttiness, people have to
work to live, suggesting strongly that the employment effects of this law would not prove salutary. Not to worry, said the proponents, prominent among them
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: California will be transformed as if by magic into a green economy, with green jobs replacing those lost with the decline in
conventional energy use.
Suffice it to say that this green jobs gambit is a con job. “Clean” energy is massively expensive and unreliable even apart from its own considerable
environmental problems. In short, it has to be subsidized heavily, a policy that is unsustainable beyond the near term, particularly for a state with budget
deficits so huge that the governor and other public officials now engage in an annual panhandling exercise in Washington. (Benjamin Zycher, PJM)
Millions of people around the globe have flocked to movie theatres to see director James Cameron’s hit films such as “Titanic” and “Avatar.” But in
order to have the money to pay for those movie tickets, viewers had to have a job. Such is the irony in Cameron’s latest political activity, which will
effectively kill jobs in California—the very state where Cameron resides, and home of the movie industry.
Over the weekend it was announced that Cameron is donating $1 million to California’s No on Proposition 23 campaign. Proposition 23 will suspend AB 32, the
“Global Warming Solutions Act” passed in 2006, until unemployment returns to 5.5% for one full year. In a state where unemployment tops 12.4 percent,
Proposition 23 makes perfect sense.
It’s estimated that suspending AB 32 will kill over 1.1 million jobs when it’s fully implemented. It will cost the average California family almost $4,000
in increases costs on food, utilities and transportation. Small businesses could face almost $50,000 in increased costs and fees—that’s at least one or more
employees’ salary that will be lost.
Suspending AB 32’s draconian, cumbersome environmental regulations until businesses can recover and start creating jobs again is the right thing to do for
California’s economy and its jobless citizens.
Unfortunately, Cameron and his hypocritical ilk don’t see it that way. (Meredith Turney, Townhall)
The ad warns that electricity costs will rise and jobs will be lost if the November ballot measure, which would suspend the state's global warming
regulations, loses.
Backers of Proposition 23, a November ballot initiative to suspend California's global warming regulations, launched a television campaign in Los Angeles on
Tuesday with a spot warning of higher electricity costs and job losses if the measure doesn't pass.
The Yes on 23 campaign, funded mainly by oil refiners, had been advertising in other parts of the state but has been off the air for a week.
"We are reloading," said Assemblyman Dan Logue (R- Marysville), a sponsor of the initiative, in confirming the TV buy.
Get breaking news alerts delivered to your mobile phone. Text BREAKING to 52669.
But the purchase of $2 million worth of TV spots in Los Angeles leaves the Yes campaign critically short of funds less than two weeks before the election. It
has spent most of the money in its campaign chest, while opponents are airing spots across the state attacking the measure.
Bill Day, a spokesman for Texas-based Valero Energy Corp., which donated $4 million of the $9 million raised by the Yes campaign, said he was unaware of any new
contributions planned.
"We don't have all that much money," he said. "Four million was a big commitment."
Any new donations to either side must be reported publicly to the California Secretary of State office within 24 hours of receipt.
Meanwhile, a total of $26.7 million has poured in from wealthy conservationists, national environmental groups and Silicon Valley technology executives to fight
the initiative, which is the most closely watched environmental issue on the November ballot in the nation. (Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times)
What happens when environmental fashion collides with a state’s desperate need for jobs and economic growth? That question will be put to the test when
Californians vote November 2 on a ballot measure that would suspend the Golden State’s cap-and-trade law until its unemployment rate falls below 5.5%. Today
the rate is 12.4%.
Proposition 23 is the number one national target of the green movement this election year. With the failure of cap and tax in Congress, the greens are trying
to hold onto this remnant of their anticarbon crusade. Both sides are spending heavily, and the polls show a close vote.
California’s climate change law (known as AB 32) mandates a 30% cut in carbon emissions from cars, trucks, utilities, agriculture and other businesses by
2020, with a web of new taxes and regulations that take effect in 2012. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger sees AB 32 as his crowning achievement and is assailing
supporters of Proposition 23 as “black oil hearts [who are] spending millions and millions of dollars” to promote their own “self-serving greed.”
In reality, dozens of industries support the initiative, and Arnold never mentions that much of the money to defeat Proposition 23 also comes from energy
companies. Alternative energy investors realize that without new taxes on carbon energy and mandates for “renewables” like wind and solar, so-called clean
energy sources can’t compete.
When AB 32 was signed in 2006, the California economy was flying high, the state unemployment rate was under 5%, and cap and trade seemed a fashionable
luxury the state could afford. Not anymore. Today there are 2.5 million unemployed Californians and the state’s finances are a wreck. AB 32 would make all of
this worse.
A 2009 study commissioned by the California Small Business Roundtable found that when fully implemented AB 32 would cost the state more than one million jobs
and “result in a higher cost to California households of $3,857 per year.” That’s more than the typical California family pays each year in federal income
tax. A new study by the Pacific Research Institute predicts job losses of 150,000 by 2012 and 1.3 million by 2020.
Environmentalists counter that “green jobs” will save the day, as if a million Californians will make windmills and solar panels. California already
leads the nation in regulations and subsidies to boost alternative energy, and it still has the third highest jobless rate in the nation.
Voters are also told the law would reduce the state’s carbon footprint and save the planet from global warming. Except it can’t and it won’t. No single
state -even one the size of California - can reduce global emissions by unilaterally taxing and regulating.a
Even the California Air Resources Board, which supports AB 32, acknowledged this when it said in March that “California acting alone cannot reduce
emissions sufficiently to change the course of climate change worldwide.” The real objective, they said, is to set an example to move federal and
international climate change legislation. But given that so many Democrats are now campaigning against cap and tax around the country, it’s highly unlikely
that Congress or many states will follow California.
The state’s own fiscal auditors admitted earlier this year that there will be economic “leakage” to other states and nations from AB 32, and that
California’s economy “will likely be adversely affected in the near term by implementing climate-related policies that are not adopted elsewhere.”
Most of this economic pain will be borne, not by wealthy liberals in Santa Barbara and San Francisco, but by middle class and poor Californians who work in
industries whose costs will rise. No wonder a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that Hispanics are the group most opposed to AB 32.
They seem to understand they will be first in line to get laid off when the law starts to bite.
With so much at stake, Prop. 23 ought to be a major issue in this year’s election campaign. Democratic candidates Jerry Brown (Governor) and Senator
Barbara Boxer both oppose Prop. 23, but GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is a fence-sitter. She calls cap and tax a job killer but favors only a one-year
suspension. GOP Senate candidate Carly Fiorina is a full-throated supporter of the initiative. With her usual charm, Ms. Boxer accuses her of being “in the
pocket of big oil” and “dirty coal.”
Proposition 23 faces an uphill fight against green moneyed interests, but its passage would give California a regulatory reprieve and save tens of thousands
of jobs. If it fails, Nevadans and Chinese will rejoice. Read more here.
Was it warmer in Virginia in 1781 than it is today, or has our capacity to cope been enhanced? In fact, climate does not determine our well-being.
Unfortunately, climate change policies might, and for the worse.
Major combat operations in the American Revolution ended 229 years ago on Oct. 19, at Yorktown. For that we can thank the fortitude of American forces under
George Washington, the siegecraft of French troops of Gen. Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, the count of Rochambeau – and the relentless bloodthirstiness of
female Anopheles quadrimaculatus mosquitoes.
Hopes are dim for a global agreement to help developing nations cut carbon emissions, so Mexico is relying on an imperfect blend of grants, loans and
ingenuity to meet self-imposed limits on greenhouse gases. (Reuters)
Norway's Prime Minister reaffirmed commitment on Tuesday to plans to capture and bury greenhouse gases despite delays and rising costs, saying he had no
regrets about once likening Oslo's ambitions to a "Moon landing."
Jens Stoltenberg said Norway was investing heavily in technology to capture carbon dioxide emitted by power plants burning fossil fuels as part of a plan to
combat climate change.
"I don't regret it," he says in a book launched on Tuesday, "Climate Paradox," when asked about a 2007 New Year speech in which he said
carbon capture and storage would be Norway's equivalent of a "Moon landing" to curb global warming.
Since then, key elements of the plan have been delayed and costs have risen both in Norway and abroad, dampening hopes for quick technological breakthroughs.
(Reuters)
Wasting so magnificent a resource as atmospheric carbon dioxide is criminally insane. Leave the biosphere asset where it is and let life on
Earth thrive.
19 October 2010 Last updated at 12:48 GMT
Press coverage has cast further doubt on climate scientists' claims that man-made global warming is real and adversely affecting the planet.
Polls show that the public are becoming increasingly confused about the issue. Adam Fleming reports.
LONDON, Oct 19 - Climate change is not a threat and the consequences of global warming will not be catastrophic, the President of the Czech Republic said on
Tuesday.
Vaclav Klaus is a vocal sceptic on the topic of global warming. He published a book in 2007 in which he said global warming had turned into a new religion, an
ideology that threatens to undermine freedom and the world's economic and social order.
"Global warming in the last 150 years was modest and future warming and its consequences will not be dangerous or catastrophic. It doesn't look like a
threat we should respond to," he told a lecture in London on Tuesday.
"I don't see empirical evidence of human-caused global warming. I see so many mistakes in the methodology of science and modelling," he added.
(Reuters)
Esteemed physicist Harold Lewis is calling global warming the 'most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen.' His resignation letter could mark the
unraveling of one of the great scientific mistakes in history and the beginning of a needed reformation of the scientific community. (Anthony Watts, CSM)
In late September 2010, five “scientists” wrote a turgid and prolix response to four straightforward pages of written scientific and economic testimony
that I had submitted in May 2010 to the Congress of the United States, and had presented at an oral hearing, at the request of the ranking minority member of
the House Global warming Committee.
The purely political character of what was superficially dressed up as a “scientific” response to my testimony may be gauged from the fact that the five
spent many months assembling their tedious and scientifically-regrettable document without having contacted either me or the great majority of the scientific
authorities I had cited before they circulated their tract to friendly news media and blog sites. This calculated furtiveness does not betoken honesty.
One of Britain’s top psychiatrists says being eco-friendly is good for our mental health. Is he bonkers?
Big news from 10:10: four of Britain’s top medical organisations have signed up for its campaign to cut carbon emissions by 10 per cent in 2010. And if you
thought that the people at 10:10 had a few emissions loose in the upper atmosphere, then you should hear what these top medical people are saying about climate
change. (Rob Lyons, spiked)
A judge's decision marks the third time the state has been told to examine possibly declaring the tiny mountain-dwelling mammal an endangered species. It
is the first animal in the lower 48 states to be considered for such listing solely because of climate change.
A judge in San Francisco on Tuesday ordered the state to reconsider — for the third time — whether to extend endangered species protection to the tiny
American pika, a mountain-dwelling mammal whose population may be declining because of climate change.
Superior Court Judge Peter Busch ordered the California Fish and Game Commission to review scientific data and determine whether the pika qualifies for listing
under the state endangered species law. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declined to list the species earlier this year.
The pika is the first animal in the lower 48 states to be considered for endangered listing solely because of climate change.
Jon K. Fischer, the commission's acting executive director, said the agency was still considering the legal implications of the ruling. (Julie Cart, Los Angeles
Times)
GISS is the only temperature index which shows significant warming since the year 2000. The animation below highlights the primary thing they are doing
wrong.
The blink comparator flashes between their 250
km (measured) and 1200
km (extrapolated) 2000-2009 trend maps. The region at the center of the green circle is showing 1-2 C of warming, even though the closest actual measurement
near Herschel Island shows no warming.
Their algorithm creates an imaginary hot spot at the North Pole (2-4 C based on no actual data within 800 km) and then weights it as heavily as a closer
measured temperature reading, in the next step.
They appear to be using at least two steps of extrapolation/interpolation – which compounds error. In other words, their entire 21st century warming story
is based on a defective interpretation of the Arctic. (Steven Goddard, Real Science)
BOULDER—The United States and many other heavily populated countries face a growing threat of severe and prolonged drought in coming decades, according to
a new study by National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist Aiguo Dai. The detailed analysis concludes that warming temperatures associated with
climate change will likely create increasingly dry conditions across much of the globe in the next 30 years, possibly reaching a scale in some regions by the
end of the century that has rarely, if ever, been observed in modern times.
Using an ensemble of 22 computer climate models and a comprehensive index of drought conditions, as well as analyses of previously published studies, the paper
finds most of the Western Hemisphere, along with large parts of Eurasia, Africa, and Australia, may be at threat of extreme drought this century. (NCAR/UCAR)
The authors, Robert Vautard, Julien Cattiaux, Pascal Yiou, Jean-Noël Thépaut & Philippe Ciais, have investigated winds in 5 most important countries in
the world - namely in the U.S., China, the Czech Republic, Australia, and the Netherlands. ;-)
And the speeds went down by 10% in 30 years, with a lot of messy disclaimers.
Have you ever met a cryptozoologist? Cryptozoologists study and search for animals which are considered to be legendary or otherwise nonexistent by
mainstream biologists. Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, the Loch Ness Monster are all favorite subjects of these “scientists.”
Cryptozoologists believe that the Loch Ness Monster may live in lochs (fiords or fjords) inland in the western half of Scotland. Loch Ness is one of many lochs
in western Scotland, so the famed monster may be found in a variety of different locations. In the eyes of some global warming alarmists, there is a potential
monster in Loch Sunart taking the form of a sediment core from the bottom that is capable of reconstructing the temperature history of the area over a long time
period, and characterized by a head that it much higher than its middle or tail. It seems that The Loch Sunart Monster may have a very interesting story to
tell. (WCR)
From CO2 Science Volume 13 Number 42: 20 October 2010
Subject Index Summary: Acclimation (Tree Species: Oak): Studies of oak trees have revealed a propensity
for them to exhibit sustained CO2
-induced growth increases over their entire lives.
Ocean Acidification Database:
The latest addition of peer-reviewed data archived to our database of marine organism responses to atmospheric CO2
enrichment is Blue Mussel [Mytilus edulis].
To access the entire database, click here.
Plant Growth Database:
Our latest results of plant growth responses to atmospheric CO2
enrichment obtained from experiments described in the peer-reviewed scientific literature are: Soybean (Ziska, 2010).
Medieval Warm Period Project:
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 889
individual scientists from 529 separate research
institutions in 43 different countries ... and
counting! This issue's Medieval Warm Period Record comes from Lake Toporowy Staw Nizni,
Tatra Mountains, Southern Poland. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database, click here.
(co2science.org)
Green Technology: Government Motors' all-electric car isn't all-electric and doesn't get near the touted hundreds of miles per gallon. Like
"shovel-ready" jobs, maybe there's no such thing as "plug-ready" cars either.
The Chevy Volt, hailed by the Obama administration as the electric savior of the auto industry and the planet, makes its debut in showrooms next month, but it's
already being rolled out for test drives by journalists. It appears we're all being taken for a ride.
When President Obama visited a GM plant in Hamtramck near Detroit a few months ago to drive a Chevy Volt 10 feet off an assembly line, we called the car an
"electric Edsel." Now that it's about to hit the road, nothing revealed has changed our mind. (IBD)
The term energy encompasses a plethora of technologies, and each attracts the gimlet eye of Big Brother.
In recent years environmental groups have been very successful in insinuating themselves into the halls of government so that today there is a revolving door
between government and the environmental movement. And it’s just like the revolving door between the government and other key industries, such as banking and
the military-industrial complex.
Government would have us believe that a new regulation is the result of some great, objective, and careful investigation. But mostly these regulations and
spending programs are foisted upon us by the people who only yesterday were nothing more than lobbyists for some fervently held cause. There has been no new
data, but yesterday’s lobbyists are today carrying the mantle of great authority and prestige because they have become high-level government bureaucrats.
Rent-Seeking
We economists call such lobbying “rent seeking” and those who engage in it are “rent seekers.” Rather than seeking the cooperation of other men in
the free market, a rent seeker lobbies government to impose some special privilege. The cost of the rent seeker’s efforts is greatly reduced because he need
convince only a few elected officials or government bureaucrats rather than the entire market. His job is made all the easier by the knowledge that the elected
official or government bureaucrat can grant the privilege with no cost to himself.
When a rent-seeker gets a job in government itself, well, the fox is in the henhouse. Officials move billions of dollars and coerce millions of people with
no responsibility whatsoever. If a program fails to achieve its grand design, no government official suffers the consequences. Furthermore, failed regulations
are seldom repealed, because, despite the net burden to the economy, a few new constituents do benefit and lobby mightily to keep them in place.
A Revolving-Door Lobbyist for the All-Electric Car
Such is the case, as recently reported by AP, of a lobbyist for an all-electric car.
“Leading the Charge” glorifies Mr. David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary for Policy and
International Affairs at the U.S. Department of Energ, and former EVP at the World Wildlife Fund, and an avid advocate for the all-electric car.
Hybrid cars usually recharge their batteries only while operating on their gasoline-powered engines, but Mr. Sandalow has converted his Toyota Prius hybrid into
a plug-in hybrid at the cost of $9,000. Now he can recharge his car’s battery from his home electrical outlet. [Read more →] (MasterResource)
The Obama administration wants to boost the amount of corn shoved into the gas tank of newer cars by 50 percent. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made
this happen on Wednesday by giving partial approval to E15, an automotive fuel blend containing 15 percent ethanol. This dirty deal will enrich the major
ethanol producers represented by Growth Energy while impoverishing taxpayers and anyone else who cares about clean air.
Technically, the agency only approved a waiver allowing the sale of E15 for vehicles from model year 2007 and later, but don't be fooled by this incremental
approach. The EPA is expected by November to adjust down the allowance to cars built after 2000. The current "allowance" for a 10-percent-ethanol fuel
blend, or E10, is no different from a mandate. Ninety percent of gasoline sold in the United States is E10, and in most areas of the country, real gasoline is
simply not available. It's not clear how multiple fuel pumps for older and newer cars would work in practice under this rule, but ethanol policy has never made
sense.
Congress and the George W. Bush administration enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which, in addition to banning incandescent light bulbs,
mandates the sale of 36 billion gallons of ethanol in 2022. That established a profitable market for producers by government fiat. The scheme also will drive up
grain and corn prices, benefiting farm states at the expense of consumers. (Washington Times)
German Vilimelis heard about Spain’s solar gold rush from his brother-in-law in 2007.
Across the plains around Lerida, the northeastern Spanish town where they spent weekends, farmers were turning over their fields to photovoltaic panels to
capitalize on government solar- energy subsidies. Vilimelis persuaded his father, Jaume, who made a living growing pears on 5 acres (2 hectares) of land in
Lerida, to turn over a portion of his farm for the project, Bloomberg Markets reported in its November issue.
Vilimelis, 35, a procurement manager for a consumer goods company, pooled his family savings and mortgaged his apartment to obtain a loan of more than 400,000
euros ($558,500) to cover the investment. Within nine months, the family’s 80-kilowatt generation unit -- 500 solar panels on seven racks angled toward the
sun -- was feeding power into the national grid.
Solar investors such as Vilimelis were lured by a 2007 law passed by the government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero that guaranteed producers a
so-called solar tariff of as much as 44 cents per kilowatt-hour for their electricity for 25 years -- more than 10 times the 2007 average wholesale price of
about 4 cents per kilowatt-hour paid to mainstream energy suppliers.
Thanks to the incentives, the family met the monthly cost of the loan and even earned a small profit. Once the debt was paid off in 2018, Vilimelis looked
forward to making even more money during the 15 additional years of subsidies guaranteed under Spanish law.
Now Vilimelis and more than 50,000 other Spanish solar entrepreneurs face financial disaster as the policy makers contemplate cutting the price guarantees that
attracted their investment in the first place. (Bloomberg)
Perth, Australia’s “city of light” got its nickname when it turned all its lights on in 1962 when John Glen orbited above. The city has become a newly
illuminated place of a different kind. [Read More] (Michael J. Economides, ET)
TransCanada Corp and Atco Ltd have abandoned plans to build a C$5 billion ($4.85 billion) dam on the Slave River in northern Alberta after a local native
group refused to back the project.
The planned dam was a run-of-river project that would have generated 1,200 to 1,300 megawatts of electricity from the Slave, an undeveloped river that carries
more that two-thirds of Alberta's waterflow north to Great Slave Lake in the Northwest Territories.
The project, first proposed two years ago, was still being studied, but the partners could not win the support of regional aboriginal groups. (Reuters)
WASHINGTON -- Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman said Tuesday that Congress should include nuclear power in any
requirement for utilities to tap more clean energy sources.
Lawmakers are weighing a renewable electricity standard, which would require utilities to get a minimum percentage of their power from sources such as wind,
solar and geothermal.
Whitman said in a telephone interview that she'd like to see it broadened to a "green" standard that includes nuclear power. She argued that renewable
sources alone won't be able to meet the country's growing energy needs. (Associated Press)
Forget "renewable energy" standards. And nukes should live or die on their merits rather than governments picking winning
technologies.
Taxpayers face paying billions of pounds to help clean up nuclear power plants to encourage private firms to build the next generation of power stations. (TDT)
UNEP
A recent U.N. biodiversity study said global environmental damage caused by human activity in 2008 totaled $6.6 trillion.
A U.N. biodiversity conference aims to address a simple problem: "We are destroying life on Earth," said the head of the U.N. Environment Program.
The world cannot afford to allow nature's riches to disappear, the United Nations said on Monday at the start of a major meeting to combat losses in animal and
plant species that underpin livelihoods and economies. The U.N. cited the worst extinction rate since the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago, saying it's a
crisis that needs to be addressed by governments, businesses and communities.
A U.N.-backed study this month said global environmental damage caused by human activity in 2008 totaled $6.6 trillion, equivalent to 11 percent of global gross
domestic product. (FoxNews.com)
I don't know about everyone else but I am heartily sick of all this bullshit. There is no ideal state for the planet, no optimum number or
variety of species. There is what there is exploiting whatever happens to be available at any given moment. Get over it.
The UN biodiversity convention meeting has opened with warnings that the ongoing loss of nature is hurting human societies as well as the natural world.
The two-week gathering aims to set new targets for conserving life on Earth. (BBC News)
Blotting out the sun has been the dream of many arch-villains, including The Simpson's Mr. Burns. Their schemes may soon be foiled by the United Nations'
Convention on Biological Diversity.
Super villains aren't the only ones who want to shade the Earth from the sun. Blocking some of the sun's rays could slow climate change by reducing the amount
of sunlight warming the Earth, say some researchers, such as Roger Angel of the University of Arizona.
The Convention may consider banning or limiting research into space sunshades. Some question their wisdom. A space sunshade would have a rapid effect on global
warming and provide time to develop more permanent measures, they say. The technique has already received serious attention from NASA and other organizations.
But others, such as the ETC group, an environmental and social advocacy group, fear simply blocking the sun is a bandage, meant to cover up the problem, and
allow humans to continue using fossils fuels. Another fear is that geoengineering, as techniques like this are called, could have unforeseen consequences on the
weather, ecosystem and agriculture. (Discovery News)
To a limited extent I agree with them -- I really don't want any fool trying to cool the Earth.
The world is gathered in Japan this week in an effort to put an end to the extinction of plant and animal species across the globe. But while everyone agrees
that biodiversity is important, the conference may fail anyway -- partially because the Americans don't seem interested. (Spiegel)
Last week a science journalist at The Guardian wrote the best summary I
have ever seen of the state of the profession known as “science communication”. Only, he thought it was a spoof. Well, it is — and it’s satirically
funny at the same time as being an unwittingly cutting commentary. (We laugh at the formulaic approach because we know it’s so true, and then we bang
our heads on the wall…).
Science journalists who churn out mindless ritual productions are effectively being PR and marketing writers. Dangerously, though, they are dressed as
“investigative” journalists. The public assumes they are checking that their stories don’t break laws of logic and reason, that they are
supported by evidence, and that they are providing the whole story. Their PR is the most powerful advertising there is, it’s not just free, it’s a
third party endorsement.
Ironically, the same journalists probably don’t realize how important they are. They think they’re there for a fluffy feelgood reasons: to help promote
science, raise public awareness, and attract school leavers into careers in science. They don’t realize that their most important role is to protect science
itself and be guardians of logic and reason in a world that isn’t so far from the stone age. Science Communicators ought to have been acting as back up
auditors on science itself — as a check and balance to notify the world of systemic failures: corruption and bias in funding, manipulation in peer review,
lost or withheld evidence. Journalists could have been the last official backstop against science being exploited, but instead of exposing the
corruption, they covered for it.
When the news-mag journos wonder why blogs are taking over, it’s because they left a vacuum. The bloggers came to fill it.
Science journalists could have saved the world billions of dollars of money that were wasted following a dead end. That’s money that could have been put
towards finding a cure for multiply resistant superbugs, creating better long range flood and storm forecasts, or just saving the hairy nosed wombat.
Rubber-stamping-PR-writers become unwitting tools of tyrants
Imagine if parts of the government wanted to use the good name of science to justify demands for money or power. The government, having buckets of money,
could pay for lots of scientists to do lots of fairly irrelevant, minor, repetitive or speculative research (modeling comes to mind). Then a steady stream of
press releases would spring forth, leading to a similarly steady stream of cut n’ paste PR, dressed as “reporting”.
Some smart sharks in the government twigged that through this round-about-method with obedient “journalists” they could buy a conduit to get their
favorite message repeated ad hoc, ad nauseum and ad infinitum. If the government wants a “scientific” message to back up their scare campaign and ask for
more public money, the starting point is to set up an institute to “report on a problem”. Obviously, no institute thus created would ever actually declare
“there’s no problem” (and “we should all go home”). It becomes a self fulfilling cycle with journos being the o-so-helpful tools to keep it running. More » (Jo Nova)
BRUSSELS - Imagine a child sitting in his classroom, gazing through the window at the rain. He picks up his pencil and chews distractedly on the eraser at
its top. Chemicals, classed in Europe as "toxic to reproduction," dissolve in his saliva and enter his body.
It's a scenario that may not be unusual. A report published last week by a consortium of 140 environment groups shows that potentially risky chemicals are
present in dozens of everyday plastic items for sale by European retailers - from shoes to erasers, from pencil cases to sex toys.
The study focused on a group of chemicals known as phthalates, six of which have been virtually banned in toys in the European Union since 1999 over fears they
can damage the sexual development of children. But as the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) found in its study, phthalates are present in items routinely used
by children and on sale in big supermarkets such as Carrefour and Tesco.
The study, based on a chemical analysis by PiCA, an independent chemical laboratory in Berlin, found one pink pencil case with levels three times those which
the EU says should be the maximum in toys and "childcare articles." A phthalate that scientists suspect may be particularly harmful to humans was
found in an eraser at a level close to that which would be banned in a toy.
Concerns about phthalates are not new, and retailers selling products containing them are not breaking the law, because the regulations do not cover objects
such as pencil cases and erasers.
But the EEB study also found that retailers appear to be ignoring a legal obligation to provide information about the presence of phthalates to shoppers. Less
than a quarter of retailers in its survey provided satisfactory answers to requests for information about chemicals in their products. (Reuters)
The media have a history of offering more heat than light on many issues. Recall publisher William Randolph Hearst's telegram to a photographer on assignment
to document the supposed conflict in Cuba in 1897: "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war."
In the heated debate over the use and effects of bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used in food packaging and hard plastic containers, Americans are being exposed
to a largely phony war.
BPA is a ubiquitous industrial chemical that for more than 50 years has been an important raw material in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics used in
consumer products including beverage containers, infant feeding bottles, plastic dinnerware and plastic storage containers.
BPA is also used in the lining of cans of food to prevent spoilage that can lead to bacterial contamination and the risk of botulism.
Numerous regulatory agencies in the U.S. and abroad have concluded repeatedly that BPA is safe as used and has not been shown to cause health problems in
adults, children, or unborn babies.
They regard the very few studies suggesting possible health concerns over BPA to be inconclusive and any such concerns to be overshadowed by the risk of
replacing BPA with unproven, untested — or even more dangerous — alternatives.
This is "comparative risk assessment" in the real world. (Henry I. Miller, IBD)
A recent study by the Manufacturer’s Alliance/MAPI finds that EPA’s proposed revision of
the “primary” (health-based) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone would have devastating economic impacts, such as:
Impose $1 trillion in annual compliance burdens on the economy between 2020 and 2030.
Reduce GDP by $687 billion in 2020 (3.5% below the baseline projection).
Reduce employment by 7.3 million jobs in 2020 (a figure equal to 4.3% of the projected labor force in 2020).
In a companion report, the Senate Republican Policy Committee estimates the job
losses and ”energy tax” burden (compliance cost + GDP reduction) each State will incur if EPA picks the most stringent ozone standard it is
considering.
The costs of tightening ozone standards are likely to overwhelm the benefits, if any, as Joel…
Modern parents are becoming increasingly protective of their kids, but where will it end? Photo: Stephen Baccon
Even though there is no evidence that it is more dangerous for children to go to the park or walk to school without adults, parents are increasingly wrapping
their offspring in cotton wool, a Perth study has found.
Children's mental development and health were also being threatened by their parents' fear of strangers, which was often cited as the reason parents did not let
children leave the home without supervision.
The research, exploring the role parental fear for their child's security plays in limiting their physical activity and independence, was undertaken by
University of Western Australia Assistant Professor Lisa Wood, in conjunction with the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research's Professor Stephen Zubrick.
Advertisement: Story continues below
It found that even though abduction, robbery, assault and homicide statistics had not risen substantially over the past 50 years, parents were more anxious not
only about what could happen to their children but also about how other parents perceived them. (SMH)
NEW YORK - After 50 years of loyal service, traditional CPR is being replaced by a new, bare-bones version of the life-saving emergency procedure.
Forget about yucky mouth-to-mouth contact -- the P in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) -- and get right down to pumping hard and fast on the chest, the
American Heart Association said on Monday,
That will keep oxygen-rich blood flowing to the brain until trained rescuers can take over.
"Chest compressions are the most important part of CPR," said Dr. Michael Sayre, a spokesman for the American Heart Association. "The major
change is switching to starting CPR with chest compressions rather than opening an airway and doing rescue breathing."
Only if a rescuer has been specifically trained in conventional CPR should they give rescue breathing as well, added Sayre, also of Ohio State University in
Columbus.
Recent studies have shown that CPR without rescue breathing works as well as or better than the full version in most people who suffer cardiac arrest. (Reuters
Health)
Professor of complementary medicine calls for adequate training for all acupuncture practitioners after survey reveals punctured hearts and lungs among
causes of death over past 45 years (Guardian)
Many Californians are concerned about the continuing economic viability of the Golden State, especially with the impending implementation of the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB (Assembly Bill) 32. The goal of the act
is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, through a program administered and enforced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Almost all economic modeling of GHG emissions regulations find that the costs of such programs outweigh their benefits. The estimates have come from a wide
spectrum of organizations, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Brookings Institution, consulting-firm
Charles River Associates, and others.
Contrary to the economic consensus, CARB has gone the other direction and argues that command-and-control and cap-and-trade will so increase the efficiency
of energy use that Californians will benefit substantially by 2020. But CARB’s self-interested study is flawed as a new study by economist Robert Michaels
explains.
CARB’s Suspect Economic Modeling
Recently, the San Francisco Chronicleexposed CARB’s overestimate of pollution from diesel
trucks of 340 percent, an error that has caused independent truckers to leave the business rather than bear the costs by CARB. And now Professor
Michaels of California State University, Fullerton (website here) explains
the many ways in which CARB’s economic modeling of AB 32 is fatally flawed and how CARB threatens California’s economic welfare:
There are no world climate benefits from AB 32. California’s greenhouse gas emissions are only 2 percent of global emissions, and its share is falling as
those from China and the developing world rapidly rise.
CARB’s results come from a computer model that is by its own admission unreal. In the model, it is mathematically impossible to have unemployment as high
as prevails today, and the model does not allow climate policy to change the rate at which unprofitable businesses close or leave the state.
To create benefits from costly command-and-control regulations, CARB assumes that Californians do not know best what works for their own lives, but that
CARB’s choices are economically superior—a heroic and unsupportable assumption.
CARB assumes its new automobile fuel economy regulation will help California drivers by artificially limiting automobile choices. This assumes that people
do not already consider fuel economy when buying a new car—again, another heroic and unsupportable assumption.
CARB assumes that its fuel economy regulations will cost “only” $1050 per vehicle in 2016 and $2,000 in 2020. Estimates by others are much higher.
According to CARB, the benefits of a low carbon fuel standard that reduces GHG emissions equal its costs. CARB, however, conveniently excludes over $6
billion per year in federal ethanol and biofuel subsidies from the costs.
Hidden in the “fine print” of CARB’s scoping plan is an admission that to meet the 2020 goals it will need to cut the number of passenger vehicles by
20 percent (while population grows by 12 percent), but the Board does not specify exactly how this will be done.
CARB misses obvious ways to reduce the world’s GHG emissions more cheaply than its own programs can do the job. Its recently-ordered renewable electricity
requirement increases will reduce GHG emissions, but at 7 times the cost per ton of simply buying European greenhouse gas permits and not using them.
CARB’s program will intrude on both big and small decisions. It will become active in land-use planning with a goal of increasing density and reducing
driving, and it has already issued detailed regulations requiring garages to offer all customers free tire pressure checks.
A Governor’s Executive Order (not yet law) wants to extend the program beyond 2020, so that emissions in 2050 are 20 percent of their 1990 values, and
CARB is already formulating plans that include a 40 percent reduction in private vehicles by 2030.
Conclusion
AB 32 started as “feel good” legislation that would set an example for other states and nations, few of which have actively followed it. But since its
passage, California’s unemployment has risen to 12 percent, and CARB’s claim that its policies will improve the lives of Californians becomes less
credible by the day.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and the actions of one state will not deter the rest of the United States and the world from chosing recovery and
development over its opposite. Professor Michaels’s analysis is a breath of fresh air in a very politicized debate, one that has been misinformed by CARB’s computer
model that cannot even give an accurate picture of today’s economy. (MasterResource)
Barring voter intervention, Californians will soon suffer under full-blown European-style energy policies. These include mandated greenhouse gas emission
reductions of a sort achieved to date only through economic collapse, and fantastic mandates for renewable energy that so far have caused economic hardship
elsewhere.
Oddly, despite these policies having been tried throughout Western Europe at great cost and for no discernible environmental benefit, Californians are told
their laws are the "world's first".
It is not because policies similar to those in Assembly Bill 32 have yet to be tried that you hear no shining examples of their success. The "world's
first" pretense is likely employed to avoid discussing the harm the policies have already caused elsewhere.
A similarly odd phrase, "California must be a leader," is now invoked against Proposition 23, the Nov. 2 ballot measure to delay these policies until
the state's economy significantly recovers.
Yet while promoting similar steps at the national level, President Barack Obama had serially directed Americans to examine several European experiments in
orchestrating the "green economy." Chief among his examples was Spain. Whether or not related to what I and two other researchers found after taking
this advice, Mr. Obama no longer directs Americans to gaze at our economic wonder.
In Spain we found that the economy, in fact, lost a net 2.2 jobs for every "green job" the state claimed credit for, just in an opportunity cost. That
is, the private sector creates jobs much more efficiently than the state – less expensively and dedicated to produce goods and services that people really
demand. We found the private section would have created that many more "real" jobs had the money not been removed and put toward politically divined
ends. Think "stimulus jobs."
A Power Point presentation leaked from the Spain's socialist Zapatero government earlier this year actually suggests that the loss in terms of jobs is currently
even higher.
In Spain we also found that green jobs mostly (9 out of 10) were temporary. That is, they are principally installation jobs. In Italy, researchers found that
4.8 jobs were lost for each green job created.
In Germany – another example frequently cited by Mr. Obama – researchers with the state-funded think tank RWI-Essen concluded that "Germany's promotion
of renewable energies is ... a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental
benefits." (Orange County Register)
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has to be smiling. With one exception, none of the Republicans running for the Senate — including the 20 or so with a
serious chance of winning — accept the scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for global warming.
The candidates are not simply rejecting solutions, like putting a price on carbon, though these, too, are demonized. They are re-running the strategy of denial
perfected by Mr. Cheney a decade ago, repudiating years of peer-reviewed findings about global warming and creating an alternative reality in which climate
change is a hoax or conspiracy.
Some candidates are emphatic in their denial, like the Nevada Republican Sharron Angle, who flatly rejects “the man-caused climate change mantra of the
left.” Others are merely wiggly, like California’s Carly Fiorina, who says, “I’m not sure.” Yet, over all (the exception being Mark Kirk in Illinois),
the Republicans are huddled around an amazingly dismissive view of climate change.
A few may genuinely believe global warming is a left-wing plot. Others may be singing the tune of corporate benefactors. And many Republicans have seized on the
cap-and-trade climate bill as another way to paint Democrats as out-of-control taxers. (NYT)
Sad to witness the decay of a once great publication. What an ignominious end, degenerating to the propaganda organ of watermelon
misanthropists...
Congress will not sit out the climate change debate next year -- even as regulatory battles play out at federal agencies, in the courts and at the state
level.
With Congress almost certain not to enact climate legislation this year, environmentalists and industry have shifted their attention to the courts and U.S. EPA
as it prepares to implement a rule next year to limit greenhouse gas emissions on stationary sources under the Clean Air Act.
But lawmakers will hardly be silent on the matter.
Opponents of EPA climate regulation will look to pre-empt any action by the courts or the agency through the legislative process, especially if the Republicans
take the majority in the House after the November election. Annual spending bills will be prime targets for lawmakers looking to slash at EPA's authority.
"Regardless of which party is the majority in the House or Senate, attacks on EPA authority to limit global warming will continue and intensify," said
Daniel Weiss, senior fellow and the director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. (Greenwire)
BEIJING — A dispute between China and the United States over Beijing’s subsidies to clean-energy industries escalated yesterday when a senior Chinese
economic official warned that Washington “cannot win this trade fight.’’
In an abruptly scheduled news briefing here, the official, Zhang Guobao, sharply rebuked the Obama administration for opening an inquiry on Friday into the
subsidies.
Zhang accused American trade officials of repeatedly delaying talks over the same issues the White House now wants to investigate and suggested the
administration is playing election-season politics.
“I have been thinking: What do the Americans want?’’ said Zhang, vice chairman of the government’s National Development and Reform Commission. “Do
they want fair trade? Or an earnest dialogue? Or transparent information? I don’t think they want any of this. I think more likely the Americans just want
votes.’’ (NYT)
Author worked on IPCC reports a decade prior to earning her PhD
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) press release issued last week talks about transparency and openness. But don’t be fooled. Preparation
of the 5th assessment report – known internally as AR5 – isn’t even fully underway, yet the organization is up to its old tricks.
Take a look at the Notes to Editors on the second page of the press release. This is supposed to be the
non-controversial stuff, the basic nuts and bolts. Instead, it’s spin, spin, spin. Here’s a sentence for you:
Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the IPCC reports.
Back in June, the IPCC
released the list of people who’ve been selected to work on AR5. It said that list contained 831 names – not thousands. But the situation is really
worse than that, since only those individuals assigned to Working Group 1 deal with hard science. (Working Group 2 speculates on how climate change might effect
our world. Working Group 3 discusses what might be done in response.) (No Consensus)
The European Environment Agency reported that Europe is on track to meet agreed-upon emissions reductions of 20% by 2020, having already reduced their
emissions by 17% from 1990 levels. A European Think-Tank, Policy Exchange, took a different perspective, noting
that during this time emissions from imported goods and services have increased by 40%.
The stringent emissions reductions policy in Europe has caused domestic emissions to be replaced by emissions from foreign imports. If your goal is a global
emissions reductions, then by this measure their policy has failed — while raising the price…
Climate policies that require public sacrifice and limiting economic growth are doomed to failure. To succeed, policies to reduce emissions must promise real
benefits and must help make clean energy cheaper. (Roger Pielke Jr.)
But the real issue is that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (under any of its aliases) is a completely fabricated problem. There is
absolutely no known advantage or reason to constrain carbon dioxide levels while there are obvious benefits in the use of carbon dense fuels.
Cap-and-trade's political death leaves room for new proposals on Capitol Hill.
In the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore told audience after audience that our climate was changing at a dangerous pace. At stake was our
"ability to live on planet Earth, to have a future as a civilization." And it was hard not to believe the man in a film labeled "the most
terrifying film you will ever see." But four years after the documentary's release, little has changed in the one place where change is supposed to happen:
Capitol Hill.
Why? Well, back in 2004, political strategists Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus provided an answer. Their much-debated essay, "The Death of
Environmentalism," argued that environmentalists are too often tone-deaf to political realities. Take cap-and-trade. It was long the holy grail of climate
change for activists yearning to rework the math on American energy bills by making coal, oil, and other earth-warming fuels more expensive. "Who cares . .
. if a cap-and-trade system is the most simple and elegant policy mechanism to increase demand for clean energy sources if it's a political loser?" they
wrote. (Newsweek)
These clowns don't get it still. Carbon constraint is a "solution" without a problem. It is all pain for absolutely no gain and
must never be done. How hard can it be for them to understand?
Was September 2010 the warmest September on the modern instrumental record? As Steve Milloy's table quickly reveals, it depends whom you ask: different teams offer strikingly divergent answers to this simple question.
While our skeptical soulmates, John Christy and Roy Spencer, at UAH AMSU
answer "Yes, September 2010 was our warmest September", and their satellite colleagues at RSS AMSU say the
same thing, the crusaders responsible for the global surface records say something entirely different.
There seems to be a lot of reverse logic about at the moment. It appeared in the recent
paper by Haigh et al concerning new observations made of the solar spectrum. When plugged into atmospheric models the researchers found that using spectrum
observations made between 2003 and 2007 (the declining phase of the recent solar cycle) they noticed that whilst the Ultra-Violet from the sun had decreased the
visible radiation had increased, causing a warming on Earth. Then the authors speculated that the reverse might be true, that is that if the visible radiation
decreases at solar maximum then the earth might cool.
In another recent paper by Andrew Lacis et al the same approach is used. The paper
claims to have proven that it is the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere that is the prime regulator for the Earth’s global temperature. They reached
this conclusion by using a computer climate model in which they removed all Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere and noticed it had a large effect. Basically the
world froze. They then concluded that adding a similar amount to the atmosphere must therefore also have a considerable effect but in the other direction, i.e.
warming.
Whilst one ponders the implications of that logic there was another aspect to the Lacis paper that made me wonder. (David Whitehouse, GWPF)
Global warming will wreak havoc on Canada’s infrastructure unless governments and individuals start adapting now, a panel of experts has told a Toronto
gathering.
“We have a real crisis,” said Paul Kovacs, executive director of the London, Ont.-based Institute for Catastrophic Loss told a meeting on the environment
held by the Royal Canadian Geological Society and the National Round Table on the Economy and the Environment.
“Some 60 per cent of our infrastructure is more than 40 years old. It wasn’t built for today’s weather or for tomorrow’s weather. Climate change is
adding to the challenge.” (Globe and Mail)
Agricultural crops in Britain may need to be moved to new areas as the threat of both drought and flooding rises in the coming decades, a report commissioned
by the Royal Agricultural Society of England said on Monday.
The report said climate change was expected to produce higher temperatures, drier summers and wetter winters across much of England. (Reuters)
which prompted me to consider the importance of non-replenished ground water on the atmospheric water vapor content when this deep water is
transfered to the surface and evaporates. Non-replenished water is called “fossil water“.
This is an important climate issue which seems to have been overlooked. The Economist article includes the text
“….. aquifers are still poorly understood. Until a UNESCO inventory in 2008, nobody knew even how many transboundary aquifers existed. Experts are
still refining the count: the American-Mexico border may include 8, 10, 18 or 20 aquifers, depending on how you measure them. Defining sustainability vexes
hydrologists too, particularly with ancient fossil aquifers that will inevitably run dry eventually. Estimates for the life of the Nubian sandstone aquifer
range from a century to a millennium.”
Fossil water or paleowater is groundwater that has remained sealed in an aquifer for a long period of time. Water can rest underground in “fossil
aquifers” for thousands or even millions of years. When changes in the surrounding geology seal the aquifer off from further replenishing from precipitation,
the water becomes trapped within, and is known as fossil water.
The Ogallala Aquifer and Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System are among the most notable of fossil water reserves. Fossil aquifers also exist in the Sahara, the
Kalahari, and the Great Artesian Basin. A further potential store of ancient water is Lake Vostok, a subglacial lake in Antarctica.
Fossil water is a non-renewable resource.[1] Whereas most aquifers are naturally replenished by infiltration of water from precipitation, fossil aquifers get
very little recharge.[2] The extraction of water from such non-replenishing groundwater reserves (known as low safe-yield reserves) is known in hydrology as
“water mining”.[3] If water is pumped from a well at a withdrawal rate that exceeds the natural recharge rate (which is very low or zero for a fossil
aquifer), the water table drops, forming a depression in the water levels around the well.[2] Water mining has been blamed for contributing to rising sea
levels.
An important climate question is the contribution of this fossil water, through irrigation, to local, regional and global transpiration and
evaporation from soils and other surfaces. This is a flux of water vapor into the atmosphere that would otherwise not occur.
Fossil water reservoirs can be quite large. For example, in the paper
“A study of water issuing from springs and wells scattered across the Sinai (Egypt) and the Negev (Israel) deserts has identified a great aquifer formed
during the last glacial age. Satellite photographs of the region reveal surface characteristics consistent with subterranean geology that could support an
aquifer. Carbon-14 dating puts the age of the water from springs and wells at 20,000 to 30,000 yr. The ages determined from C-14 dating agree with results of
hydrological flow models. Water samples from the ‘ Ayun Musa, from the abandoned oil-exploration well dug into the Nubian sandstone layer in Nakhel and from
the artesian wells in the Nubian sandstone layer near the Dead Sea all have the same relative amounts of deuterium and oxygen-18. The chemical and isotopic
studies in conjunction with archaeological evidence suggest that the aquifer holds rainwater that was trapped during the most recent ice age. It has
been calculated that the Nubian sandstone aquifer under the Sinai and the Negev holds 200 billion cu m of water, 70 billion cu m of which is under the
Negev. Agricultural settlements in the Negev demonstrate that the water is low enough in salt content to be suitable for irrigation.”
Recently, there was a report of the Libyan government’s program to ultilize fossil water for irrigation;
The Libyan government says the 26-year project has cost $19.58 billion. Nearing completion, the Great Man-Made River is the largest irrigation project in the
world and the government says it intends to use it to develop 160,000 hectares (395,000 acres) of farmland. It is also the cheapest available option to irrigate
fields in the water-scarce country, which has an average annual rainfall of about one inch.
I have asked my colleague, Faisal Hossain at Tennessee Tech University ,who is an internationally
well-respected hydrologist about this issue, and he replied that, based on the paper
that globally about 60% of irrigation water is from ground water, but the fraction that is from fossil water does not appear to have yet been assessed.
Professor Hoassin reminded me that the paper
[UPDATED PM Oct 18 2010 to correct citation and with edits in the associated text]
claims that groundwater in the Midwest from the Ogallala Aquifer (much of which is fossil water) doubled its contribution in terms of evaporation
in the 20th century.
There is another paper on the role of irrigation in the global climate. It is
Among the recommendations in the Puma et al (2010) paper is
“Future efforts to understand irrigation in a climate model setting should not only carefully document the amount of irrigation water applied to the land,
but also keep track of the relative amounts of surface water and groundwater used for irrigation.”
“Past land use changes have greatly impacted global water resources…… Since the 1950s, irrigated agriculture has expanded globally by 174%, accounting
for ~90% of global freshwater consumption. ….. Long time lags (decades to centuries) between land use changes and system response (e.g., recharge,
streamflow, and water quality), particularly in semiarid regions, mean that the full impact of land use changes has not been realized in many areas and
remediation to reverse impacts will also take a long time…….”
We recommend an extension to these studies. Particularly, that ground water be further broken into
replenishable ground water and fossil water, and an assessment of the local, regional and global contribution of fossil water used for irrigation to the
transfer of water vapor into the atmosphere.
Fossil water, as with fossil fuels, involves the insertion of a climate forcing into the atmosphere due to
human activities of a gas (in this case additional water vapor) which would otherwise not be there. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate
Science)
With seven-tenths of the planet water covered I'm not very excited about fossil water's contribution to atmospheric water load but it
certainly has some bearing on net sea level rise.
Funding is half the sum originally requested but allays fears the coalition would drop costly commitment altogether
The energy secretary, Chris Huhne, has won a battle to secure £1bn from the Treasury to pay for the development of demonstration technology to capture and bury
carbon emissions from power plants.
Although only half the sum requested by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc), it allays environmentalists' fears that the coalition would drop the
costly commitment altogether. (Guardian)
They should drop it altogether because it is all cost, both environmental and financial, with no benefit whatsoever.
CHINESE power generators face what is in effect a carbon price eight times higher than Australian producers, and British companies pay 17 times more,
according to a world-first study that challenges the argument a carbon price would penalise Australian industry while international competitors continue to
pollute without penalty.
The analysis, which calculated the total cost of taxes, regulations and subsidies to reduce CO2 emissions in six countries, found Australia was lagging rather
than ''leading the world'' on a carbon price. On an international comparison, Australian electricity producers face extremely low charges. (SMH)
And yet Australian energy prices are far too high compared to actual generation costs and additional carbon pricing is taxation totally
devoid of benefit or purpose. Come on Australia, lead the world to sanity and get rid of energy taxation altogether.
Regular readers will be aware of my analysis of the decarbonization implications of various emissions reduction targets in Australia. That paper has
now been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science & Policy. You can download a copy of the updated,
pre-pub version which has been accepted for publication here. As
always, comments welcomed.
The Australia paper is the third such analysis, following studies of the United Kingdom and Japan. These cases, as well as several others, are a focus of Chapter 4 in The Climate Fix, which also looks at other countries and offers a global perspective.
(Roger Pielke Jr.)
HOUSEHOLDS are dumping expensive green power deals as electricity costs go through the roof.
Almost 140,000 homes nationwide abandoned the contracts in the past year.
The backlash comes as new research suggests some retailers are overcharging for green power arrangements.
A study by energy comparison site switchwise.com.au reveals an average home can pay up to $245 more for a full green power plan, depending on the chosen green
supplier.
"Some customers are definitely paying too much and are being exploited," Switchwise founder Shaun Johnson said.
Under the deals, consumers typically agree to pay $150 to $400 a year more for electricity in exchange for companies buying back the same amount of consumption
from renewable sources such as wind and solar power.
The renewable energy is then fed into the national grid in a bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Customers on GreenPower are still mostly supplied with coal-fired electricity.
Data from the National GreenPower Accreditation Program reveals the number of households subscribed to the scheme shrunk 15 per cent to 802,619 in the past
year.
Victoria has the nation's biggest number of GreenPower customers at almost 280,000, or 12 per cent of households, despite a loss of 71,000 in the past year.
Mr Johnson said many opted out of the plans after the collapse of retailer Jackgreen last November.
"Consumers appear to be less willing to pay a premium after seeing their power bills rise by over 20 per cent in the last two years," he said.
"As green as you want to be, people also want to save money." (Herald Sun)
The British government said on Monday nuclear power reactor designs from developer Westinghouse and French EDF and Areva were necessary for building new
plants in Britain.
Minister for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne also reiterated the government's promise not to support construction of new nuclear power stations through
public funding.
"This means that there will be no levy, direct payment or market support for electricity supplied or capacity provided by a private sector new nuclear
operator," Huhne said, announcing the National Policy Statement in the British Parliament. (Reuters)
In the face of so many daunting near-term challenges, U.S. government and industry are letting the crucial strategic issues of U.S. competitiveness slip
below the surface. Five years ago, the National Academies prepared Rising Above the Gathering Storm, a book that cautioned: "Without a renewed effort to
bolster the foundations of our competitiveness, we can expect to lose our privileged position." Since that time we find ourselves in a country where much
has changed--and a great deal has not changed.
So where does America stand relative to its position of five years ago when the Gathering Storm book was prepared? The unanimous view of the authors is that our
nation's outlook has worsened. The present volume, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited, explores the tipping point America now faces. Addressing
America's competitiveness challenge will require many years if not decades; however, the requisite federal funding of much of that effort is about to terminate.
Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited provides a snapshot of the work of the government and the private sector in the past five years, analyzing how the
original recommendations have or have not been acted upon, what consequences this may have on future competitiveness, and priorities going forward. In addition,
readers will find a series of thought- and discussion-provoking factoids--many of them alarming--about the state of science and innovation in America.
Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited is a wake-up call. To reverse the foreboding outlook will require a sustained commitment by both individual citizens
and government officials--at all levels. This book, together with the original Gathering Storm volume, provides the roadmap to meet that goal. While this book
is essential for policy makers, anyone concerned with the future of innovation, competitiveness, and the standard of living in the United States will find this
book an ideal tool for engaging their government representatives, peers, and community about this momentous issue. (NAP)
Anyone who thinks the vaccine case now before the Supreme Court is merely a matter of giving injured plaintiffs their day in court has misconceived the
stakes for those who reap the benefits of vaccines.
The U.S. Supreme Court has just heard oral arguments in the case of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, in which the parents of a severely disabled child wish to sue the
manufacturer of a childhood vaccine for causing their child’s disability. At this stage, the dispute is over a purely legal issue: the scope of federal
preemption. The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act largely removed childhood vaccines from the tort liability system, channeling injury claims through a
specialized court that focuses on science and provides no-fault compensation for injuries actually caused (or probably caused) by vaccines. The question before
the court is whether this law barring ordinary injury suits applies to “design defects,” such as when the manufacturer allegedly could have offered an
alternative vaccine with the same benefits and lower risk—even though the law does not explicitly mention design defects. (John E. Calfee, The American)
LONDON - The British government has pledged to strike a blow at the so-called compensation culture which has left some individuals and groups so afraid of
being sued that even traditional activities like school trips and throwing snowballs are under threat.
It will ease safety rules for office workers and clamp down on advertising for "no win, no fee" injury lawyers.
More than 800,000 claims for compensation were made in Britain last year, fueled by aggressive advertising promising no-risk litigation for injury victims.
The result was that employers, schools and voluntary bodies had become overzealous in curbing risks, tying themselves down in red tape and unnecessarily
abandoning many activities, said veteran politician David Young in a review of health and safety laws.
"Today, accident victims are given the impression that they may be entitled to handsome rewards just for making a claim regardless of any personal
responsibility," he said
"It is hardly surprising that many organizations seek to mitigate their liabilities with excessively risk-averse policies." (Reuters Life!)
This summer, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill that would require foreign companies that import goods to the United States to appoint a
legal representative in the United States who could be sued if their products caused injury. Exhibit A in the push for the bill was the case of contaminated
drywall from China.
Advocates of the bill, titled the “Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act,” say it is necessary to ensure compensation for American consumers
injured by faulty foreign-made products. Without a designated domestic agent, foreign companies could escape liability by dodging efforts to serve them with
papers in a lawsuit. Hearings earlier this year highlighted the case of the drywall, in which damaged homeowners were finding it difficult to sue the Chinese
producer.
The trouble with this approach, as my colleague Sallie James and I pointed out in a recent Cato Free Trade Bulletin, is that it would impose an additional
burden on importers without adding significantly to the ability of consumers to gain compensation. We argued that sufficient remedies exist without adding a new
law that looks suspiciously like a non-tariff trade barrier designed to protect U.S. manufacturers from foreign competitors. (Cato at liberty)
Is the common nature of cancer worldwide purely a man-made phenomenon? That is what some researchers now suggest.
Still, other specialists in cancer and in human fossils have strong doubts about this notion.
Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for roughly one in eight of all deaths in 2004, according to the World Health Organization. However,
scientists have only found one case of the disease in investigations of hundreds of Egyptian mummies, researcher Rosalie David at the University of Manchester
in England said in a statement. (The researchers did not reply to repeated queries made via phone and e-mail.) (Charles Q. Choi, LiveScience)
Scientists are hailing a breakthrough that could lead to one of medicine's holy grails - a cure for the common cold.
Researchers have found they can attach tiny studs of silver to harmless bacteria, giving them the ability to destroy viruses. They tested the silver-impregnated
bacteria against norovirus, which causes winter vomiting outbreaks, and found they leave the virus unable to cause infections.
The researchers believe the same technique could help to combat other viruses, including influenza and those responsible for causing the common cold.
Professor Willy Verstraete, a microbiologist at the University of Ghent in Belgium, who unveiled the findings at a meeting of the Society for Applied
Microbiology in London last week, said the bacteria could be incorporated into a nasal spray, water filters and hand washes to prevent the spread of viruses. (TDT)
In the past month, the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that in some cases two types of drugs that were supposed to be preventing serious medical
problems were, in fact, causing them.
One is bisphosphonates, which is widely used to prevent the fractures, especially of the hip and spine, that are common in people with osteoporosis. Those
drugs, like Fosamax, Actonel and Boniva, will now have to carry labels saying they can lead to rare fractures of the thigh bone, a surprising new discovery that
came after another surprise — that they can cause a rare degeneration of the jawbone.
The other is Avandia, which is widely prescribed for diabetics, whose disease puts them at risk for heart attacks and heart failure. Two-thirds of diabetics die
of heart problems, and a main reason for taking drugs like Avandia is to protect them from that.
But now the F.D.A. and drug regulators in Europe are restricting Avandia’s use because it appears to increase heart risks.
In the case of bisphosphonates, the benefits for people with osteoporosis still outweigh the risk, bone experts say. And no one has restricted their use.
But the fact remains that with decades of using drugs to treat chronic diseases, the unexpected can occur.
Something new is happening, said Daniel Carpenter, a government professor at Harvard who is an expert on the drug agency. The population is aging, many have
chronic diseases. And companies are going after giant markets, huge parts of the population, heavily advertising drugs that are to be taken for a lifetime.
And the way drugs are evaluated, with the emphasis on shorter-term studies before marketing, is not helping, Dr. Carpenter said.
“Here is a wide-scale institutional failure,” he said. “We have placed far more resources and requirements upon premarket assessment of drugs than on
postmarket.”
Dr. Jason Karlawish, a University of Pennsylvania ethicist who studies the ways new treatments are developed and disseminated, expressed a similar concern.
“The point is not that the drugs are bad, but that drugs for these chronic diseases present a novel set of challenges about how to assess their safety,” he
said. (Gina Kolata, NYT)
There have been
various examples of (alleged) scientific misconduct - e.g. "Copygate"
affecting Mr Wegman. I find this one interesting.
In January 2010, the Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI) announced a nice discovery: the aging of the stem cells could be reversed by signals from insulin-like
growth factor 1 (IGF-1):
ATLANTA -- Nearly 17 percent of U.S. medical costs can be blamed on obesity, according to new research that suggests the nation's weight problem may be
having close to twice the impact on medical spending as previously estimated.
One expert acknowledged that past estimates likely low-balled the costs and said the new study - which places obesity-related medical costs at around $168
billion - probably is closer to the truth. (Associated Press)
MORE public health experts have joined the call for a tax on junk food, saying the existing focus on "individual behaviour change" will do little
to curb surging rates of obesity.
Ms Holly Bond, PhD candidate at the Michael Kirby Centre for Public Health and Human Rights, said more than 60 per cent of Australian adults and one in four
children were now either overweight or obese.
Obesity had overtaken smoking as the leading cause of premature death and illness, and yet government had so far resisted calls to adopt the same approach it
championed for tobacco and alcohol. (AAP)
Seems to be more a case of the "push" gaining a few more noisy advocates than any community desire for Twinkie taxes.
Alcohol, mainly wine has become cheaper than bottled water in New Zealand, a study showed Friday, with researchers warning there could be major implications
for public health. However an independent television news investigation questioned the report. (MercoPress)
A Freedom of Information Act inquiry has revealed that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) decision to declare portions of Arizona and New Mexico as
“Critical Habitat” for the jaguar has no basis in fact. USFWS based its decision on unsubstantiated anecdotal stories that did not meet the Endangered
Species Act definition of minimum scientific standards. The inquiry also found possible collusion between an employee of the Arizona Fish and Game Department
and the Center for Biological Diversity. The report of the inquiry was written by Biologist/Attorney Dennis Parker. Here is the press release: (Jonathan DuHamel,
Tucson Citizen)
WHEN the World Bank held its annual meeting last weekend, there was much discussion of trade imbalances and currency wars, but nothing about Nigerian palm oil.
That’s a shame, because the bank’s loans for plantation agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa and other developing regions — some $132 million of which have
gone to palm oil cultivation — have been humanitarian and economic triumphs. Yet now, under misguided pressure from environmental groups, the bank is turning
its back on the program.
Palm oil, which is extracted from the pulp of the oil palm, is an essential food in sub-Saharan Africa and other poor regions. Accounting for almost 40 percent
of the world’s vegetable oils, it is an indispensable source of vitamins and calories. The developing world is heavily reliant on palm as a source of
nutrition because the plant thrives in tropical climates and yields significantly more fats and calories than other options. It gives the developing world —
where hundreds of millions of men and women still live on a few dollars a day — the most caloric bang for the buck.
Nigeria’s palm oil industry, which once led the world, was moribund by the end of the last century. But thanks to the World Bank program, it is now one of the
world’s largest producers, after Indonesia and Malaysia. In addition to providing food, the palm oil sector offers jobs, employing tens of thousands of
Nigerians who earn wages similar to those of college graduates. In a country where most people have limited education, this sector has been essential to helping
the broader Nigerian economy grow.
The industry is also diverse, as both small-scale landholders and a growing number of industrial farms have used the World Bank loans to invest in more
efficient harvesting and production techniques. The revival of the palm oil industry gives Nigeria hope that its economy will not be forever hostage to
petroleum production — and the pollution and graft that inevitably accompany it.
But the bank’s legacy of success is now in serious jeopardy. Under the leadership of Robert Zoellick, a former United States trade representative, the bank
has wavered from its poverty-reduction mission and is increasingly focusing on achieving fashionable political and social goals. As Mr. Zoellick put it, “We
are all committed to ensuring that positive developmental outcomes — including environmental and social sustainability — are at the core of all our
activities.”
This is a huge, and disturbing, change in direction. The World Bank was conceived out of the wreckage of World War II, and its mission has always been simple:
extend low-interest loans from rich nations to support development projects in poor nations. Of necessity, many of these loans support agriculture-related
projects. These projects do two crucial things. First, they help poor nations feed their populations. Second, they generate goods that can be traded in global
markets, thus linking the developing world economically with the wealthy world.
The results have been extraordinary. According to the bank itself, since its inception, life expectancy in developing countries has risen by more than 20 years.
Adult illiteracy in poor nations has been cut in half since 1980. And over the past two decades, the number of people living on less than $1 a day, while
unacceptably high, has dropped for the first time.
But in many cases this progress has now run afoul of environmental groups that often put ideology ahead of the needs of the poor. And, unfortunately, these
groups have persuaded Mr. Zoellick to suspend all loans for palm-related plantation agriculture indefinitely as the bank undertakes a review of its policies.
(Thompson Ayodele, NYT)
by Pierre Desrochers and Hiroko Shimizu
October 15, 2010
October 16th is World Food Day, an annual event that was inaugurated
in 1979 by the Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to mark its founding date in 1945. This
year’s theme, “United against Hunger,” harks back to the FAO’s original mission. So what exactly are the central food planners and the anti-industrial
Left thinking about food-for-all these days?
Demonizing Capitalism’s Food Bonanza
With the advent of the “foodie” fad and the rise of celebrity chefs, discussions about the most effective ways to address hunger in poor countries
have increasingly fallen out of fashion among advanced economies’ food activists. Indeed, in a world where no good deed goes unpunished, the individuals most
responsible for producing ever-growing amounts of food at ever more affordable prices – from large scale farmers, professional plant breeders, synthetic
pesticide and fertilizer manufacturers to agricultural equipment manufacturers, commodity traders, logistics industry workers and packaging manufacturers –
have increasingly been demonized as poor stewards of the Earth, if not outright public health threats.
What really motivates food activists these days are rather SOLE (Sustainable, Organic, Local and Ethical) food initiatives whose aim is to “liberate”
consumers and communities from the grips of Agri-businesses. And here the critics have it just about all wrong. [Read more →] (MasterResource)
A Hungarian economist turned artist is using digitally manipulated photographs that create almost apocalyptic imagery from real life to promote environmental
awareness.
Suzanne Nagy's series of photographs entitled "Polluters" features altered images that are embedded in an epoxy solution to create a three-dimensional
effect. (Reuters)
She can't find any real problems so she has to fabricate them?
This announcement appeared to follow in the wake of a series of episodes that challenged the scientific basis of the arguments for political action on
climate change. Email hacking, questions about the provenance of IPCC claims and the virtues of its chair seemed to make climate scepticism more respectable
than it had been. This was in many respects grotesque. As I argued here, climate orthodoxy had not actually been challenged by an open public, technical debate
about the conclusions of climate science, and neither had it been challenged by a debate about the premises of political environmentalism. Instead, it was the
media’s desire for stories about sleaze and scandal which drove this issue into the limelight. Nonetheless, events at least allowed for climate orthodoxy to
be challenged. Even the president of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, now seemed to acknowledge that climate change anxiety had been over-egged.
Climate change is a hugely important issue but the public debate has all too often been clouded by exaggeration and misleading information. We aim to
provide the public with a clear indication of what is known about the climate system, what we think we know about it and, just as importantly, the aspects we
still do not understand very well.
If the Royal Society aimed to clarify the issue for the public, by pointing out that the debate was ‘clouded by exaggeration and misleading information’,
it had already failed. You can’t clarify a complex situation merely by pointing at the mess, and issuing ‘the facts’ about what it pertains to, especially
since it had been the Royal Society under the stewardship of Martin Rees’s predecessor, Bob May, who had done much to add heat – rather than light – to
the public debate. (Climate Resistance)
The first observation that Revkin finds utterly shocking is that 20 years ago, Hal Lewis didn't quite understand that and why the opinions that the changing
climate justifies expensive interventions was unsupported by science. I knew very little about the changing climate 20 years ago, too.
However, for Andrew Revkin, the fact that someone can learn something new in 20 years is a shocking news. I will discuss this point later.
The AGW religion in Germany is in deep trouble. Consensus is crumbling. the science is coming under attack.
It’s taken a awhile, but slowly and surely, Germany, once the premier power in science, is beginning to ask questions again. When lectures and seminars
questioning climate science take place within academic circles and at German universities, then you know something is afoot. (No Tricks Zone)
The United States would gain little in trying to forestall climate change
Global warming is real. It is predominantly anthropogenic. Left unchecked, it will likely warm the earth by 3-7 C by the end of the century. What should the
United States do about it?
Very little, if anything at all.
As economists, we are inclined to take the vantage point of the benevolent dictator, that omnific individual with his hands upon all of the policy levers
available to the state. When placed in such a position, the question of how to respond to global warming is answered by performing a simple comparison: does x,
the cost of optimally mitigating carbon emissions, exceed y, the benefit of that carbon mitigation? Where the answer is yes, the global carbon mitigation effort
remains rightfully nascent, where the answer is no, it springs up and becomes law with a just and sudden force.
H.L. Mencken once wrote, “Explanations exist; they have existed for all times, for there is always an well-known solution to every human problem — neat,
plausible, and wrong.” Such is the economist’s explanation of climate change. (Keith Yost, The Tech)
If you aren’t confident that humans are responsible for warming the planet, you may be judged a dunce, according to a new Yale University survey entitled
“Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change.”
Think that scientists “can’t possibly predict the climate of the future,” or that “scientists’ computer models are too unreliable to predict the
climate of the future?” If you answer “Probably true,” to these two survey questions, Yale’s researchers mark you as ignorant.
Perhaps you think it probable that “Global warming is happening, but will be more beneficial than harmful.” Or that “The Earth is actually cooling, not
warming.” Dumb, dumb, decides Yale, which concluded “only 8% of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B, 40% would receive a C or D, and 52%
would get an F.”
In truth, if you did make these “mistakes,” you’d be in good company. Yale’s researchers would also have flunked Princeton’s Freeman Dyson,
America’s best known scientist, Claude Allegre, France’s best known scientist , and World Federation of Scientists President Antonino Zichichi, Italy’s
best known scientist, among thousands of others.
The researchers – a group at the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication — are wrong-headed in making assertions that no one can prove or disprove:
All computer models to date have failed to predict the climate, as one example. The researchers are also too-often embarrassingly wrong. They believe that
melting Antarctic ice has been raising global sea levels when satellite data from the European Space Agency – an authority in the field – shows the opposite
to be true. They highlight ignoramuses who think that aerosol cans might have something to do with global warming, not realizing that credible peer-reviewed
research at University of Waterloo shows otherwise: CFCs, the agent in aerosol cans, was indeed responsible for global warming, says Qing-Bin Lu, a
professor of physics and astronomy. They treat as myth the notion that the Sun could explain the global warming seen in recent decades.
The headline from Yale University’s press release: “Most Americans Lack Basic Knowledge of Climate Issues, Study Finds.”
My headline: “Yale University scientists lack basic knowledge of climate issues.”
With Dr. Michael Mann out on the hustings selling his innocence, as I discussed
a few days ago, I was pleased when I came across this clear explanation of some major issues
in the so-called inquiry by Penn State into the Mann’s actions. I urge everyone to read it, and follow up on the citations therein. There are numerous other
problems with the inquiry, but that hit the high points.
Figure 1. The effect of Michael Mann, as seen by Chris Bok. But I digress.
Here was the mind-boggling part to me. To my astonishment, other than Michael Mann, the people running the investigation of Michael Mann reported
interviewing exactly TWO PEOPLE besides Mann himself. I was, as the lovely English expression has it, “Gob-smacked”.
Remember that Dr. Mann recently said:
My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive.
I knew it was bad, but interviewing two people now constitutes a “thorough investigation” of alleged serious scientific malfeasance? The investigators
didn’t even understand that the famous “Mike’s Nature trick“was a clever way of hiding adverse data, a big scientific no-no. They didn’t interview anyone who actually understood the issues.
Two interviews and close the books? That is a pathetic joke. Penn State was my father’s alma mater, Class of ’26, I’m glad he didn’t live to see how
far they have fallen. Penn State should demand that its name be taken off the document.
However, because this is a story involving Dr. Mann, you know there’s gotta be more to it than that they just interviewed two people, there’s bound to be
a further twist to the story.
When an economy is in the tank, it’s a lot tougher to sell what may be expensive environmental solutions whose benefits aren't seen for decades to people
worried about their job today.
Coming into this year, conventional wisdom had it that if Democrats failed to get an energy and climate bill passed by this summer, a new attempt would have to
wait until at least 2011.
Think longer-term than that. Maybe a lot longer. (CSM)
Though most of the debate among US politicians preparing for the midterm elections on November 2
nd is about the economy, supporters of the warmist agenda are awakening to the fact that a sea change in the American Congress could
leave climate change legislation high and dry. A list compiled by the left-leaning Wonk Room website suggests that 31 out of 37 Republican Senate
candidates have recently disputed the science. This includes nine out of ten sitting senators and five of the remaining six actively oppose existing climate
bills. If there was ever any doubt as to which end of the political spectrum belief in anthropogenic global warming lies on, this should make it clear that
climate change is a political lever for the socialist left. There is scant support from conservatives for radical environmentalist notions. Indeed, skepticism
about climate science has become a litmus tests for candidates backed by the resurgent right. (Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth)
Analysis The long-running saga of drowning dogs and weeping rabbits finally drew to a close this week, with the pronouncement by Ofcom that last year’s
"Act on CO2" advertising campaign was "not political".
Critics fear that this ruling now gives the green light to government "information" campaigns that otherwise look, sound and feel like state-sponsored
politicking. (The Register)
Debate continues on whether to support Kyoto and upgrade emissions goals
EU environment ministers once again failed to reach agreement on whether to upgrade the EU's emissions reduction target for 2020 from 20 per cent to 30 per cent
at a meeting in Brussels yesterday, although they agreed to revisit the issue early next year.
In a statement released at the close of the meeting, the European Council of member states said it welcomed the on-going debate on whether to upgrade the
emissions target, but provided no update on the current state of the negotiations. (James Murray, BusinessGreen)
"What we need more than anything else is a mass movement of young people," Peter Goldmark, director of EDF's Climate and Air Program, who recently
announced his retirement at the end of the year. "In American culture, it is youth that sets the agenda. It's always been this way. Think who was driving
change in the anti-Vietnam war movement, in the civil rights era. They have to mobilize, now, and demand action against global warming."
We are sitting in Goldmark's small, spare office at EDF's Manhattan headquarters. He has had a distinguished and varied career, which included stints as
Director the Port Authority of New York, President of the Rockefeller Foundation and publisher of the International Herald Tribune. I've come to talk to
Goldmark, as he prepares to leave EDF, about what he has learned during his tenure. He speaks angrily of the "shameful paralysis" of the U.S. Senate,
and says his focus is now is almost entirely on the next generation.
"My generation has failed," he says flatly. "We are handing over the problem to our children. They—and their children—will live with the
worst consequences of climate change. Make no mistake, global warming is happening right now. It is only going to get worse." (EDF)
EARTH is starting to crumble under the strain of climate change.
Over the last decade, rock avalanches and landslides have become more common in high mountain ranges, apparently coinciding with the increase in exceptionally
warm periods (see "Early signs"). The collapses are triggered by melting glaciers and permafrost, which remove the glue that holds steep mountain
slopes together.
Worse may be to come. Thinning glaciers on volcanoes could destabilise vast chunks of their summit cones, triggering mega-landslides capable of flattening
cities such as Seattle and devastating local infrastructure.
For Earth this phenomenon is nothing new, but the last time it happened, few humans were around to witness it. Several studies have shown that around 10,000
years ago, as the planet came out of the last ice age, vast portions of volcanic summit cones collapsed, leading to enormous landslides. (New Scientist)
While most people with at least traces of rational thinking or common sense have largely seen through the nonsense of "climate disruption", the AGW
crusaders reacted in a simple way: they began to write bigger insanities than ever before, hoping that the low-to-nonexistent quality of their arguments can be
compensated by their "intensity".
A couple of fresh examples:
Global warming flattens skyscrapers
New Scientist has figured out
some new science: "Earth is starting to crumble under the strain of climate change." (This is a quote.)
Cities such as Seattle are going to be completely flattened soon. How does the Earth achieve this modest goal? It's simple. Climate change is, first of all,
detonating the volcanoes above such cities, Kate Ravilious professionally explains. Once the volcanoes explode because of the 0.013 °C warming per year or so,
they destroy all the skylines, too. No kidding. ;-)
It is accepted that volcanic eruptions can have a major impact on short term climate. A new study in Nature Geoscience uses instrument
records, proxy data and climate modeling to show that multidecadal variability is a dominant feature of North Atlantic sea-surface temperature (SST), which, in
turn, impacts regional climate. It turns out that the timing of multidecadal SST fluctuations in the North Atlantic over the past 600 years has, to a large
degree, been governed by changes in external solar and volcanic forcings. Solar influence is not surprising but that fact that volcanoes cause climate change
lasting decades has some significant implications for those trying to model climate over the next century. (Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth)
While it's still hotly debated among scientists whether climate change causes a shift from the traditional form of El Nino to one known as El Nino Modoki,
online in the journal Nature Geoscience, scientists now say that El Nino Modoki affects long-term changes in currents in the North Pacific Ocean.
El Nino is a periodic warming in the eastern tropical Pacific that occurs along the coast of South America. Recently, scientists have noticed that El Nino
warming is stronger in the Central Pacific rather than the Eastern Pacific, a phenomenon known as El Nino Modoki (Modoki is a Japanese term for "similar,
but different").
Last year, the journal Nature published a paper that found climate change is behind this shift from El Nino to El Nino Modoki. While the findings of that paper
are still being debated, this latest paper in Nature Geoscience presents evidence that El Nino Modoki drives a climate pattern known as the North Pacific Gyre
Oscillation (NPGO).
"We've found that El Nino Modoki is responsible for changes in the NPGO,"said Emanuele Di Lorenzo, associate professor in the School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "The reason this is important is because the NPGO has significant effects on fish stocks and
ocean nutrient distributions in the Pacific, especially along the west coast of the United States."
The NPGO, first named two years ago by Di Lorenzo and colleagues in a paper in Geophysical Research Letters, explained for the first time long-term changes in
ocean circulation of the North Pacific, which scientists now link to an increasing number of dramatic transitions in coastal marine ecosystems.
"The ecosystems of the Pacific may very well become more sensitive to the NPGO in the future," said Di Lorenzo. "Our data show that this NPGO is
definitively linked to El Nino Modoki, so as Modoki becomes more frequent in the central tropical Pacific, the NPGO will also intensify." (Georgia
Institute of Technology)
In truth we do not know much about the El Niño Southern Oscillation, how its phases drift and change or at what part of longer term cycles
we may be viewing it. We have no way of telling whether we are witnessing anything even slightly unusual or if enhanced greenhouse effect exists at all. We
probably won't have sufficient observations to untangle the data for many decades and probably several centuries. Gorebull warbling is perhaps humanity's most
absurd collective distraction. Silly game...
There was a very clever paper published in Science this past week by Lacis,
Schmidt, Rind, and Ruedy that uses the GISS climate model (ModelE) in an attempt to prove that carbon dioxide is the main driver of the climate system.
This paper admits that its goal is to counter the oft-quoted claim that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. (They provide a 1991
Lindzen reference as an example of that claim).
Through a series of computations and arguments, the authors claim that is actually the CO2, not water vapor, that sustains the warmth of our climate system.
I suspect this paper will result in as many opinions in the skeptic community as there are skeptics giving opinions. But unless one is very careful in
reading this paper and knows exactly what the authors are talking about, it is easy to get distracted by superfluous details and miss the main point.
For instance, their table comparing the atmospheres of the Earth, Venus, and Mars does nothing to refute the importance of water vapor to the Earth’s
average temperature. While they show that the atmosphere of Mars is very thin, they fail to point out the Martian atmosphere actually has more CO2 than our
atmosphere does.
I do not have a problem with the authors’ calculations or their climate model experiment per se. There is not much new here, and their model run
produces about what I would expect. It is an interesting exercise that has value by itself.
It is instead their line of reasoning I object to — what they claim their model results mean in terms of causation– in their obvious attempt to relegate
the role of water vapor in the atmosphere to that of a passive component that merely responds to the warming effect of CO2…the real driver (they claim) of the
climate system.
OUR ASSUMPTIONS DETERMINE OUR CONCLUSIONS
From what I can tell reading the paper, their claim is that, since our primary greenhouse gas water vapor (and clouds, which constitute a portion of the
greenhouse effect) respond quickly to temperature change, vapor and clouds should only be considered “feedbacks” upon temperature change — not
“forcings” that cause the average surface temperature of the atmosphere to be what it is in the first place.
Though not obvious, this claim is central to the tenet of the paper, and is an example of the cause-versus-effect issue I repeatedly refer to in the past
when discussing some of the most fundamental errors made in the scientific ‘consensus’ on climate change.
It is a subtle attempt to remove water vapor from the discussion of “control” over the climate system — by definition. Only those of us who know enough
of the details of forcing-feedback theory within the context of climate change theory will likely realize this, through.
Just because water vapor responds quickly to temperature change does not mean that there are no long-term water vapor changes (or cloud changes) — not due
to temperature — that cause climate change. Asserting so is a non sequitur, and just leads to circular reasoning.
I am not claiming the authors are being deceptive. I think I understand why so many scientists go down this path of reasoning. They view the climate system
as a self-contained, self-controlled complex of physically intertwined processes that would forever remain unchanged until some “external” influence
(forcing) enters the picture and alters the rules by which the climate system operates.
Of course, increasing CO2 is the currently fashionable forcing in this climatological worldview.
But I cannot overemphasize the central important of this paradigm (or construct) of climate change theory to the eventual conclusions the climate researcher
will inevitably make.
If one assumes from the outset that the climate system can only vary through changes imposed external to the normal operation of the climate
system, one then removes natural, internal climate cycles from the list of potential causes of global warming. And natural changes in water
vapor (or more likely, clouds) are one potential source of internally-driven change. There are influences on cloud and water vapor other than temperature which
in turn help to determine the average temperature state of the climate system.
After assuming clouds and water vapor are no more than feedbacks upon temperature, the Lacis et al. paper then uses a climate model experiment to ‘prove’
their paradigm that CO2 drives climate — by forcing the model with a CO2 change, resulting in a large temperature response!
Well, DUH. If they had forced the model with a water vapor change, it would have done the same thing. Or a cloud change. But they had already assumed water
vapor and clouds cannot be climate drivers.
Specifically, they ran a climate model experiment in which they instantaneously removed all of the atmospheric greenhouse gases except water vapor, and they
got rapid cooling “plunging the climate into an icebound Earth state”. The result after 7 years of model integration time is shown in the next image.
Such a result is not unexpected for the GISS model. But while this is indeed an interesting theoretical exercise, we must be very careful about what we
deduce from it about the central question we are ultimately interested in: “How much will the climate system warm from humanity adding carbon dioxide to
it?” We can’t lose sight of why we are discussing all of this in the first place.
As I have already pointed out, the authors have predetermined what they would find. They assert water vapor (as well as cloud cover) is a passive follower of
a climate system driven by CO2. They run a model experiment that then “proves” what they already assumed at the outset.
But we also need to recognize that their experiment is misleading in other ways, too.
First, the instantaneous removal of 100% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere except for water vapor causes about 8 times the radiative
forcing (over 30 Watts per sq. meter) as does a 100% increase in CO2 (2XCO2, causing less than 4 Watts per sq. meter), something that will not
occur until late this century — if ever.
This is the so-called ‘logarithmic effect’…adding more and more CO2 has a progressively weaker radiative forcing response.
Currently, we are about 40% of the way to that doubling. Thus, their experiment involves 20 times (!) the radiative forcing we are now experiencing
(theoretically, at least) from over a century of carbon dioxide emissions.
So are we to assume that this dramatic theoretical example should influence our views of the causes and future path of global warming, when their no-CO2
experiment involves ~20 times the radiative forcing of what has occurred to date from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere?
Furthermore, the cloud feedbacks in their climate model are positive, which further amplifies the model’s temperature response to forcing. As readers here
are aware, our research suggests that cloud feedbacks in the real climate system might be so strongly negative that they could more than negate any positive
water vapor feedback.
In fact, this is where the authors have made a logical stumble. Everyone agrees that the net effect of clouds is to cool the climate system on average. But
the climate models suggest that the cloud feedback response to the addition of CO2 to our current climate system will be just the opposite,
with cloud changes acting to amplify the warming.
What the authors didn’t realize is that when they decided to relegate the role of clouds in the average state of the climate system to one of
“feedback”, their model’s positive cloud feedback actually contradicts the known negative “feedback” effect of clouds on the climate’s normal state.
Oops.
(In retrospect, I suppose they could claim that cloud feedbacks switched from negative at the low temperatures of an icebound Earth, to being positive at the
higher temperatures of the real climate system. But that might mess up Jim Hansen’s claim of strongly positive feedbacks during the Ice Ages).
CONCLUSION
Taken together, the series of computations and claims made by Lacis et al. might lead the casual reader to think, “Wow, carbon dioxide really does have a
strong effect on the Earth’s climate system!” And, in my view, it does. But the paper really tells us nothing new about (1) how much warming we can expect
from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, or (2) how much of recent warming was caused by CO2.
The paper implies that it presents new understanding, but all it does is get more explicit about the conceptual hoops one must jump through in order to claim
that CO2 is the main driver of the climate system. From that standpoint alone, I find the paper quite revealing.
Unfortunately, what I present here is just a blog posting. It would take another peer-reviewed paper that follows an alternative path, to effectively counter
the Lacis paper, and show that it merely concludes what it assumes at the outset. I am only outlining here what I see as the main issues.
Of course, the chance of editors at Science allowing such a response paper to get published is virtually zero. The editors at Science choose which scientists
will be asked to provide peer review, and they already know who they can count on to reject a skeptic’s paper.
Many of us have already been there, done that. (Roy W. Spencer)
Could there be enough oil in the eastern German state of Brandenburg to start a small boom in black gold? A Canadian company believes there might and is
about to commence test drilling. But will they have any more luck than the former communist government? (Spiegel)
One of the paramount questions facing mankind, I am told by many in politics and the media, is “What’s the ‘fuel of the future?’” [Read More] (Mac Johnson, ET)
Adding ethanol to the gasoline supply raises the cost of driving, boosts food prices, gobbles up subsidies, and has failed to live up to its environmental
promise. But there’s good news – the Environmental Protection Agency may let us use more of it.
EPA recently announced that E15 – gasoline with up to 15 percent ethanol blended in - has been approved for use in cars and trucks built since 2007. Until
this decision, no more than 10 percent ethanol was allowed. The federal government is still conducting testing to determine whether older vehicles can use E15
without problems, and until that decision is made gas stations will be reluctant to carry it. Beyond cars and trucks, a coalition of producers…
The Obama administration is launching a broad investigation into whether the Chinese government improperly supports its alternative energy companies, one of
the sharpest challenges yet to Beijing's alleged efforts to seize world leadership in particular industries. (Washington Post)
Trying to meet our EU renewable energy target would cost more than we currently spend on our entire electricity production, says Christopher Booker.
Is there any subject on which more nonsense is talked and written than the mindblowing proposals being bandied about by the Government for meeting our EU target
of generating, within 10 years, 30 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources? (That is roughly six times the current total, meaning that we have by far
the most challenging target of any country in Europe.)
For instance, the industry regulator, Ofgem, recently announced that by 2020 we will need to have spent £40 billion on connecting up our new renewable energy
sources to the national grid – £4 billion a year. Alistair Buchanan, the head of Ofgem, blithely claimed, on the BBC Today programme and elsewhere, that this
would only add £6 a year to the average electricity bill of Britain’s 25 million households. Yet ten seconds with a calculator shows that the cost per
household of that £4 billion a year works out to £160.
On top of this, the Government wants us to have, by 2020, offshore wind farms with a capacity of 33 gigawatts (1 gigawatt = 1,000 megawatts). At the current
capital cost of £3 million per megawatt of capacity, this would cost another £100 billion (£10 billion a year, or £400 a year for each household), to be
paid for through our electricity bills. However, even if they could all be built, they would produce on average only around a quarter of that amount of
electricity.
Add in £8 billion a year (or £320 per household) which, the Government forecasts, we will be paying by then through its ludicrously generous feed-in tariff
for solar power and, for these measures alone, our total annual bill for the dream of meeting our EU renewables target would be at least £22 billion. That’s
considerably more than the entire wholesale cost of Britain’s electricity generated from all sources last year, at £18.6 billion.
In other words, these measures alone would much more than double our electricity bills, for producing on average – and very unreliably – barely as much
energy as we get from a handful of conventional power stations.
In reality, there isn’t the faintest chance that any of the Government’s targets will be met. But the massive diversion of resources that it is doing its
best to encourage will not help when it comes to filling the looming 40 per cent gap in our electricity supplies, as 17 of the older nuclear and coal-fired
power stations are forced to close. There is virtually nothing, then, in these plans to ensure that we can keep Britain’s lights on. (TDT)
Renewables Advisory Board and Office for Renewable Energy Deployment among bodies axed
Two renewable energy quangos have been axed, with a leaked letter describing the function delivered by one of them as no longer a "priority". The
government, which the prime minister pledged would be the "greenest ever", also radically reformed its key environmental bodies, the Environment
Agency and Natural England, leaving campaigners asking how it would receive the independent advice needed to make effective policy. (Guardian)
Wildlife activists welcome decision to halt £30bn energy scheme in favour of exportable technologies, as new nuclear plants also get the green light.
Ambitious plans to harness the power of the Severn estuary to light up one in 20 of the UK's homes are to be abandoned as a result of the Government's attempt
to address the nation's deficit.
Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy, will tomorrow jettison the world's largest tidal energy project, rather than make the taxpayer foot an estimated
bill of £10bn to £30bn for the untested technology. (Independent)
Over at Sweden’s sceptic The Climate Scam, Jonny Fagerström writes how pro-wind-park organisation Swedish Wind Energy is lobbying to abolish the
municipal veto in order to bypass public refusal of windparks. The public, whose landscape would be ruined, should not be allowed to have a say on whether or
not a wind-park is to be installed in their area, read here: Wind
Power Industry Threatens Democracy
Wind-park builders and operators find it a nuisance that pesky, stubborn residents refuse to have their local landscape industrialised and property values
ruined. For the wind industry, permitting is proceeding much too slowly, and populations should just accept having the windmills forced down their throats,
without any further ado. (No Tricks Zone)
A new generation of nuclear power stations will go ahead on eight sites in Britain, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary, is expected to
announce this week (TDT)
Health Care: Many promises were made about reform. Defenders swore it would improve the system. Critics guaranteed it would make things worse. So far, the
critics are proving to be the best forecasters. (IBD)
Canada has declared bisphenol A a toxic chemical, prompting calls for far-reaching curbs on the industrial chemical that is used in everything from the
linings of aluminum cans to coatings on electronic till receipts.
Canada added the compound, known as BPA, to a list of substances deemed potentially harmful to health or the environment in a notice published in the Canada
Gazette on Wednesday.
That makes it easier for Ottawa to regulate the use of the chemical, perhaps by limiting how much BPA can be released into air or water or perhaps with outright
bans on its use in specific food containers.
"The risk assessment of BPA put together by our federal government is very strong in terms of its conclusions, so I think it's a foregone conclusion that
it will drive further action rather quickly," said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defense, which campaigned to ban BPA. (Reuters)
For the past half century, society has been repeatedly misled by activist-orchestrated campaigns on the supposed environmental impact of chemicals in general
and pesticides in particular. Starting with erroneous accusations against DDT leveled by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book Silent Spring and continuing today with
claims that the herbicide atrazine harms frogs or that minute traces of chemicals pose significant health risks, the news media have demonstrated an astonishing
resistance to facts and science in favor of the grand simplistic narratives advanced by groups whose primary goal is the banning of chemicals.
The lamentable result of this toxic journalism can be counted in the millions of needless malaria dead, billions of preventable illnesses, and untold increases
in consumer costs that society has incurred over the past half century. (CGFI)
NEW YORK - People who spend years living near high-traffic roadways may be more likely to develop emphysema and related lung problems than those who live in
less-traveled areas, a new study suggests.
Research has shown that air pollution can exacerbate symptoms in people with lung diseases like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a group
of serious lung conditions that includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
But whether long-term exposure to pollution affects the odds of developing COPD in the first place has been unclear.
In the new study, researchers found that among nearly 53,000 Danish adults followed for up to 35 years, those estimated to have the greatest cumulative exposure
to traffic pollution were more likely to develop COPD than those with the least exposure. (Reuters Health)
Incense and candles may create a tranquil environment, but the fumes that they produce are not so good for your lungs. New research shows that the smoke
produced by burning incense and candles can be worse than the pollution found next to a busy road.
Rea Loupa and colleagues, from Democritus University of Thrace, Greece, monitored the air quality in two mediaeval churches in Cyprus, where both incense and
candles were burned. Particulate matter and black carbon were measured over six consecutive days, both inside and outside the church of St Paraskevi, near
Yeroskipou, and St John's cathedral in Nicosia.
At St Paraskevi candle burning was not allowed, but incense was burned during mass. Meanwhile, St John's allowed candle burning at any time. Loupa and her
colleagues found that peak particulate concentrations inside St John's coincided with peaks in candle burnings, and that at these times the concentration of
particles in the small size range (0.5 to 1.0μm) were more than 10 times greater than those found outside, despite the fact that there was a busy road next to
the cathedral in Nicosia. Meanwhile, black-carbon levels were nearly 12 times higher than outdoors after mass, coinciding with the burning of incense and
candles.
Exposure to pollution at these levels is almost certainly not good for human health. "Incense and candles can emit ultrafine, lung-damaging particulate
matter that's capable of penetrating deep into the lungs," Loupa told environmentalresearchweb. "From our personal communication with more than a
hundred priests they have health problems that possibly are work related, such as asthma aggravation, allergy-like symptoms, irritation of the respiratory tract
and lung cancer." (environmentalresearchweb)
When—not just what—mice eat affects how much weight they put on
Oct 14th 2010
THE blame for rising obesity rates has been pinned on many things, including a more calorific diet, the spread of processed food, a lack of exercise and modern
man’s generally more stressful lot. Something else may soon be included in the list: brighter nights.
Light regulates the body’s biological clock—priming an individual’s metabolism for predictable events such as meals and slumber. Previous research has
shown that, in mice at least, the genes responsible for this can be manipulated so as to make the animals plumper and more susceptible to problems associated
with obesity, including diabetes and heart disease. It was not known, though, whether simply altering ambient light intensity might have similar effects. (The
Economist)
For the first time, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has collected national life expectancy data for the Hispanic population, and backed up
the surprising findings of past studies: the average life expectancy of a Hispanic baby born in 2006 was 80.6 years. That's 2.5 years longer than the life
expectancy for whites, 7.7 years longer than for blacks and nearly three years higher than the national average.
The results are interesting because the Hispanic population, which makes up 15% of the American public, has several characteristics that are traditionally
associated with shorter life: more obesity, less education and more poverty; 18.9% of Latinos are poor, compared with 6.1% of whites. (One exception to the
paradox: Hispanics' median income is higher than blacks', and fewer Hispanics than blacks are poor, making it unsurprising that average Hispanic life expectancy
is higher.) (Time)
GENEVA - Tropical diseases that affect mainly poor people cost billions of dollars in lost productivity annually and companies must be encouraged to make
medicines to treat them, the World Health Organization said on Thursday.
The United Nations agency, in its first report on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), urged governments and donors to invest more in tackling 17 diverse
infections often shunned by researchers, which can cause blindness, heart damage and death.
It said the diseases often cost only pennies to treat. They include Chagas disease, which affects about 10 million people in Latin America, and dengue fever,
another virus transmitted by infected mosquitoes which the WHO said was rapidly spreading worldwide and now poses a risk to developed countries.
"Neglected tropical diseases blight the lives of a billion people worldwide and threaten the health of millions more," WHO director-general Margaret
Chan said in the report, "Working to overcome the global impact of neglected tropical diseases." (Reuters)
Removing the toxic and odorous emissions of ammonia from the industrial production of fertilizer is a costly and energy-intensive process. Now, researchers
in Bangladesh have turned to microbes and inexpensive wood charcoal to create a biofilter that can extract the noxious gas from vented gases and so reduce
pollution levels from factories in the developing world.
Writing in the International Journal of Environment and Pollution, Jahir Bin Alam, A. Hasan and A.H. Pathan of the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, at Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, in Sylhet, explain that biofiltration using soil or compost has been used to treate waste gases
for the last two decades. There are simple filters for reducing odors and more sophisticated units for removing specific chemicals, such as hydrogen sulfide,
from industrial sources.
Among the many advantages are the fact that biofiltration is environment friendly technology, resulting in the complete degradation by oxidation of toxic
pollutants to water and carbon dioxide without generating a residual waste stream. It also uses very little energy. Biofilters are widely used in the developed
world but their use in the developing world which is rapidly being industrialized but not necessarily considering pollution control.
The Shahjalal team has now built a prototype biofilter for ammonia extraction based on wood charcoal in which the nitrogen-fixing microbe Nitrosomonas europaea
has been grown. This microbe derives all its energy for metabolism, growth, and reproduction from ammonia, which it absorbs and oxidizes to nitrite. The microbe
is commonly found in soil, sewage, freshwater, and on buildings and monuments in polluted cities.
The team found that their prototype biofilter could function at an ammonia concentration of 100 to 500 milligrams per liter of gas and remove the ammonia from
this gas stream almost completely. Approximately 93% removal of ammonia gas was seen within seven days. (Inderscience Publishers)
The food chain - the number of organisms that feed on each other — in the world's streams and rivers depends more upon the size of the stream and whether
the waterways flood or run dry than the amount of available food resources, Yale University and Arizona State University (ASU) researchers report online in the
Oct. 14 issue of the journal Science Express.
The findings suggest that large predators in river systems will be threatened by increased variability in water flow induced by climate change. The research
also helps settle an old debate among ecologists about what determines the length of nature's food chains, which sustain all life on earth.
"The food web is a regulatory network of ecosystems, and for nearly 100 years ecologists have debated the causes of variation in the length of the food
chains, said David Post, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Yale and co-author of the study.
Researchers from Yale, ASU, the University of Minnesota, and the U.S. Geological Survey studied 36 North American streams and rivers. The researchers found that
food chains – or the number of mouths that food passes through on the way to top predators – got longer as the size of the body of water increased. The
findings are similar to another study conducted by Post a decade ago that found the key factor in food chain length was lake size, not the amount of food
resources in a system, as many ecologists had believed. (Yale University)
New research shows that nature and humans are leaving an indelible mark on rivers and streams, which are affecting the intricate food webs they support
(Arizona State University)
ENOUGH. It’s one thing that this green madness is driving your power and water bills through the roof.
But now it threatens to destroy not just your household budget, but entire towns in our richest farming land.
Mildura, Robinvale, Coleambally, Leeton, Deniliquin and Moree - all now face devastation.
The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has been warned in a survey it commissioned of big lenders to rural business that these specific towns and more will struggle
to survive the cut in irrigation water the authority now demands to “save” the Murray and the rivers that feed it.
Yet the MDBA is pushing on, proposing a cut in farmers’ water entitlements of between 27 and 37 per cent - on top of the deep cuts it’s already made for
“the environment”.
In some areas, farmers will lose as much as half their irrigation water and will have to close their gates.
Wait and see what that does to the price of your fruit, vegetables and rice. Heavens, even the green faithful will scream at the price of tofu, made of soy
beans grown in the same irrigated fields now being robbed of water. (Andrew Bolt Blog)
Analysts at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have some explaining to do.
In the last two years some 900 mm of rainfall have been removed from the rainfall record of the Murray-Darling Basin. This startling discovery was made by
comparing the annual Murray-Darling Basin rainfall reported on the Bureau of Meteorology website in August 2008 and the same report found yesterday.
The annual rainfall figures are shown as reported in October 2010: Yearly rainfall in the Murray-Darling Basin from 1900 to 2009 as reported in October 2010 with a mean value of 467 mm (solid line).
There is no significant trend in rainfall through this period but there is large variability with rainfall extremes of a 257 mm minimum and a 787 mm maximum.
The comparison with the August 2008 report is revealing. The difference is a decrease of 900 mm rainfall in the 2010 report. The significant decrease occurs
after 1948: Changes to Bureau of Meteorology record of Murray-Darling Basin rainfall. Data downloaded August 2008 and October 2010
The Bureau is already on record adjusting Australian temperature measurements and they now appear to have turned to rainfall, making the last 60 years drier
than previously reported.
One can understand that adjustments might be made to a few of the most recent years as records are brought up to date but a delay of forty or fifty years
seems a little long.
This raises the question how certain is the data that is used by policy makers?
When we are confronted by apparently definitive forecasts of our future with rising temperatures and less rain, are we living through a period that brings to
mind the Polish radio announcement of Soviet times?:
The future is certain only the past is unpredictable.
Dozens of environmental agencies have been chopped in the long-awaited “bonfire of the quangos” as the UK's Coalition Government strives to balance its
books.
The axe fell heaviest on the Environment Department, which lost 50 quangos, confirmed in a statement by Cabinet Minister Francis Maude today. (ClickGreen)
Scientists are poised to eliminate the deadly cattle disease Rinderpest, ending a malady that has devastated animal herds for centuries, the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization said on Thursday.
"It would be the first time in history that humankind has succeeded in wiping out an animal disease in the wild, and only the second time, after smallpox
in 1980, that a disease has been eliminated thanks to human efforts," the FAO said in a statement. (Reuters)
Gates Foundation, which has donated $1.5 billion to agriculture in developing countries, is focusing more investments on seeds and technology to help small
farmers adapt to climate change, the foundation's chief executive said on Thursday.
"Most of our grants support conventional breeding. But in certain instances we include biotechnology approaches because we believe they can help farmers
confront drought, flooding, disease, or pests more effectively than conventional breeding alone," Jeff Raikes, chief executive of the foundation started by
the billionaire founder of software giant Microsoft, said in a speech to the World Food Prize meeting. (Reuters)
Assisting agricultural development is good but they need to lay off the gorebull warbling nonsense as totally counterproductive.
NEW YORK -- Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the
planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.
The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse
effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing
greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial
greenhouse effect.
Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The
study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science. (NASA/GSFC)
This piece of Schmidt (Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy) appears to be based on exactly the same model which
fails to reproduce observed values. See embedded links in Roger Pielke Sr.'s post Further Confirmation Of Klotzbach Et al 2009.
A few points:
To begin with, in the troposphere (the region of interest), water as vapor and droplets accounts for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect and CO2
only about one-fifth the value they are using.
Secondly, there is more than ample water in the troposphere to account for 100% of Earth's greenhouse effect but it does not because it effectively has to
compete with CO2 and the other minor greenhouse gases for available outgoing longwave radiation in suitable wavelengths. Adding more CO2
might affect the proportion attributed to particular absorbent species but there is little opportunity to engage in net increase (for the pedants there is some
opportunity in the super cold, super dry air masses where there is little native greenhouse effect).
Thirdly, their models are programmed with absurdly high CO2 sensitivity, so no one should be in the least surprised their models are sensitive to CO2
levels.
Additionally, atmospheric CO2 levels are largely dependent on temperature due to oceanic outgassing (war soda/beer/champagne effect, depending on
your favorite analogy). Were it the controlling and amplifying variable modelers like to pretend then Earth could not cool as rapidly as it does following the
northern summer and/or El Niño events and yet despite there being almost double the estimated ice age level of atmospheric CO2 Earth can not sustain
the almost 4 °C global warming from northern winter to northern summer, which cools again from summer to winter. If doubling "Earth's
temperature control" can not sustain such aggressive warming even 6 months how can it do so year on year?
Finally, the temperature values used in the model do not agree with the real world, making this just one more worthless piece of PlayStation® climatology.
Their marvelous magical multipliers appear entirely imaginary. Their model is a bust and this "study" is a nonsense. Color me impressed, just not
favorably.
Just when you thought you were safe from economy-crushing climate legislation with the death of "cap-and-trade" in the Senate, a new threat looms.
It's climate legislation in disguise: renewable-energy standards. (Washington Times)
This morning we received an update from friend at the Institut Hayek in France. Evidently, the French Academy of Sciences soon will release a paper that
eviscerates the “beautiful certainties” espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. To read Drieu Godefridi’s brief on the imminent report,
click here. To visits the Institut Hayek website, click here.
(Cooler Heads)
The U.N. panel of climate scientists agreed on Thursday to change its practices in response to errors in a 2007 report, and its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri
of India, dismissed suggestions he should step down. (Reuters)
The first message was from Chris Field, co-chair of WG2, reassuring all authors that the decisions made were in the best interest of the IPCC -- without even
explaining what those decisions were. Although one could interpret this as a classic example of paternalism, let's give Chris the benefit of doubt and assume
that he was tired after an intense meeting and in a rush to the airport.
BBC and Reuters
offer some detail into the decisions made: a committee was formed to look into the matter.
It would be extremely useful for the IPCC to provide a simple report indicating its response to each of the IAC recommendations. For those who may have missed
it, here is a list of those recommendations. Perhaps an intrepid
reporter will ask the IPCC to provide this information.
In my opinion, absent this information, along with a justification for why the IPCC decided to ignore advice that the IAC provided, the institution will remain
deeply troubled. (Roger Pielke Jr.)
Top international experts prove British numbers on carbon dioxide are wrong. Royal Society blunder grossly exaggerates climate impact.
German born chemist, Dr Klaus L. E. Kaiser has published evidence that proves the Royal Society (RS), London, has been caught out making schoolboy errors in
mathematical calculations over the duration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere. Backed up by a review by a leading Swedish mathematics professor
the revelation is a serious embarrassment to the credibility of the once revered British science institute and a major setback for its claims about climate
change.
A gaffe in their own basic calculations led the RS to falsely find that CO2 would stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years rather than a dozen or so as per
peer-reviewed studies show. Global warming skeptics have been quick to condemn the error and demand an apology and immediate correction.
The Royal Society advises the British government on matters concerning climate change. Due to the scale of the error any forthcoming review will necessarily
result in a substantial downward revision of the threat posed by CO2 in the official government numbers. (John O'Sullivan, Suite 101)
We have pointed out many times the physical impossibility of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere for anything like the claimed times
and it is nice to see this myth finally getting some attention.
William Connolley, arguably the world’s most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore, has lost his bully pulpit. Connolley did not wield his
influence by the quality of his research or the force of his argument but through his administrative position at Wikipedia, the most popular reference source on
the planet.
Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global
warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.
His career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding
conducted by Wikipedia. In the decision, a slap-down for the once-powerful Connolley by his peers, he has been barred from participating in any article,
discussion or forum dealing with global warming. In addition, because he rewrote biographies of scientists and others he disagreed with, to either belittle
their accomplishments or make them appear to be frauds, Wikipedia barred him — again unanimously — from editing biographies of those in the climate change
field.
I have written several columns for the National Post on Connolley’s role as a propagandist. Two of them appear here and here.
New Haven, Conn.—Sixty-three percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening, but many do not understand why, according to a national study
conducted by researchers at Yale University.
The report titled "Americans' Knowledge of Climate Change" found that only 57 percent know what the greenhouse effect is, only 45 percent of Americans
understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth's surface, and just 50 percent understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities.
Large majorities incorrectly think that the hole in the ozone layer and aerosol spray cans cause global warming. Meanwhile, 75 percent of Americans have never
heard of the related problems of ocean acidification or coral bleaching.
However, many Americans do understand that emissions from cars and trucks and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to global warming and that a transition to
renewable energy sources is an important solution.
Americans also recognize their own limited understanding. Only 1 in 10 say that they are "very well-informed" about climate change, and 75 percent say
they would like to know more about the issue. Likewise, 75 percent say that schools should teach children about climate change and 68 percent would welcome a
national program to teach Americans more about the issue.
"This study demonstrates that Americans need to learn more about the causes, impacts and potential solutions to global warming," said study director
Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale University. "But it also shows that Americans want to learn more about climate change in order to make up their minds and take
action."
The online survey was conducted by Knowledge Networks from June 24 to July 22, 2010, with 2,030 American adults 18 and older. The margin of sampling error is
plus- or minus-2 percent, with 95 percent confidence. (Yale University)
Maybe people are beginning to understand it only too well...
The revelations of bogus evidence in the manmade climate change hoax have become so routine as to go almost unnoticed, but continued revelations now pose a
danger to the reputation of the real scientific community — that made up of dedicated researchers — which must be addressed before all lines of intellectual
inquiry become tainted.
Consider what we have witnessed within the past several years while governments race headlong — using fraudulent conclusions — to set policies that will
cost people across the world hundreds of billions of dollars to regulate benign gases like carbon dioxide. (Frank Beckmann, Detroit News)
The world is warming at an unprecedented rate. The dire and irrefutable results of this global temperature heat wave will be starvation, inundation of
coastal cities, war and the death of billions and the mass extinction of species. [Read More] (Art Horn and
Michael J. Economides, ET)
Ron Brownstein and Bill McKibben both have pieces up lamenting the ascendancy of climate change skepticism in the Republican Party. While McKibben ponders
the intellectual roots of this phenomenon (a subject I touched on, as he notes, in a column earlier this year), Brownstein points out that the G.O.P. is an
outlier among the developed world’s right-of-center parties:
Indeed, it is difficult to identify another major political party in any democracy as thoroughly dismissive of climate science as is the GOP here. Eileen
Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, says that although other parties may contain pockets of climate skepticism, there is “no
party-wide view like this anywhere in the world that I am aware of.”
(Ross Douthat, NYT)
Try Australia. The Leader of the Liberal Party and Conservative Coalition was dumped for being a believer and the Coalition made astonishing
inroads into the dominance of the governing Labor Party (to the extent they now cling on with a minority rainbow conglomerate) by blocking climate legislation
and standing on a platform of no carbon price - ever.
Climate change litigation is already big news in the US and the number of environmental cases in our own courts could be about to increase. Tom Heap asks
what the law can do.
Climate change has already claimed its first victims. Displaced people from the Carteret Islands, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Kenya and the Niger delta have already
become climate refugees but from whom can they seek refuge or even compensation?
Environmental Justice Foundation is calling for legally binding agreements to protect those displaced and there are various legal cases in action that could set
a precedent for compensation.
400 Alaskan residents are suing energy companies for creating a public nuisance and for conspiracy (in funding research to 'prove' there is no link between
climate change and human activity). Tuvalu, the low lying nation in the pacific, has threatened to sue Australia and the United States for their contributions
to climate change and in the latest and most high profile case Katrina victims are taking the big oil companies BP, Shell, Chevron Exxonmobile, to court.
So far displaced people have not been defined as refugees so they have no legal rights but countries could be expected to take a number of migrants equivalent
to their contribution or compensate victims for their loss.
Myles Allan of Oxford University has set up models to predict how much climate change attributable to man has caused extreme weather conditions like the
flooding here in the UK in 2000. Sophisticated modelling could make it easier to attribute blame and a recent ruling in the European Court means that victims of
environmental crime should find it a lot easier to take their cases to court. Big insurance companies are already warning their clients to expect compensation
suits but there is still some way to go before precedent has been set in the case of climate change and nobody knows what will happen once these floodgates have
opened.
Tom Heap talks to victims of Katrina who are already taking lawsuits and flood victims in the UK on the anniversary of the 2000 flooding to find out whether the
courts can really offer compensation where international governments have failed to act. (BBC Radio 4)
Their very first assertion is wrong. JunkScience.com readers would be well aware that the Carteret Islands are indeed sinking, due to
tectonic plate subduction, not gorebull warbling.
IT’S hard to believe that it’s not satire but the 10:10 campaign’s advertisement showing a teacher blowing up children was a serious attempt to drum up
support for climate alarmism.
The video, which attracted condemnation around the world this week, shows a teacher encouraging her young charges to follow the 10:10 campaign’s plan to
reduce carbon emissions. When she asks for a show of hands from those who want to join the campaign, all but two of the children thrust their hands in the air.
“That’s absolutely fine, your own choice,” the teacher says, smiling. Then she presses a red button and the two little holdouts explode, their blood and
gore spraying all over their classmates.
The same scenario is repeated in a workplace and on a soccer ground where those reluctant to join the campaign are messily vaporised.
This nasty ad wasn’t the work of Chaser-style fringe comedians. This was a serious product of the environmental establishment, an organisation sponsored by
Sony - until the company pulled out this week - and in partnership with the Guardian newspaper.
Politicians, schools, and celebrities all over the world have joined 10:10. Even our very own Hugh Jackman has been photographed wearing a 10:10 promotional
necklace.
The video was scripted by Richard Curtis of Four Weddings and a Funeral fame, and was the brainchild of the UK’s version of Michael Moore, Frannie Armstrong,
director of The Age of Stupid.
It was the considered message from the very heart of the green movement - stand in the way of our plans and we will eliminate you. It’s green Darwinism, known
in earlier times as The Final Solution.
Frannie and friends removed the video from the 10:10 website when complaints started, but it was too late. She has let the cat out of the bag.
Now we have the evidence that during the long silence after the twin blows last year of the Copenhagen climate summit and Climategate, green zealots had been
busy plotting revenge.
They flipped the switch in their brains that takes them down the blood-spattered path of totalitarian death so well-worn in the 20th century. Now we know -
climate change alarmism is a death cult.
We heard the message in its starkest form last month from the US Discovery Channel’s suicide bomber James Lee, whose eco-manifesto demanded no more “filthy
human children”, before he was shot dead by police.
And we heard it in the subtle endorsement by Father Frank Brennan when he defended a vote for the Greens during the last election. “On some policy issues, I
daresay the Greens have a more Christian message than the major parties,” Brennan wrote in rebuttal of Cardinal George Pell’s rather better description of
the Greens as “sweet camouflaged poison”.
But, whatever way you dress it up, the climate alarmist message ultimately can be boiled down to death. (Miranda Devine Blog)
In last week’s column, I lamented the devolution of the climate debate into dueling ad hominem attacks, which has led in almost a straight line to the
incredible totalitarian vision of the 10:10 climate group’s recent film showing school kids getting blown up for not adhering to the global warming
alarmists’ position.
In writing that column, it struck me that it was not surprising that many average folks may be unfamiliar with the science behind the climate skeptic’s
position, since it almost never appears anywhere in the press. This week I want to give a necessarily brief summary of the skeptic’s case. There is not space
here to include all the charts and numbers; for those interested, this video and slide presentation provides much of the analytical backup. (Warren Meyer,
Forbes)
Europe faces two decisions on climate policy this week. First, they must decide whether to adopt a more aggressive emissions reduction target for 2020, a
decision that looks to be deferred until next year. Second, the EU must decide on a common approach to the Union's negotiating stance going into the
Cancun climate meeting next month.
Environment ministers are meeting today (14 October) in Luxembourg to set out the EU's strategy for the UN climate conference in Cancún at the end of the year.
No decision is expected on whether to raise the bloc's CO2 emission target.
The ministers will revisit the thorny issue of increasing the EU's target of cutting its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 to 30%. So
far, there has been no consensus on the issue, and a breakthrough is not expected at tomorrow's meeting either.
Draft conclusions from the meeting state that the EU will wait for the European Commission to draw up a 2050 low-carbon roadmap before any unilateral move to
30%, according to diplomatic sources.
The roadmap, scheduled for early next year, will set out a trajectory for emissions cuts with intermediate targets for 2030 and 2040, which could help put the
2020 target into perspective, they said.
The procedural take on the matter by environment ministers at this stage reflects a deep divide between two blocks of member states. While a group of Western
European countries including the UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands argues that raising the EU goal is in its own interests, many Eastern and Central
European member states and Italy, among others, say doing so must be conditional on similar commitments from other nations within the international negotiations
for a new climate treaty.
Adoption of a unified EU stance leading up to Cancun centers on the future of the Kyoto Protocol:
The ministers will also seek to adopt an EU position for the Cancún climate conference, which takes place between 29 November and 11 December.
The political hot potato is whether to continue with the Kyoto Protocol after its expiry in 2012. The EU was accused by developing countries of killing Kyoto
at the Copenhagen negotiations last year. In Copenhagen, the EU insisted it would only accept a new framework that covered all major economies, but the Kyoto
Protocol does not set any obligations on developing countries, nor does it include the world's second biggest polluter, the US.
There seem to be three possible outcomes this week: (1) a unified EU position around extending Kyoto, (2) a unified EU position that deviates from Kyoto, and
(3) a failure to reach a unified EU position.
Obviously, (3) would likely be fatal to the international climate convention process. But (2) would also be very problematic since many countries are
seeking to build upon the Kyoto Protocol, and thus could be equally damaging to the international process. Of all the options (1) seems least
most likely [UPDATED TO FIX -- Sorry, one word makes a big difference here;-)].
The outcome bears watching. The EU has proven to be masterful at creating the appearance of consensus in international negotiations. With the bloc's
highly divergent views on climate policy, this week's meeting will require all of that skill and more. (Roger Pielke Jr.)
California is doomed, nervous warmists are prepping their excuses ahead of the Democrats electoral asteroid impact and the Maldive’s government is guilty
of participating in a scam, but which one? (Daily Bayonet)
New research published in the Oct. 14 issue of Nature
Atmospheric fine particles affect the Earth's radiation balance by interacting with solar radiation and by participating in cloud formation. Biogenic volatile
organic compounds are key players in new particle formation processes. Hence, terrestrial vegetation has an important role as the newly formed particles cool
our climate. The chemical composition of such secondary organic aerosol (SOA) particles formed from volatile compounds emitted by vegetation is very complicated
and only limited information on the phase state of SOA particles has been available. Thus the scientific community has tried to understand the chemical
composition and physical characteristics of SOA particles in order to better understand their climatic implications and also to enable more accurate predictions
using global climate models. (Tampere University of Technology)
she listed information from Knutti 2008 regarding why there should be confidence in the multi-decadal global climate models. I have reproduced below this
text from Judy’s post.
Knutti 2008 describes the reasons for having confidence in climate models as follows:
Models are based on physical principles such as conservation of energy, mass and angular momentum.
Model results are consistent with our understanding of processes based on simpler models, conceptual or theoretical frameworks.
Models reproduce the mean state and variability in many variables reasonably well, and continue to improve in simulating smaller-scale features
Models reproduce observed global trends and patterns in many variables.
Models are tested on case studies such as volcanic eruptions and more distant past climate states
Multiple models agree on large scales, which is implicitly or explicitly interpreted as increasing our confidence
Projections from newer models are consistent with older ones (e.g. for temperature patterns and trends), indicating a certain robustness.
I will discuss each of these criteria below
1. “Models are based on physical principles such as conservation of energy, mass and angular momentum.”
Models actually include basic physics for only a subset of the physics, This basic physics includes the pressure gradient forces (e.g. in the atmosphere;
oceans), gravity, and advection (e.g. by winds, currents, percolation of water into the soil) on the resolvable scale of the model (which is at least 4 grid
increments as I discuss in detail in Pielke (2002)). All
other aspects of the physics, chemistry and biology are parameterized using tunable coefficients and functions. The multi-decadal global climate
models (and indeed all numerical climate models) require the conservation of energy, mass and angular momentum, but the implication from the first bullet of
Knutti 2008 that the climate models are basic physics code is incorrect.
2. “Model results are consistent with our understanding of processes based on simpler models, conceptual or theoretical frameworks.”
This is certainly a necessary test of any complex code. However, the pertinent question is are the model results consistent with real-world observations? For
time periods decades into the future, there is no way to test this requirement. In fact, even in hindcasts of past years, the multi-decadal climate models have
no regional skill, as I posted on in When Is A Model a Good Model?
3. “Models reproduce the mean state and variability in many variables reasonably well, and continue to improve in simulating smaller-scale
features” and “Models reproduce observed global trends and patterns in many variables”.
This are erroneous claims. As shown, for example, in
where, among their conclusions, they write with respect to the global climate models that they
“…perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform
better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.”
Even Kevin Trenberth has written with respect to these models (see)
“…the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate.”
4. “ Models are tested on case studies such as volcanic eruptions and more distant past climate states”
The testing of global climate models when there is a volcanic eruption is a much simpler evaluation than multi-decadal global model predictions associated
with natural variability and the diverse range of human inputs into the climate system.
Large volcanic eruptions result in the insertion of large quantities of ash into the stratosphere which reduces the solar irradiance that reaches the
surface. This produces a cooling with the spatial distribution of the cooling dependent on where the volcanic emission into the stratosphere occurs. This
use of the global climate models is an effective test of its skill and prediction of global and regional climate on the time period of seasons to a couple
of years after a major eruption, as real world data can be used to directly compare with the model forecasts. This is a valuable necessary (but not sufficient)
test of the skill of global climate models.
The model simulation of distant past climates is much more difficult since observational verification of skill must depend on proxy data. As a result
temporal and spatial resolution is coarse, and only the larger climate perturbations can be resolved (not tenths of a degree in a global average temperature,
for example). Moreover, skill with these models with respect to proxy data often occurs primarily due to the imposition of the different
topography of earlier times as the bottom boundary condition. With respect to the last glacial maximum, for example, the insertion of continental ice sheets
that are thousands of meters high over vast areas directly alters the wind circulations in its vicinity such that finding proxies of cold vegetation on their
boundaries is expected even without a model simulation.
The use of the global models, when there are major volcanic eruptions and for past climates, is a worthwhile scientific endeavor. However, it
does not indicate if the models necessarily have skill with respect to predicting climate decades from now associated with changes in atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations, land use/land cover change and other human and natural climate forcings.
5. “Multiple models agree on large scales, which is implicitly or explicitly interpreted as increasing our confidence” and “Projections
from newer models are consistent with older ones (e.g. for temperature patterns and trends), indicating a certain robustness”.
Model to model comparisons, while interesting and necessary, are no substitute for comparisons with real world data. The models themselves are actually quite
similar to each other in terms of their dynamical core (i.e. the pressure gradient force, advection) and their parameterizations of the physics. They are
not independent tests of skill, as they are themselves hypotheses (expressed in a mathematical set of numerical code).
Finally, the Knutti 2008 list is remarkably silent on what should be the most important test of the multi-decadal global climate models. This
test is
What is their quantitative skill at predicting climate variations and change on short (e.g. days);
medium (e.g. seasons) and long (e.g. multi-decadal) time scales?
Until this test is completed (the “seamless climate
prediction“), policymakers should not have confidence in their forecasts (projections) decades into the future.
How much evidence will it take to quiet the claim that hurricanes are increasing in frequency due to global warming?
Global Warming crusaders are particularly fond of promoting the idea that we are having a profound impact on hurricane activity—they seem to never let an
event go unclaimed. At World Climate Report (WCR), we have reviewed dozens of papers from the leading scientific journals presenting scant evidence to support a
strong link between global warming and hurricane activity, and we hope you never get bored with these essays.
The literature never sleeps, and yet another major article has appeared recently in a leading journal with results well-suited for our never-ending review of
this subject.
The authors are Wang, Yang, Ding, Murakami, and Huang—you guessed it, from China, Japan, and the University of Hawaii. The authors report that the research
was supported financially by NASA, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Ocean University of China, and the Korea Meteorological Administration
Research and Development Program. We once again see that many organizations are seriously interested in trends in hurricane activity around the world.
Indeed, Wang et al. begin their article noting “The impact of the rising sea surface temperature (SST) on tropical cyclone (TC) activity is one of the great
societal and scientific concerns. With the observed warming of the tropics of around 0.5°C over the past 4 to 5 decades, detecting the observed change in the
TC activity may shed light on the impact of the global warming on TC activity. Recent studies of the trends in the existing records of hurricane intensity have
resulted in a vigorous debate in academic circles. Much of the debates centered on uncertainties of the hurricane intensity records.” Once again, we see
scientists acknowledging that yet another “vigorous debate” is ongoing in the climate change world, despite the popular claim that “the debate is over”
when it comes to the science of global warming (possibly the most laughable claim we encounter). (WCR)
Spurred by ACEEE’s ranking of California as the most energy efficient state and the fact that California is only exceeded by Michigan and Nevada in
unemployment, we ran a simple regression of ACEEE energy efficiency rankings versus state unemployment rankings according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for
August 2010.
Unemployment ranking was positively correlated (slope=.15) with energy efficiency ranking — i.e., states with higher unemployment rankings tended to have
higher energy efficiency rankings.
ACEEE claims that energy efficiency creates jobs — and maybe it does. But do the jobs
created through energy efficiency efforts wind up destroying other jobs — and more of them?
Energy efficiency is a policy of contraction, not one of growth — and job gains only occur during periods of growth. While energy efficiency may make sense
on a case-by-case basis, blindly implemented on a societal scale, it is a suicidal policy.
There is plenty of energy out there. We need to put as much of it to good use as soon as possible to get our economy and standard of living back on the
positive track. (Green Hell Blog)
Who would have thought the current controversy over man-made global warming could lead to significant rethinking of the entire climate change phenomenon and,
as an unintended consequence, shatter another environmental group-think error involving sustainable oil production? Stick with me here. We need to review some
history first. (John McLaughlin, American Thinker)
The Tides Foundation has spent $6-million to fund green lobbies
By Vivian Krause
There has never been a major oil spill in Vancouver harbour, but this coming Sunday protestors who say a spill is inevitable
will take kayaks and canoes out into the water to stare down oil tankers. Chances are there won’t be a tanker in sight, but there will be a party boat,
organizers say.
If the campaign against oil tankers were to succeed in Vancouver, overseas exports of Canadian oil would be blocked and Canada would be stuck with only one
major customer for Alberta oil: the United States. That’s the trade-off.
Like most protests, the one against oil tankers has all the look and feel of a Canadian grassroots movement. The campaign against Alberta’s oil sands also
seems to rise out of the people, but the interesting thing is that there are very few roots under that grass. Money comes in from a small core of U.S.
charitable groups. One of those groups — the U.S. Tides Foundation of California (Tides U.S.) and its Canadian counterpart have paid millions to at least 36
campaign organizations. (See list above.)
The number of households who are in "fuel poverty" has more than doubled in the last five years because of surging energy bills, according to
official statistics. (TDT)
donderdag, 4 november, 2010 - 20:30
Webinar by Dr Indur Goklany, november 4th, 2010 - 8.30 PM CET
Outline of this webinar: If CO2 continues to be unabatedly emitted, so it is assumed in a worst case scenario, the earth might heat up 4 degrees C. This is
supposed to be especially disastrous for third world countries whose poverty blocks them from taking measures against the threat of climate change.
According to US-scientist dr Indur Goklany there is something fundamentally wrong with this reasoning. A large increase in CO2 emissions can only happen as a
result of economic growth, and that is indeed what involved parties as the IPCC or the authors of the Stern-report foresee for the future: a considerable
increase in world wide wealth.
In their scenarios they however largely ignore the possibility that this increased wealth will be used to offset the problems. That is unrealistic says Goklany:
if the countries do get as rich as Stern/IPCC assume, they will for example spend part of that money to build dams to protect themselves. Malaria is a typical
poverty disease. If economic growth continues then this disease will have disappeared by 2100, whether the world warms or not. If this prognosis of economic
growth is way too optimistic, than that automatically implies that the climate problems will be much smaller since less CO2 is emitted. The two go hand in hand,
CO2-emissions are a fingerprint of economic growth.
Economic growth - with its possibly accompanying climate change - is highly preferable above decreasing emissions in Goklany’s view. Economic growth is of
benefit regardless of the (highly contested) climate change, whereas reduction of emissions so far has shown to cost more lives rather than save (i.c. biofuels).
(De Groene Rekenkamer [The Green Court, NL])
Humor me for a moment and imagine that I am a superhero who is part of a Super Friends team at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. We have sworn to use our
superpowers only to combat a particular form of evil: rent-seeking. Naturally, we’d need a nemesis. This caricature of evil would represent everything we
stand against; it would be the ultimate political panhandler.
Without a doubt, our nemesis would be King Corn.
Fantasies aside, the corn lobby, a.k.aKing Corn, is unbeatable inside the beltway. In
the 1980s, it secured federal giveaways to NOT grow corn. The lobby has since moved on to the ultimate boondoggle: corn fuels. By playing up jingoistic fears of
“energy dependence,” King Corn has convinced the Congress that…
[Editor’s note: The feasibility and desirability of aggressively pursuing offshore
wind turbines has entered the national discussion. This post by Lisa Linowes, executive director
of Industrial Wind Action Group, contributes to this debate.]
We were treated this week to the Department of Energy’s latest advocacy on wind energy: a new report proclaiming the benefits and feasibility of developing wind power along the
coastal waters of the United States. The report adds little to the claims touted in DOE’s “20%
Wind Power by 2020″ (2008), but this time the focus is on 54,000 megawatts of electrical wind capacity off our eastern seaboard, the Gulf of Mexico,
and the Great Lakes. Water depths on the Pacific Coast, according to the DOE, still pose a “technology challenge”. [1]
Offshore Wind in the U.S. today
Currently, there are no operating offshore wind plants anywhere in the country. The controversial Cape Wind project (130 turbines) proposed nearly ten years
ago is still under fire. Wealthy property owners on Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard were joined by Wal-Mart, the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, and wind developer TransCanada among others in protesting the no-compete,
high-priced power purchase agreement under review by the State of Massachusetts.
In Rhode Island, approval of Deepwater Wind’s pilot project is under appeal by the state’s Attorney
General and others over alleged illegalities by the legislature in pushing the project through. Delaware’s Bluewater Wind project is in limbo due to poor economics and growing public opposition to expensive renewable energy. A fight sparked in
Michigan over a 1000 megawatt wind facility in Lake Michigan packed hearing rooms with angry
protests. And the same response came from communities along northern New York after NYPA sought bids to build
turbines in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie.
None of these projects, in total, match the scale and cost of what DOE claims can be built. [Read more →] (MasterResource)
There is strong support for using wind farms and other sources of renewable energy in the U.S. and the largest European countries but little appetite for
paying much for it, according to a new poll.
People in those countries are also divided over whether it’s a good idea to rely more on nuclear power, according to the Financial Times/Harris survey.
(E2Wire)
Which just to show people don't actually know much about "renewables" or they wouldn't have them at any price.
Will electric cars one day become part of a network of rechargeable batteries that can help smooth out the intermittent nature of wind and solar power? Many
experts believe so, pointing to programs in Europe and the U.S. that demonstrate the promise of vehicle-to-grid technology. (Dave Levitan, e360)
Guess they have to try to find some use for them, given they are virtually devoid of value as transport.
In a study released today by the Cato Institute, Duke University professor Chris Conover estimates how much ObamaCare and related provisions will reduce
economic output: (Cato at liberty)
LONDON - The world is tantalisingly close to wiping out polio, but experts are starting to worry about the high risk of failure and say it could have
consequences for confidence in health battles far beyond this crippling disease.
Global health and vaccines experts say they have polio "on the ropes", but are frustrated that the goal of eradicating it continues to elude them more
than 20 years after they set their sights on it. They fear failure could crush trust in other major disease projects such as fighting malaria, HIV or measles.
"The failure to eradicate polio so far means there is a smell of a suspicion about all vaccine initiatives," said Professor David Salisbury, former
chair of the World Health Organisation's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunisation. "That's why we must achieve polio eradication. We need
to demonstrate that it can be done."
Salisbury and others point to the emergence of "donor fatigue" in global health projects and say the failure to wipe out polio risks making that
worse.
Polio spreads in areas with poor sanitation, attacks the nervous system and can cause irreversible paralysis within hours of infection. Children under five are
the most vulnerable to the virus - a disease that until the 1950s crippled thousands of people every year in rich nations.
In 1988, when the WHO and its partners formed the Global Polio Eradication Initiative to lead the battle, polio was endemic in 125 countries and paralysed
nearly 1,000 children every day. Now it is endemic in just four countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan - and there has been a 99 percent reduction
in cases since 1988. (Reuters)
NEW YORK - Two-thirds of US children who contracted measles in recent years were not vaccinated because of their parents' personal beliefs, report health
officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.
Before national measles vaccination was introduced, up to 4 million people got measles every year, they note in a report in The Journal of Infectious Diseases.
In 2000, the US declared that measles had been eradicated within its borders, but the current report shows that infections continue to occur, largely due to
"importation" of the infection from abroad and decisions by parents not to immunize their children.
While concerns had been raised that the measles-mumps-rubella or MMR vaccine caused autism, extensive investigation has shown that the shot has no relationship
to whether or not a child will develop autism. (Reuters Health)
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices admitted on Tuesday that they were confused by a 1986 law that seeks to make sure that vaccine makers do not exit the
business for fear of lawsuits, while ensuring that children hurt by vaccines are compensated.
The justices' questions focused not on the facts of the case, but on the convoluted wording of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
What is not at issue is that 18-year-old Hannah Bruesewitz is disabled, requiring special care for life.
Nor is the question of whether the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, or DTP vaccine, she was injected with as an infant caused her seizures and consequent brain
damage, or whether vaccine maker Wyeth, now part of Pfizer, is to blame.
The question is whether Hannah's parents, Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz, can sue.
They tried to take legal action under the vaccine injury law, a no-fault system designed to protect vaccine makers and families alike. It is funded by a tax on
vaccines. Parents do not have to prove a vaccine caused their child's injury, but they do usually have to show that the child had an injury that could be caused
by the vaccine.
But the court ruled against the Bruesewitz family and they turned to a state court, which said they are not allowed to do that under the 1986 law.
The Supreme Court is not expected to rule until next year and their questions show the justices struggled to understand the meaning of the law and of the
intended lawsuit. (Reuters)
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Doctors have been scratching their heads for years over the higher asthma risk in kids who use acetaminophen [paracetamol], a
common painkiller known as Tylenol in the US.
Just last August, researchers studying toddlers in Ethiopia said it was "increasingly likely" that the drug had triggered much of the wheezing that
troubled eight percent of those children. And another study hinted it might be fueling a large part of the worldwide increase in asthma (see Reuters Health
story of Aug 13).
In a letter to the editor of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, however, researchers from Germany say there is no cause for alarm.
Using long-term data for more than 3,000 children, they report that the link between asthma and acetaminophen only held when the medication was used to treat
airway infections -- not stomach flu or urinary tract infections.
"A lot of people associate (acetaminophen) with asthma," said Dr. Eva Schnabel, of the German Research Center for Environmental Health in Neuherberg,
who worked on the new analysis.
"Perhaps they should think it over and read the studies again," she suggested.
Schnabel, who has no ties to drugmakers, said most earlier studies hadn't followed children from the get-go and often relied on parents' recall.
But parents whose kids have frequent airway infections might be more likely to remember using a painkiller to lower the fever. And it's possible that the
infections that led to acetaminophen use, and not the drug per se, could have caused asthma later on or revealed an underlying vulnerability to the disease.
"There have been several studies showing that viral infections are a risk factor for asthma," Schnabel told Reuters Health.
NEW YORK - A substantial proportion of obese people don't think they're too fat, new research shows.
Among more than 2,000 obese Dallas County residents surveyed in 2000-2002, 14 percent of African Americans and 11 percent of Hispanics -- but just 2 percent of
whites -- believed that they needed to lose weight, Dr. Tiffany M. Powell of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and her colleagues
found.
People who misperceived their body size were happier with their health, and felt healthier, than those who did recognize their obesity; they were also more
likely to think they were at low risk of developing high blood pressure or diabetes or having a heart attack during their lifetimes. In fact, two-thirds of
people with body size misperception thought they were at low risk of becoming obese. (Reuters Health)
Hmm... someone certainly has a body size misperception but it is not necessarily those who society has recently reclassified as
"overweight".
Considering the reputed merits and perils of high-fructose corn syrup, one might feel like the person in the commercial sponsored by the corn industry. You know
the one: A person offers another a food or beverage containing the much-maligned substance, with the intended recipient recoiling in horror. What, exactly is
wrong with it, the giver asks -- to be met with a blank look.
Just what is it about high-fructose corn syrup that has given it the reputation that it's the Osama bin Laden of the dietary world?
"In my opinion, it's not justified," said Laura Kruskall, a registered dietitian and director of the department of nutrition sciences at the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"It's not that it's bad," agreed Joanna Gorman, a registered dietitian at University Medical Center, noting that the American Dietetic Association's
position is that no foods are inherently bad.
And high-fructose corn syrup is, after all, from a food -- corn -- Kruskall noted. "It does not include any artificial or synthetic ingredients or color
additives. It is nearly identical to table sugar, approximately half-glucose, half-fructose.
"The reason why it's been demonized is that people link it to obesity and diabetes in particular."
But the link is more of a faulty assumption, the dietitians said. (Las Vegas Review-Journal)
Researchers have long shown that obesity leads to lost sleep—usually due to sleep apnea. They’ve also found that lack of sleep leads to weight gain by
making you hungrier, slowing your metabolism and triggering depression (which can lead to increased eating).
None of that is surprising to me.
But when I saw this most recent study about sleep and obesity, I did a double take.
In it researchers exposed mice to dim light at night for 8 weeks. These mice gained 50 percent more weight than other mice who had normal periods of light and
darkness. Interestingly, the mice who slept with the dim lighting managed to gain more weight even thought they were not physically eating more food than the
control group.
They were, however, eating food at different times. “Something about light at night was making the mice in our study want to eat at the wrong times to
properly metabolize their food,” said Randy Nelson, co-author of the study and professor of neuroscience and psychology at Ohio State.
If the results carry over to humans, it could mean that the time of day (or night) you consume your meals can make a much bigger difference to the size of your
waistline than previously thought. (Morning Call)
Just two years ago, President George Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency lowered the ozone standard from 84 parts per billion (ppb) to the current 75
ppb. Ozone is a naturally occurring molecule made up of three oxygen atoms that can be unhealthy at high levels. It is often created when vehicle and industrial
emissions (from manufacturers and refineries) react with sunlight.
The EPA normally waits at least five years before revising their ozone standard, but their is nothing normal about the Obama EPA. In January 2010, the Obama
EPA proposed reducing the again, this time to 60 ppb. The EPA claims
this will save as many as 12,000 lives a year and as much as $100 billion annually in health care spending by 2020. But then there is the cost. Continue reading... (The Foundry)
The environment might seem like an easy target but the Government will have trouble cutting spending in an area that includes energy security and flooding
defence. (TDT)
Really? Flood defense is engineering & public works while energy security should be under the umbrella of energy and industry, what has a
tinkerbell ornament like "environment" got to do with anything useful?
The exotic birds and animals of the tropics are disappearing at a catastrophic rate as the rich world strips poor countries of their natural resources, the
WWF has warned (TDT)
Living Planet report shows planet's resources are being used at 1.5 times the rate nature can replace them – but long-term decline of animal life appears
to have been halted (Guardian)
Fifty years after being declared biologically dead, the Thames has been hailed as an environmental success story. But how has the iconic river been
transformed? (TDT)
With almost one billion people lacking access to clean, safe drinking water, scientists are reporting development and successful initial tests of an
inexpensive new filtering technology that kills up to 98 percent of disease-causing bacteria in water in seconds without clogging. A report on the technology
appears in Nano Letters, a monthly American Chemical Society journal.
Yi Cui and colleagues explain that most water purifiers work by trapping bacteria in tiny pores of filter material. Pushing water through those filters requires
electric pumps and consumes a lot of energy. In addition, the filters can get clogged and must be changed periodically. The new material, in contrast, has
relatively huge pores, which allow water to flow through easily. And it kills bacteria outright, rather than just trapping them.
The scientists knew that contact with silver and electricity can destroy bacteria, and decided to combine both approaches. They spread sub-microscopic silver
nanowires onto cotton, and then added a coating of carbon nanotubes, which give the filter extra electrical conductivity. Tests of the material on E.
coli-tainted water showed that the silver/electrified cotton killed up to 98 percent of the bacteria. The filter material never clogged, and the water flowed
through it very quickly without any need for a pump. "Such technology could dramatically lower the cost of a wide array of filtration technologies for
water as well as food, air, and pharmaceuticals where the need to frequently replace filters is a large cost and difficult challenge," their report states.
(ACS)
Food security is a concern in Africa, but Africans are better able to adapt their agricultural methods to the threat than many are acknowledging. (CSM)
In the letter, he has recalled some better times when the American Physical Society actually allowed and encouraged the physicists to use their expertise,
creativity, honesty, and intelligence to discuss important matters related to science.
The current APS is very different. Most people in its leadership are corrupt and they deliberately try to suppress any debate about questions that would be
financially or "socially" harmful to these individuals - and global warming has become a key topic of this kind.
Yesterday, the APS has answered to Dr Hal Lewis in a way that I consider breathtakingly arrogant and dishonest.
First of all, the answer to the important letter by a serious scientist was apparently composed by a secretary, a black female bureaucrat called Tawanda
Johnson. Or is it a coincidence that she is signed under the reply and that the quality of the text suggests that indeed, no scientist was involved?
THE Royal Society's report coincides with dissidence at the American Physical Society.
THE Royal Society's September report, Climate Change: A Summary of the Science, has brought into the open the widening difference of views about how the science
of climate change should be assessed. It comes after a prominent resignation from the American Physical Society (the top body of US physicists) for the refusal
of the society's executive to undertake a similar review despite requests from a large number of members.
In Australia, too, an examination of the Inter-Academy Council's review of the processes and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
concludes that, although the council's chairman claims the IPCC's findings stand, the review itself exposes serious flaws in the panel's information and
analysis. The examination by this group, which is a follow-up to its recent publication in the British journal Energy & Environment, is now being widely
distributed in Australia.
All three assessments reflect the revelations provided by the exchanges between scientists actively involved in climate research - now known as Climategate -
that some research results appear to have been falsified. These reports have spread widely in science circles in Australia. However, apart from The
Australian, there has been almost no reference to these revelations in the Australian media. The Age, which had not bothered to cover the Royal Society's
report, was quick to report that the Royal Society's vice-president John Pethica (who chaired the report committee) had rejected suggestions that the society
had changed its position on climate change. (The Australian)
Just as tea party activism is about to snatch American energy policy from the jaws of cap-and-trade, some on the right are already moving into
“bipartisan” mode. The (often) conservative American Enterprise Institute has teamed up with the (liberal) Brookings Institution and the (self-described,
“founded in 2003 to modernize liberal-progressive-green politics”) Breakthrough Institute to offer a “post-partisan” energy policy.
If ever there were a time to hit the reset button on energy policy, it is today. [Agreed, if this means getting rid of centrally-planned and dictated
energy policy and politics. Somehow, though...] Congress is set to adjourn without taking substantive, long-term action on either climate or energy. [Great.
The defeat of cap-and-tarde is a victory for America.] While conservatives may be celebrating the death of cap and trade, the truth is that the
right’s longstanding hopes for the expansion of nuclear power and oil production have also run aground, foundering on the high cost of constructing new
nuclear plants and the impacts of the devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. [C'mon, if the greens had passed cap-and-trade, there would still not
be any nuclear power or new oil/gas drilling. To argue to the contrary is either naive or disingenuous.] As a result, energy policy is at a standstill,
despite overwhelming public support for accelerating the move to clean, affordable energy sources and tapping fast-growing clean energy industries to create
jobs and wealth in the United States. [American-produced energy already is clean — it's the Chinese that could use the Clean Air Act.]
Today, few issues in American political life are as polarized as energy policy, with both left and right entrenched in old worldviews that no longer make
sense. [Global warming skepticism is based on sound science. If that's an "old worldview," then call us dinosaurs.] For the better
part of two decades, much of the right has speculated darkly about global warming as a United Nations-inspired conspiracy to destroy American sovereignty, all
while passing off chants of “drill, baby, drill” as real energy policy. [Speculated? Did you miss Climategate? Glacier-gate? Pachauri-gate? Al
Gore's admission that climate regulation is about global governance?] During the same period much of the left has oscillated incoherently between
exhortations that avoiding the end of the world demands shared sacrifice, and contradictory assertions that today’s renewable energy and efficiency
technologies can eliminate fossil fuels at no significant cost. [The left isn' oscillating at all. They are focused on establishing a one-world
socialist paradise. Whatever path gets the comrades there, they'll follow. Global warming has just been there most successful gambit to date.] All the
while, America’s dependence on fossil fuels continues unabated and political gridlock deepens, preventing real progress towards a safer, cleaner, more secure
energy system. [We have plenty of fossil fuels, and they are cheap and safe. We'd be even more energy independent, if we relied more on our own
resources including coal, natural gas and nuclear power. Three cheers for gridlock — it's better than the Obama alternative.]
The extremes have so dominated mainstream thinking on energy that it is easy to forget how much reasonable liberals and conservatives can actually agree on. [Watch
out conservatives, here's where the post-partisans get us to walk into the chopper blades.] Fossil fuels have undeniably been critical to American
prosperity and development, but we can gradually move toward cleaner, healthier, and safer energy sources. [There is no objective or empirical evidence
indicating that alternative forms of energy are cleaner, healthier and safer than fossil fuels.] Indeed, throughout history, as we have become a more
prosperous nation, we have steadily moved to cleaner energy sources, from wood and dung to coal to oil to natural gas, hydropower, and nuclear energy. [Nonsense.
There is no such transition going on. We use more coal than natural gas. The greens have essentially killed off more nuclear development. Hydropower is only
used where possible. The greens want to go back to burning wood and weeds (biomass).] Our goal today should be to make new clean energy sources much
cheaper so they can steadily displace fossil fuels, continuing this ongoing process. [Fossil fuels are not "dirty" as used in America.]
If we structure this transition correctly, new energy industries could be an important driver of long-term economic growth. [How does more expensive
energy without any accompanying benefits lead to long-term economic growth?]
Arriving at a new post-partisan consensus will require liberals and conservatives, alike, to take a renewed look at key facts, which challenge some
long-standing assumptions about energy. [Translation: Now that conservatives have triumphed over cap-and-trade, it's time to surrender.]
For liberals this means acknowledging that today’s renewable energy technologies are, by and large, too expensive and difficult to scale to meet the energy
needs of the nation, much less a rapidly growing global population. [Does this mean that: (1) liberals should wake up and smell reality; (2) Al Gore and
his fellow green profiteers/rentseekers should try to make money the old-fashioned way, i.e., by earning it; and that (3) green Marxist/socialists and other
reds should cease and desist?] New mandates, carbon pricing systems such as cap and trade, and today’s mess of subsidies are not going to deliver the
kind of clean energy innovation required. And nuclear power, long reviled by many on the left, is far cleaner and safer than most liberals imagine, and holds
enormous potential to displace low-cost but high-polluting coal power. [The left doesn't care about how safe nuclear power is. Nuclear power is energy
non grata as far as the left is concerned.]
For conservatives this means acknowledging that fossil fuels have serious health, safety, and security consequences aside from any risks global warming might
pose. [Sorry, not buying the junk science. This sentence is footnoted to materials from groups like Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Clean
Air Task Force.] The biggest obstacle facing nuclear
power is not environmental policy but rather public opposition, high construction costs, and associated financial risks. [All green activist inspired
problems.] And while many faults can be found with ethanol and synfuels investments, the bulk of historic federal investments in energy technology —
from hydro and nuclear to solar, wind, and electric vehicles — have been an overwhelming success. [Hydro has worked. Nukes can work. but solar, wind
and EVs are taxpayer rip-offs.]
This white paper is the product of a more than yearlong dialogue between scholars at three think tanks situated at divergent points on the political compass.
Drawing on America’s bipartisan history of successful federal investment to catalyze technology innovation by the U.S. military, universities, private
corporations, and entrepreneurs, the heart of this proposal is a $25 billion per year investment channeled through a reformed energy innovation system. [Because
central planning (as the 20th century proved) works so well...]
This new system is built on a four-part energy framework:
1. Invest in Energy Science and Education
2. Overhaul the Energy Innovation System
3. Reform Energy Subsidies and Use Military Procurement and Competitive Deployment to Drive Innovation and Price Declines
4. Internalize the Cost of Energy Modernization and Ensure Investments Do Not Add to the National Debt
To accelerate energy innovation and modernization, we propose a role for government that is both limited and direct. It is limited because it is focused, not
on reorganizing our entire highly complex energy economy, but rather on specific strategies to drive down the real cost of clean energy technologies. Instead of
subsidizing existing technologies hoping that as they scale up, costs will decline, or providing tax credits to indirectly incentivize research at private
firms, this framework is direct because the federal government would directly drive innovation and adoption through basic research, development, and procurement
in the same way it did with computers, pharmaceutical drugs, radios, microchips, and many other technologies.
Time and again, when confronted with compelling national innovation priorities, the United States has summoned the resources necessary to secure American
technological leadership by investing in breakthrough science and world-class education. The United States responded vigorously to the Soviet launch of Sputnik
by investing the resources necessary to ensure American innovators, entrepreneurs, and firms would lead the world in aerospace, IT, and computing technologies,
igniting prosperous new industries in the process. [The successes of the Manhattan Project and race to the moon should not swell the heads of would-be
central planners. Both were exceedingly limited-in-scope projects. Not easy, but limited.] Today, we invest $30 billion annually in pursuit of new
cures to deadly diseases and new biomedical innovations that can extend the lives and welfare of Americans. [Investment? We have accomplished precious
little with that annual $30 billion. That expenditure has become more akin to workfare for the overeducated.] We similarly devote more than $80 billion
annually to military innovations that can help secure our borders. [Another rousing government success!] We propose a similar national
commitment to energy sciences and education, which have languished without the funding deserving of a national innovation priority. [We already spend a
fortune on education — more than any other nation. What do we get for it? 25th in worldwide math and science?] At the same, this proposal is based on
what we know about successful public-private partnerships to build and strengthen regional hubs of innovation, such as the one that evolved into Silicon Valley.
Therefore, we propose investment in a national network of regional clusters of universities, entrepreneurs, private investors, and technology companies. [Apparently,
we can't make progress until we have the proper bureaucracy set up. Taxpayers need to hold on to their wallets any time the term "public private
partnership is used.]
While the left wants to cut fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies and the right wants to cut renewable energy subsidies, we propose across-the-board energy
subsidy reform, disciplining all incentives for technology deployment and adoption to a new framework that rewards innovation — as measured through real
declines in the cost of generating energy — not simply producing more of the same. [Why not get rid of all subsidies and reform the tax code? Make
technologies compete on their own economic merits. Technology is its own incentive; if it needs to be subsidized then it has no real value.] Today’s
federal investments — whether for solar and wind or ethanol and nuclear — are structured around scale and quantity, not innovation. The innovation system we
propose builds on the successes of military procurement to purchase and prove advanced energy systems while providing competitive markets for emerging energy
technologies, which can facilitate mass manufacture, demand progressive innovation, and bring down the real, unsubsidized cost of clean and secure energy
alternatives. [Military procurement as a model? Which cost-overrun should we point to? What is this fascination with command-and-control style
government?]
These productive investments have the potential to raise America’s economic growth over the long term and thus help reduce the budget deficit. America’s
$1.3 trillion budget deficit is largely a consequence of low growth and the increasing cost of structural entitlement programs, but it can be overcome by a
combination of higher growth, responsible entitlement reform, and targeted spending cuts. Achieving higher growth will require continued federal investments in
productive enterprises, including health, information technology, and energy. [Believe it or not, fire, electric current, the automobile, airplane,
telegraph, telephone and many other technologies were all developed and commcialized without government involvement. AEI and Brookings have been in Washington,
DC too long.] Furthermore, fear of technology failure should not paralyze strategic investments in innovation, since some amount of failure is
inevitable and essential to such a disruptive and non-linear process. [We have nothing to fear, but the government itself.]
To ensure that these limited, targeted new investments do not add to the federal deficit, we propose a suite of options that Congress and the President can
use to finance energy innovation. [Because the government can/should be picking winners and losers? President Obama was a community organizer, not
Thomas Edison, in his past life (and even Edison was wrong when it came to electricity for the masses).] These include cutting existing energy
subsidies, charging new royalties for oil drilling, small surcharges on oil imports or electricity sales, and a very low carbon price. While each of these
mechanisms may bother some on both the left and right, all should agree that exacerbating the national debt is unwise. Revenues must be found in order to make
these productive investments, which have long-term potential to revitalize the economy. [A growing economy will float all boats — including our
bloated government. Growing government will do just the opposite.]
Increasing investment in energy technology and innovation, as we advocate, remains exceedingly popular with Americans of all political stripes. Of all energy
policy proposals, from carbon pricing and cap and trade to new oil and gas drilling, expanding production and lowering the price of clean, innovative energy
technologies is the most popular approach, regularly receiving support from 65 to 90 percent of Americans in independent news polls, Gallup surveys, and other
opinion research. [Unicorns for everyone and free cotton candy would also be popular.]This public support is consistent over time, and reflects
the historical willingness of publics to pay slightly more for cleaner and safer energy sources. [Let's poll the public and whether it likes being lied
to and ripped off by the government.]
In the pages that follow, we aim to present a practical and bipartisan [Bipartisan = supposed conservatives who want to be invited to tony Washington
DC cocktail parties.] approach to American energy policy. The time has come for a fresh start that can bring our nation into the future through a
pragmatic drive to make clean energy cheap and abundant. [Fresh start = July 4, 1776]
POST-PARTISAN POWER
AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; BROOKINGS INSTITUTION; BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS”
Invest in Energy Science and Education
Secure funding necessary to complete the doubling of Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science budgets. Direct a significant portion of new funds to
programs related to energy sciences, including roughly $300 million in annual funding to scale up the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC) program over the
coming years. [The Department of Energy is a failure and should be abolished.]
Invest roughly $500 million annually to support K-12 curriculum and teacher training, energy education scholarships, post-doctoral fellowships, and graduate
research grants. [We need to get the federal government out of education. Has anyone noticed that kids have gotten stupider as the government gets more
involved?] Just as the United States rose to the Cold War challenge by enacting the National Defense Education Act and leveling critical investments in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics education, a new national commitment is needed today to train, educate, and inspire a generation of energy innovators,
engineers, and entrepreneurs. [Cold War defense challenges were solved by men and women who were educated in the days before taxpayer largesse flowed
freely to a corrupted university system.]
Overhaul the Energy Innovation System
Help reform the U.S. energy innovation system by investing up to $5 billion annually to establish a robust national network of regional energy innovation
institutes bringing together private sector, university, and government researchers alongside investors and private sector customers. Funded at $50-300 million
annually, each institute will foster competitive centers of clean energy innovation and entrepreneurship while accelerating the translation of research insights
into commercial products. [Because in Washington DC: Bureaucracy=Success]
Bring the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) to scale by providing $1.5 billion annually, while dedicating a significant portion of new
funding to dual-use energy technology innovations with the potential to enhance energy security and strengthen the U.S. military. The Department of Defense
(DOD) should work actively with ARPA-E to determine and select dual-use breakthrough energy innovations for funding through the ARPA-E program and potential
adoption and procurement by the DOD. [Hopefully, DOD's success with pioneering the Internet will translate into a perpetual motion machine.]
Reform Energy Subsidies and Use Military Procurement and Competitive Deployment Incentives to Drive Price Declines
Reform the nation’s morass of energy subsidies. Instead of open-ended subsidies that reward firms for producing more of the same product, employ a new
strategy of competitive deployment incentives, disciplined by cost reductions and optimized to drive steady improvements in the price and performance of a suite
of emerging energy technologies. Create incentives for various classes of energy technologies to ensure that each has a chance to mature. Decrease incentive
levels until emerging technologies become competitive with mature, entrenched competitors to avoid creating permanently subsidized industries or picking winners
and losers, a priori. Meet the new morass; same as the old morass.]
Expand DOD efforts to procure, demonstrate, test, validate, and improve a suite of cutting-edge energy technologies. New, innovative energy alternatives are
necessary to secure the national defense, enhance energy security, and improve the operational capabilities of the U.S. military. Provide up to $5 billion
annually in new appropriations to ensure the Pentagon has the resources to pursue this critical effort without infringing on funds required for current military
operations. [We should just surrender to the Chinese now. In return, maybe they'll let us keep using knives and forks.]
Recognize the potential for nuclear power — particularly innovative, smaller reactor designs — to enhance American energy security, reduce pollution, and
supply affordable power. [We can "recognize" anything we want, but as long as the greens have the ability to choke of nuclear power through
regulation and litigation, they will.] America cannot afford to bank on one technology alone, however, and must pursue all paths to clean, affordable
energy, supporting all innovative, emerging clean energy sources, from advanced wind, geothermal, and solar to electric vehicles and advanced batteries,
allowing winners to emerge over time. [At what point does the taxpayer get to pull the plug on failed technologies?]
Internalize the Cost of Energy Modernization and Ensure Investments Do Not Add to the Deficit
Secure revenues to ensure these productive new investments do not exacerbate the national debt, through one or a combination of the following means: phase
out unproductive energy subsidies, which have not sufficiently driven innovation; direct revenues from oil and gas leasing to energy innovation; implement a
small fee on imported oil to drive energy innovation and enhance American energy security; establish a small surcharge on electricity sales to fund energy
modernization, similar to the Highway Trust Fund; and/or dedicate revenues from a very small carbon price to finance necessary investments in clean energy
technology. [Translation: Make consumers pay more for energy.]
So there you have it — ”post-partisan energy policy.” It’ll build on what’s failed and then charge people more for it.
Sorry, but we’re for gridlock until the American left packs up and moves to Totalitarian Fantasy Island. (Green Hell Blog)
Open scepticism of global warming could rule next Congress.
Nineteen of the 21 serious Republican challengers for seats in the US Senate believe that climate science is either "inconclusive" or
"incorrect", according to an analysis by Washington DC's non-partisan National Journal. A more comprehensive list compiled by the left-leaning Wonk
Room website suggests that 31 out of 37 Republican Senate candidates — including nine out of ten sitting senators — have recently disputed the science. Five
of the remaining six actively oppose existing climate bills. (Nature News)
Michael Greenstone has the résumé of somebody who should be despondent over Washington’s failure to pass a climate bill. An environmental economist who
worked in the Obama White House, he is now back to being an M.I.T. professor and also runs the Hamilton Project, the well-connected, Democratic-leaning research
group.
But Mr. Greenstone is not despondent. He thinks the benefits of the bills that died in the Senate — which would have raised the cost of carbon emissions,
through a system known as cap and trade — were sometimes exaggerated. Once the necessary compromises were made, the bills might not have raised the cost of
carbon by much. And they obviously wouldn’t have done anything about fast-growing emissions in China and India.
“The first best hope was getting a world price for carbon, and that now looks remote in the coming years,” he says. “But there are ways in which the other
options may be preferable to a price only in the U.S.”
To put it another way, the death of cap and trade doesn’t have to mean the death of climate policy. The alternative revolves around much more, and much better
organized, financing for clean energy research. It’s an idea with a growing list of supporters, a list that even includes conservatives — most of whom
opposed cap and trade. (NYT)
Just be sure to keep talking rather than doing until the world cools some more and we can put this idiocy behind us.
Congress seems intent on imposing energy taxes on the American public. First, there was the proposed cap-and-trade legislation; now there’s a renewable
energy standard.
While cap-and-trade legislation appears to be dead for now, the same can’t be said for a renewable energy standard. On September 21, 2010, Senator Bingaman
(D-NM) introduced the Renewable Electricity Promotion Act of 2010 (S. 3813). A bipartisan
group of 32 cosponsors gives this bill a legitimate chance of passage this year. At a
minimum, it’s a bill that warrants significant attention.
Background
The legislation would create what is referred to as a renewable energy standard (RES). The RES is a combination of two discreet policy programs. The first is
a renewable energy mandate and the second is an energy efficiency mandate.
Electric utilities would be required to meet a 15 percent RES and would have to generate at least 11 percent of their electricity from renewable energy
sources. The remaining 4 percent could come from energy efficiency savings—utilities could not exceed this 4 percent number.
The requirements would phase in over time, as shown in Figure 1. (Note: The energy efficiency requirement could never exceed 26.67 percent
of the total RES requirement).
Figure 1
Calendar year: Minimum annual percentage
2012 through 2013: 3.0
2014 through 2016: 6.0
2017 through 2018: 9.0
2019 through 2020: 12.0
2021 through 2039: 15.0
The Biggest Subsidy of Them All
Renewable energy sources have been receiving massive subsidies for decades. Even with these subsidies, electric utilities have not purchased renewable
energy, such as wind and solar power, because of their high costs and unreliable nature. [Read more →] (MasterResource)
Rich nations must spell out their plans for cutting greenhouse gases more clearly to enable U.N. talks in Mexico to agree the cornerstone of a pact to slow
global warming, the U.N.'s climate chief said. (Reuters)
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has hinted the Gillard government is not particularly keen on a carbon tax.
In a deal with the Australian Greens, Labor agreed to set up a multi-party climate change committee to examine ways of putting a price on carbon.
The Greens, who prefer a carbon tax over the government's defeated emissions trading scheme, have urged Labor to bury its carbon pollution reduction scheme.
But Mr Combet said this did not mean a carbon tax was inevitable, as all options were examined. (AAP)
In fact the only inevitability is the collapse of the rainbow conglomerate government -- Aussies expect to be back at the polls within a
year. There will be no carbon price in the land down-under.
Climate change sceptics are likely to be given greater prominence in BBC documentaries and news bulletins following new editorial guidelines that call for
impartiality in the corporation’s science coverage. (TDT)
THERE appears no let-up ahead for Queensland's wet weather, with meteorologists warning the rain-bearing La Nina weather event has strengthened.
National Climate Centre forecasters say another prime indicator – the Southern Oscillation Index – is at its highest since 1973. The early to mid-70s were
the last major wet period in Queensland.
The SOI is a simple measure of a climate phenomenon known as the Southern Oscillation in which air pressure shifts between the Asian and east Pacific regions.
Rural productivity – specially in Queensland and NSW – is so closely linked to the oscillation that its variability can be traced by rises and falls in
Australia's wheat yield. (Courier-Mail)
Global warming and a race for resources could spark a new 'cold war' in the Arctic, US naval admiral warns ahead of key talks on environmental security
(Guardian)
... unfortunately Arctic cycles appear to be swinging back to a colder regime and access to these resources will be limited and difficult.
Energy Policy: The administration lifts the Gulf drilling moratorium in time for the election, but it's not as good as it sounds. Meanwhile, China buys up
Texas oil land to develop the energy reserves we won't.
The lifting of the Gulf drilling ban imposed after the explosion of British Petroleum's Macondo well came as welcome news. But like anything this administration
does, one must read the fine print.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the ban was being lifted before its Nov. 30 target because of the "the higher standards we have set" for
drillers applying for new permits.
However, the placement of further drilling restrictions by an administration openly hostile to the use of fossil fuels and domestic energy development does not
bode well. (IBD)
The European Commission has decided to end coal subsidies by 2014, a decision which does not sit well with Chancellor Angela Merkel. She wants Europe to
revisit the decision, but support is lacking. Even her own economics minister is standing in the way. (Spiegel)
LONDON, UK, Oct 12, 2010/ Troy Media/ – If you’re hankering to see Britain’s green and pleasant land and rugged coastline, don’t wait too long. In an
increasingly desperate bid to meet its EU climate and renewable-energy targets, the British government is planning to build 10,000 onshore and offshore wind
turbines – many 400 feet high – over the next 10 years.
The “British wind experience,” however, constantly cited by Canadian, United States, and other advocates, far from saving the earth, turns out in practice
to be costing the earth. (Peter C. Glover, Troy Media)
First it was heat and drought in Russia. Then it was heat and too much rain in parts of the American Corn Belt. Extreme weather this year has sent grain
prices soaring, jolting commodities markets and setting off fears of tight supplies that could eventually hit consumers’ wallets.
In the latest market lurch, corn prices dropped in early October, then soared anew, in response to changing assessments by the federal government of grain
supplies and coming harvests.
The sudden movements in commodities markets are expected to have little immediate effect on the prices of corn flakes and bread in the grocery store, although
American consumers are likely to see some modest price increases for meat, poultry and dairy products.
But experts warn that the impact could be much greater if next year’s harvest disappoints and if 2011 grain harvests in the Southern Hemisphere also fall
short of the current robust expectations.
“We can live with high commodity prices for a period without seeing much impact at the retail level, but if that persists for several months or a couple of
years, then it eventually has to get passed on” to consumers, said Darrel Good, an emeritus professor of agricultural economics at the University of Illinois.
The rise in prices is a good indication of how volatile the market has become for commodity futures in basic farm products like corn or wheat.
Grain prices started to shoot up over the summer on reports of a catastrophic drought in the major wheat-producing regions of Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
Prices rose not only for wheat, but also for corn and soybeans, since those grains are interchangeable as animal feed and a drop in wheat production could mean
increased demand for the other grains. (NYT)
The safety of vaccines is at the heart of a case expected to be heard on Tuesday by the United States Supreme Court, one that could have implications for
hundreds of lawsuits that contend there is a link between vaccines and autism.
At issue is whether a no-fault system established by Congress about 25 years ago to compensate children and others injured by commonly used vaccines should
protect manufacturers from virtually all product liability lawsuits. The law was an effort to strike a balance between the need to provide care for those
injured by vaccines, some of them severely, and the need to protect manufacturers from undue litigation.
Under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, such claims typically proceed through an alternative legal system known as “vaccine court.” Under that
system, a person is compensated if their injury is among those officially recognized as caused by a vaccine. That person, or their parents, can choose to reject
that award and sue the vaccine’s manufacturer, but they then face severe legal hurdles created by law to deter such actions.
The case before the Supreme Court is not related to autism. But the biggest effect of the court’s ruling, lawyers said, will be on hundreds of pending
lawsuits that contend a link exists between childhood vaccines and autism. Repeated scientific studies have found no such connection. (NYT)
An acquaintance, a lawyer, asked me the other day what you call ten lawyers on the bottom of the ocean, proceeding immediately to provide the
response "a very small step in the right direction". She may well be right, at least in the case of tort law.
(Oct. 11) -- If you can't fly the friendly skies without a stiff drink or a sedative, take note: The fumes from airplanes are to blame for more annual deaths
than actual airplane crashes.
Maybe not the most reassuring of factoids, but one that offers a reminder of just how safe (relatively speaking) air travel really is.
What's so deadly about airplane exhaust?
Much like the exhaust that pours out of your car, plane fuel emits pollutants (like sulfur dioxide, for example). The particles are tiny, and that's what makes
them so deadly: They can easily enter the human bloodstream and cause long-term health damage.
Researchers at MIT, whose work is reported by National Geographic, used a computer model to track plane emissions through the atmosphere. They noted where the
emissions were likely to fall and then linked them to human deaths.
They tabulated that around 10,000 deaths per year can be blamed on airplane pollution. Compare that to 1,000 annual deaths caused by crashes. (AOL News)
It is about this model exercise. With regard to the Southern Asia deaths being
attributed here to far off U.S. air travel emissions they really should look a little closer to home, i.e., check out the particulates from cooking fires and
inefficient stoves fueled by wood, grass, dung and coal. Look also at the haze from agricultural burn offs and then tell us how you can identify air travel as
causal. India certainly suffers a disproportionate number of deaths due to poor air quality but that is an artifact of underdevelopment, not developed world air
travel. Idiotic piece. Then again, it is ES&T and that ACS publication has had little contact with the real world for the longest time. Complete nonsense.
Update: observant reader notes the author can't even get their address right, according to Cambridge's site,
their address is Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK but:
No, no, no. Telling adults that they can't use food stamps to purchase a soda?
It's a terrible idea.
To be sure, New York City's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, deserves credit for attacking the obesity crisis straight-on. More mayors, governors and CEOs should be
zeroing in on this problem, too, because it threatens to take a huge toll in pain, suffering and health care costs.
In New York City, close to 40 percent of public school children now are fat. Among Hispanic children, it's 46 percent. An estimated 57 percent of New York City
adults are overweight, too. The status quo is plainly unacceptable.
But Bloomberg's recent proposal to ban food stamp users from buying sodas is an overreach. It would peer over the shoulder and meddle -- punitively -- in the
grocery carts of struggling Americans. (The Oregonian Editorial Board)
For years, high fructose corn syrup has been erroneously implicated as a prime suspect in the obesity epidemic. Inexact scientific reports and inaccurate
media accounts have increased confusion about the sugar made from corn. New research proves otherwise.
A new study, presented on Saturday October 9, at the Obesity Society’s 28th Annual Scientific Meeting, further reinforces the facts about high fructose corn
syrup. Results from the double-blind study revealed that fructose containing sweeteners (sugar, high fructose corn syrup) do not uniquely contribute to obesity
when consumed as part of a healthy weight maintenance diet. The study also found that high fructose corn syrup no more contributes to caloric intake than table
sugar (sucrose). (Food Manufacturing)
Water shortages will be the world's most pressing problem in the next decade, compounded by a growing global population, Britain's chief scientist John
Beddington said on Tuesday.
Climate change is forecast to disrupt rainfall patterns, leading to more severe droughts and floods, posing problems for the supply of fresh water.
The world's population of about 6.6 billion is forecast to rise by 2.5 billion by 2050, while growing wealth and urbanization is fuelling demand for water.
(Reuters)
"Climate change" is the big distraction/excuse of the era. Australian states committed to what is looking like hundreds of billions
of dollars worth of desalination contracts while failing to build dams because gorebull warbling was allegedly causing monster droughts of the
century/millennium. Naturally it has since been exceptionally wet and billions of tons of potable water are flowing to sea because we lack impoundment storage
while we pay significant sums under long-term contracts to have completely useless desalination plants. Stupid game. Forget "climate change" and pay
attention to the roughly 60 years it takes to complete the cycle of wetter and drier phases by region.
PJTV's series on Big Green wraps up with a reminder that there's gold in that green.
In the third and final installment of this investigative series with the Washington Examiner, Joe Hicks reveals the dirty secrets of the environmental movement.
Environmentalists have a lot of money, and spend it freely on Democrats. How did Big Green become so powerful and influential? How were the world’s first
carbon billionaires created? (PJM)
In an article in Friday’s paper, Elisabeth Rosenthal and I describe the bad mood and poor prospects pervading the run-up to the next big United Nations
climate change conference, which opens at the end of November in Cancún, Mexico.
Delegates and observers say that little progress has been made since the last major climate meeting, last December in Copenhagen, where scores of heads of state
tried to thrash out a binding international agreement to lower emissions of the gases that are contributing to the warming of the planet. They failed in
spectacular fashion.
Now many are wondering whether the process itself, under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is so flawed that it should
be scrapped. Is it realistic to expect that 200 nations with vastly different interests, from China to Saudi Arabia to Bolivia to Micronesia, can come together
to address a problem that will affect them in vastly different ways? Is there a better way to attack a global problem largely caused by a handful of large
industrialized countries?
Should the next so-called “conference of the parties” be the last? (John M. Broder, NYT)
According to The Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration's move to curb 'greenhouse gases' using the Environmental Protection Agency has drawn legal
challenges from more than 90 companies and trade associations. This could be very interesting since any of these legal challenges conceivably might result in
subpoenas issued for infamous warmists such as James Hansen and Michael Mann, forcing them to provide documents and prove their flimsy AGW theory under
cross-examination in a court of law. Here's what happened when James
Hansen was 'boxed in' on the witness stand once before, dumbfounded when cross-examined and asked to name just one other scientist who agreed with
his assertion that sea levels would rise more than 1 meter this century, stating "I could not, instantly." (Hockey Schtick)
Nuclear and cleaner coal would be considered eligible sources in an alternate clean energy standard proposed in the US Senate last week.
The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2010 introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) would require utilities to obtain 13% of their energy from clean
sources by 2013, increasing to 20% by 2020 and continuing to rise by 5% every five years through 2050.
But unlike current proposals for a federal renewable electricity standard (RES), clean energy sources would include coal – if at least 65% of greenhouse gas
emissions are captured and sequestered – and new nuclear, as well as renewable energy. The bill would also expand the definitions of biomass and
hydroelectric, for example to include more types of forest materials.
Under Graham’s proposal, utilities would be allowed to buy, sell and bank credits for use during subsequent years and would be given credits for early
retirement of high-emitting fossil fuel generation facilities. They would also be able to make payments of 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour (adjusted for inflation)
in lieu of compliance or to use federal energy efficiency credits to meet up to 25% of the total. (OilPrice.com)
Forget RES, CES or any other "energy standard" -- it's just an energy rationing scheme with no upside regardless of the alphabet
soup used to disguise it.
I wrote here about the recently emerged Cuccinelli
Derangement Syndrome, as manifested by last Wednesday's Washington Post editorial page: Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is an embarrassment for, inter
alia, looking into fraud under an anti-fraud statute as opposed to putting climate science on trial. Huff huff, stomp stomp. Even since that recent day,
however, the Syndrome has taken a turn -- not for the better, particularly when you consider its sufferers are scientists, academics and journalists -- such
that the malady already requires an update. (American Spectator)
Alarmist warnings about the planet are falling flat
Switching terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" to newly favored "global climatic disruption" was supposed to help
revive the environmental left's plunging poll numbers. It hasn't worked. Nature has, inconveniently, failed to cooperate, with dire predictions of upcoming
catastrophes falling flat. Desperation pervades a propaganda effort that has finally gone too far. (Washington Times)
In an address to Green Mountain College on May 15, Carol Browner, Director of Energy and Climate Change Policy, stated “The sooner the U.S. puts a cap on our
dangerous carbon pollution, the sooner we can create a new generation of clean energy jobs here in America…” In July, 2009, President Obama lauded the
“Cash for Clunkers” program, stating that the initiative “gives consumers a break, reduces dangerous carbon pollution, and our dependence on foreign
oil…” Unfortunately, our President is misinformed about carbon pollution.
The phrase “dangerous carbon pollution” has become standard propaganda from environmental groups. An example is a May, 2010 press release from the World
Wildlife Fund that called for “a science-based limit on dangerous carbon pollution that will send a strong signal to the private sector.” Environmentalists
have successfully painted a picture of black particle emissions into the atmosphere. This misconception is being used to drive efforts for Cap & Trade
legislation, renewable energy, and every sort of restriction on our light bulbs, vehicles, and houses—all in the misguided attempt to stop climate change.
(Big Government)
Shoppers familiar with seeing fair trade, organic or rainforest labels during their weekly shop will have to get used to another logo: the carbon footprint.
Leading food brands are increasingly using the Government's black footprint logo and, according to research published today, it will become the second most
common ethical label in UK shops by the end of this year. (Independent)
Car sales, flights and waste all increase as the recession takes its toll on consumers' motivation
Britons are less environmentally conscious than they were five years ago, with twice as many people now "bored" by talk of climate change as in 2005.
Four in 10 take no action at all to reduce their household carbon dioxide emissions. Experts warn that green fatigue is a major reason why there are more cars
on the roads, more planes in the sky and no reduction in the mountain of packaging waste. (Independent)
That's the thing about imaginary hobgoblins, you have to keep switching the ones you are warning about before people notice they fail to
arrive. Gorebull warbling has simply been too lucrative a cash cow for them to move on and people are wising up.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is delighted and honoured to announce that Professor Harold (Hal) Lewis, one of America's most distinguished physicists,
has agreed to join our Academic Advisory Council. (GWPF)
Britain's Royal Society, one of the most venerable science academies, has amended its idiots' guide to global warming. Officially titled Climate Change, A
Summary of the Science, the 19-page layman's document is a refreshing departure from the strident, doom-and-gloom message that has characterized most scientific
statements on global warming, which have been parroted by the Al Gores of the world thusly: humans are to blame, sea levels will rise and the end of the world
is fast approaching. (Calgary Herald)
CHURCHVILLE, VA—The ten coldest winter-spring temperatures out of the last 500 in Stockholm, Sweden, were almost all during the Little Ice Age. No surprise
there. The coldest was 1569, followed by 1573.
The warmest years: 1863, 1990, 1743, 1525, 1989, 1605, 1822, 1790, 1762, and 2008, in that order. The years since 1976, supposedly with “unprecedented
warming,” claim only three slots among the top ten. Apparently, the Modern Warming isn’t all that hot. Nor do we have any temperature readings from the
earlier Medieval and Roman Warmings, which the ice cores and seabed sediments tell us were even warmer than today.
In science, observations must be taken much more seriously than theories or computer models. The Swedish data came primarily from long-term records on sea ice
conditions in the Stockholm harbor inlet—such as the dates when the ice broke up each year. The data correlation is good when the harbor records overlap with
instrumental data. (CGFI)
Any competent researcher involved with the science behind
climate change will admit that CO
2 is far from the only influence on global climate. It has long been known that short-lived greenhouse gases and black-carbon aerosols
have contributed to past climate warming. Though the IPCC and their fellow travelers have tried to place the blame for global warming on human CO
2 emissions, decades of lies and erroneous predictions have discredited that notion. For anyone still clinging to the CO
2 hypothesis, a short perspective article on the uncertainty surrounding climate change in Nature Geoscience has put paid to
that notion. It states that not only did other factors account for 65% of the radiative forcing usually attributed to carbon dioxide, but that it is impossible
to accurately determine climate sensitivity given the state of climate science.
In “Short-lived uncertainty?” Joyce E. Penner et al. note
that several short-lived atmospheric pollutants—such as methane, tropospheric ozone precursors and black-carbon aerosols—contribute to atmospheric warming
while others, particularly scattering aerosols, cool the climate. Figuring out exactly how great the impacts of these other forcings are can radically change
the way historical climate change is interpreted. So great is the uncertainty that the IPCC's future climate predictions, which are all based on biased
assumptions about climate sensitivity, are most certainly untrustworthy. As stated in the article:
It is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity (defined as the equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations) from past records, partly because carbon dioxide and short-lived species have increased together over the industrial
era. Warming over the past 100 years is consistent with high climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide combined with a large cooling effect from
short-lived aerosol pollutants, but it could equally be attributed to a low climate sensitivity coupled with a small effect from aerosols. These two
possibilities lead to very different projections for future climate change.
All truthful climate researchers know these facts, yet publicly the party line is that catastrophic changes are in the offing and CO
2 emissions are to blame. The perspective authors argue that only by significantly changing the amounts of these other pollutants and
carefully measuring the impact on global climate over a period of several decades will science be able to figure out what is going on. “Following this
strategy, we will then be able to disentangle the warming and cooling contributions from carbon dioxide and short-lived pollutants, hence placing much tighter
constraints on climate sensitivity, and therefore on future climate projections,” they state.
And they said it was all carbon dioxide's fault.
Most of the factors under discussion have relatively short lifetimes in the atmosphere, several less than two months. We do not know how the
relative influences of these various substances (referred to by climate scientists as “species”) may change in a warming climate. It is also not clear how
to reduce short-lived species under present conditions but the uncertainties in atmospheric chemistry and physics must be resolved if Earth's environmental
system is to be understood. Again quoting from the paper:
Of the short-lived species, methane, tropospheric ozone and black carbon are key contributors to global warming, augmenting the radiative
forcing of carbon dioxide by 65%. Others—such as sulphate, nitrate and organic aerosols—cause a negative radiative forcing, offsetting a fraction of the
warming owing to carbon dioxide. Yet other short-lived species, such as nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds, can modify the
abundance of both the climate-warming and climate-cooling compounds, and thereby affect climate change.
Quantifying the combined impact of short-lived species on Earth's radiative forcing is complex. Short-lived pollutants—particularly those
with an atmospheric lifetime of less than two months—tend to be poorly mixed, and concentrate close to their sources. This uneven distribution, combined with
physical and chemical heterogeneities in the atmosphere, means that the impact of short-lived species on radiative forcing can vary by more than a factor of ten
with location or time of emission. The situation is further complicated by nonlinear chemical reactions between short-lived species in polluted areas, as well
as by the interactions of clouds with aerosols and ozone. These processes add further uncertainty to the estimates of radiative forcing.
Unfortunately, climate models neither accurately deal with local effects of these pollutants nor are the complex interactions among these
substances understood. That not withstanding, the report is clear—CO
2 does not account for even a majority of the warming seen over the past century. If other species accounted for 65% of historical
warming that leaves only 35% for carbon dioxide. This, strangely enough, is in line with calculations based strictly on known atmospheric physics, calculations
not biased by the IPCC's hypothetical and bastardized “feedbacks.”
Of course, the real reason for the feedbacks was to allow almost all global warming to be attributed to CO
2. This, in turn, would open the door for radical social and economic policies, allowing them to be enacted in the name of saving the
world from global warming. The plain truth is that even climate scientists know that the IPCC case was a political witch's brew concocted by UN bureaucrats,
NGOs, grant money hungry scientists and fringe activists.
Now, after three decades of sturm und drang over climate policy, the truth has emerged—scientists have no idea of how Earth's
climate will change in the future because they don't know why it changed in the past. Furthermore, it will take decades of additional study to gain a useful
understand climate change. To do this, climate scientists will need further funding. Too bad the climate science community squandered any public trust it may
have had by trying to frighten people with a lie.
Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical. (Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth)
The weather phenomenon known as La Nina will have an impact this year not seen in decades, resulting in a temperature drop in Thailand of 2 degrees Celsius,
according to a study supervised by Chulalongkorn University.
La Nina will also result in a premature wet season, in addition to a 30-year-record drop in temperature, researcher Arnont Sanitwong na Ayutthaya told a Bangkok
technical seminar.
The study was based in Chiang Khan district in Loei province because it had experienced record low temperatures in two nine-year cycles: 20 degrees for 18 weeks
from 1975-1984, and 21 degrees for 20 weeks from 1995-2004.
La Nina is now causing a drop in the temperature of seawater in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean near the equator. (Asia One News)
COLUMBUS, Ohio – Researchers looking at corals in the western tropical Pacific Ocean have found records linking a profound shift in the depth of the
division between warm surface water and colder, deeper water traceable to recent global warming.
The finding is the first real evidence supporting what climate modelers have been predicting as the effects of global climate change on the subsurface ocean
circulation.
The report by researchers from Ohio State University and the University of Toronto was published in the latest online edition of the journal Geophysical
Research Letters. (OSU)
One location seems to confirm something modelers hope to find... but it also simply shows the phase shift in the PDO. They don't think it
shows the same for prior phase shifts but don't know whether their proxy is sufficiently sensitive or durable to do so. Was this really worthy of a press
release?
Geographers at Leicester use forensic techniques to investigate untapped resource
Scientists at the University of Leicester are using an unusual resource to investigate ancient climates– prehistoric animal urine.
The animal in question is the rock hyrax, a common species in countries such as Namibia and Botswana. They look like large guinea pigs but are actually related
to the elephant. Hyraxes use specific locations as communal toilets, some of which have been used by generations of animals for thousands of years. The urine
crystallises and builds up in stratified accumulations known as 'middens', providing a previously untapped resource for studying long-term climate change.
Funding from the Leverhulme Trust and, more recently, the European Research Council has allowed the Leicester group to join an international team led by Dr
Brian Chase, from the Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution de Montpellier, to study these unique deposits. With Dr Chase, Drs Andrew Carr and Arnoud Boom from
the University of Leicester's Department of Geography are engaged in exploring novel records of past environmental change preserved within the middens.
(University of Leicester)
No global warming presentation is complete without some pictures of snowpacks and glaciers melting away in alpine environments. The world is warming and the
warmth is melting snow and ice in mountainous areas – seeing is believing, and finding pictures of melting snow is rather easy (just wait until spring every
year)! (WCR)
Models are fundamental for estimating the possible costs and effectiveness of different policies for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. There is a wide
array of models to perform such analysis, differing in the level of technological detail, treatment of technological progress, spatial and sector details, and
representation of the interaction of the energy sector to the overall economy and environment. These differences impact model results, including cost estimates.
More fundamentally, these models differ as to how they represent fundamental processes that have a large impact on policy analysis--such as how different models
represent technological learning and cost reductions that come through increasing production volumes, or how different models represent baseline conditions.
Reliable estimates of the costs and potential impacts on the United States economy of various emissions reduction and other mitigation strategies are critical
to the development of the federal climate change research and development portfolio. At the request of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the National
Academies organized a workshop, summarized in this volume, to consider some of these types of modeling issues. (NAP)
What's to model? There is no known downside to a warmer planet and no known upside to carbon constraint. On the other hand humanity benefits
mightily from using carbon-dense fuels. Study done. Move on.
The stresses associated with climate change are expected to be felt keenly as human population grows to a projected 9 billion by the middle of this century,
increasing the demand for resources and supporting infrastructure. Therefore, information to assess vulnerabilities to climate change is needed to support
policies and investments designed to increase resilience in human and Earth systems.
There are currently many observing systems that capture elements of how climate is changing, for example, direct measurements of atmospheric and ocean
temperature. Although those measurements are essential for understanding the scale and nature of climate change, they do not necessarily provide information
about the impacts of climate change on humans that are especially relevant for political and economic planning and decision making.
Monitoring Climate Change Impacts tackles the challenge of developing an illustrative suite of indicators, measurements (and the locations around the globe
where the measurements can be applied), and metrics that are important for understanding global climate change and providing insight into environmental
sustainability. Eight panels provided input on: cryosphere, land-surface and terrestrial ecosystems, hydrology and water resources, atmosphere, human health and
other dimensions, oceans (both physical and biological/chemical), and natural disasters. The book also provides an illustrative set of metrics that are likely
to be affected by climate change over the next 20-25 years and, when taken together, can potentially give advance warning of climate-related changes to the
human and environment systems. (NAP)
From CO2 Science Volume 13 Number 41: 13 October 2010
Ocean Acidification Project:
We introduce a new section of our website where we archive marine organism responses to atmospheric CO2
enrichment obtained from experiments described in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Come and find out if ocean acidification is the problem it is
claimed to be. Check back often, as new data will be added regularly. Click here to
access the project and database.
Subject Index Summary: Acclimation (Tree Species: Citrus): Do citrus trees gradually lose the growth
advantage conferred upon them by higher atmospheric CO2
concentrations?
Plant Growth Database:
Our latest results of plant growth responses to atmospheric CO2
enrichment obtained from experiments described in the peer-reviewed scientific literature are: Cowpea (Singh et al., 2010) and Giant Knotweed (Osada et al., 2010).
Medieval Warm Period Project
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 889
individual scientists from 529 separate research
institutions in 43 different countries ... and
counting! This issue's Medieval Warm Period Record comes from Mt. Zarumori, Northern
Japan. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database, click here. (co2science.org)
Drill ships and response vessels work in the Gulf of Mexico off the Louisiana coast line while attempting to drill relief wells at the Deepwater Horizon Oil
Spill wellhead July 27, 2010.
Photo: Reuters/Sean Gardner
The Obama administration on Tuesday lifted its ban on deepwater drilling seven weeks ahead of schedule, saying new rules cut the risk of a repeat of the BP oil
spill, the worst ever to hit the United States.
The U.S. Interior Department said oil companies must comply with new regulations and demonstrate they can adequately respond to blowouts.
"The oil and gas industry will be operating under tighter rules, stronger oversight, and in a regulatory environment that will remain dynamic as we
continue to build on the reforms we have already implemented," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement.
Analysts said the new rules could slow the return of deepwater drilling to pre-spill levels. An industry group and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana urged
Interior to move quickly on permitting, while the environmental group Greenpeace blasted the early end of the moratorium. (Reuters)
The Obama administration is acknowledging that its new offshore drilling safety regulations will raise costs for the oil and gas industry — and may also
delay some offshore development, slightly increase gas prices and kill some jobs.
The new rules unveiled last week would increase operating costs by an estimated $1.42 million for each new deepwater well drilled with a floating rig,
$170,000 for each new deepwater well drilled with a platform rig and $90,000 for each new shallow-water well, according to an Interior Department notice
released yesterday.
China has become the world's largest energy user, having overtaken the United States, the head of the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday.
"China is now the largest energy consumer by our definition," the executive director of the Paris-based IEA, Nobuo Tanaka, told an industry
conference.
"Probably half of the oil demand increase comes from China. Nobody knows when it (will) slow down."
The IEA advises 28 developed countries. China is not a part of the IEA but the agency monitors the country as its oil demand can have a significant impact on
prices.
Tanaka said Iraq, which has just revised up its estimates of proven oil reserves by 25 percent, could have a major influence on the oil market.
"Iraq can be a game changer. We need Iraq oil," Tanaka said. (Reuters)
Imagine the U.S. government offering $7,500 to well-off buyers of a BMW 3-series convertible, and an additional $2,000 to buy fuel. Imagine the outrage.
There you have the problem with the Chevy Volt.
In the midst of a slow economy and voter anxiety, the U.S. government is preparing to roll out its green electric-car program starring Chevy’s plug-in hybrid.
While GM has offered the car for media drives, the collective
Goregasm from the press hides the fact that the high tech, silent, undoubtedly cool electronic gizmo is a $41,000 plaything for the blue coast jet set.
“I drove a pre-production Volt,” writes one reviewer with the Boston Herald, “(and it) proved to be a far better vehicle than I was expecting, an
undeniable engineering coup for GM. The biggest surprise may be how well the Volt handles. The T-shaped battery pack is placed very low in the chassis, and the
lower the extra weight is, the better.”
The trouble with pressie car reviewers is the cars are free. Sure, the Volt handles better than the $17,000 Chevy Cruze with which it shares a platform — but
if it’s handling you want, you’ll drop your $40 grand on a BMW. Or an Audi A5. Or any number of vastly superior vehicles in that price range.
And that gets to the nub of the issue. The Volt — and its expensive electric stable mates — are rich niche cars for DiCaprio & Co. Which is why the
Toyota Prius–dominated hybrid market has never eclipsed 3 percent of cars sold. Which is why the U.S. government is desperately offering a $7,500 tax credit
to buy it and another $2 grand for a fast-charging station.
“The Volt strikes us as the closest in concept to the winning formula of the Prius,” writes Car & Driver, which — unlike their media brethren — has
managed to maintain some perspective. “This is without a doubt the most important new car since the advent of hybrids in the late ’90s, and GM has nailed
it. Is this the handing off of the Prius’s very illustrious torch?”
The Volt is evolution, not revolution. That is, it’s the new green fashion statement. It’s the new Prius. (Henry Payne)
Critics in the US have questioned whether General Motors' much hyped Volt electric car is a real EV or just another hybrid
"GM Lied: Chevy Volt is not a true EV".
That's the headline that has greeted General Motors executives after the official media launch of the company's much-vaunted Volt electric car.
Respected US automotive websites Motor Trend and Edmunds Inside Line have reported that the Volt, which GM has always claimed was purely an electric vehicle,
actually uses its on-board range-extending engine to power the car's wheels at higher speeds.
GM had claimed that the Volt's 1.4-litre engine was only used to recharge the car's batteries on the move when its batteries had been depleted - but Edmunds
Inside Line claims that the Volt will "at times be directly driven in part by its internal combustion engine".
In a media release from General Motors, the brand spruiks "the Chevrolet Volt is not a hybrid" and that it "is a one-of-a-kind, all-electrically
driven vehicle".
Not so, says Edmunds.
"In fact the Chevy Volt is a plug-in hybrid and it has more in common with conventional 'series-parallel' hybrids like the Toyota Prius than the marketing
hype led us to believe. There are circumstances in which the Volt operates with the internal combustion engine directly driving the front wheels. That's right,
like a Prius."
"Under certain circumstances - speeds near or above 70 mph ... the engine will directly drive the front wheels in conjunction with the electric
motors," the website says.
The claims have the potential to affect the price of the circa $40,000 Volt. The Federal Government has approved the Volt for a $US7500 tax credit based on the
fact that it is an electric vehicle. Hybrids are not eligible for the credit.
GM vehicle line executive Doug Parks told the Detroit Free Press that the Volt's engine "never drives the wheels directly".
"The engine only generates electricity, and it doesn't do that until the battery is depleted. Electric power is the only way to move the car."
But a GM spokesman, Tom Wilkinson, told the New York Times: "There is some mechanical drive force at high speed. The engineers wanted to maximise the
overall performance and eliminate any potential flat spots in the acceleration curve. "
GM has also faced criticism over the Volt's claimed battery range and fuel economy figures.
GM originally claimed the Volt would have an electric-only range of 40 miles (65 kilometres) which has now been revised to "between 25 and 50 miles".
Several real world tests by industry website Popular Mechanics have resulted in an average of just 33 miles.
Further testing by Popular Mechanics has also seen GM's claim of "230 miles per gallon" (1 litre per 100 kilometres) quashed, with both city and
highway testing of the Volt seeing an average consumption six times higher than GM's claim - 6.2 litres per 100km. (SMH)
NEW YORK - Babies diagnosed with jaundice may be more likely to later receive a diagnosis of autism, suggests a large new study.
However, the Danish researchers caution that many questions remain unanswered, making it too early to say for sure if there is a true cause-and-effect
relationship between the conditions.
Environmental exposures prior to, during and shortly after birth are emerging as important risk factors for the development of autism, in addition to genetic
factors, Hannah Gardener of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study, told Reuters Health in an e-mail.
Jaundice is a common condition among newborns that results when the yellow pigment found in bile, called bilirubin, accumulates faster than the immature liver
can process it. More than half of babies born full-term have some of the characteristic yellowing of the skin and eyes, but it usually resolves itself and is
rarely harmful.
Autism, which causes problems with social and communications skills, affects approximately one in every 110 U.S. children, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
In a prior study, Dr. Rikke Damkjaer Maimburg of Aarhus University found that children diagnosed with autism were twice as likely to have been admitted to the
neonatal care unit as newborns, most commonly for jaundice. Yet she knew that earlier research into a link between jaundice and autism had yielded conflicting
results. (Reuters Health)
Living with airplanes thundering over your head could put your heart at risk, according to a Swiss study.
After studying 4.6 million adults across Switzerland, researchers found that dying from a heart attack was more common among people with increased exposure to
aircraft noise.
"The effect was especially evident for people who were exposed to really high levels of noise, and was dependent on how long those people had lived in the
noisy place," researcher Matthias Egger of the University of Bern, told Reuters.
Advertisement: Story continues below
This isn't the first time that noise has been linked to negative health effects, including cardiovascular risks.
But this study could help determine whether the sound is really exerting the effect, or if it is something else tagging along with the noise, such as air
pollution. (SMH)
Brazil will auction large swaths of the Amazon forest to be managed by private timber companies and cooperatives to help reduce demand for illegal logging, a
top official told Reuters on Monday.
After years of legal battles and political opposition, the government is reviving concessions for private companies to log its national forests.
"The future of the Amazon -- combating deforestation and climate change -- is strengthening forest management. I don't see any other solution,"
Antonio Carlos Hummel, head of Brazil's National Forestry Service, said at the Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Summit.
The government will grant private companies logging concessions for nearly 1 million hectares (2.47 million) by year-end and, within 4 to 5 years, nearly 11
million hectares (27 million acres), the size of the U.S. state of Virginia.
Existing concessions total only 150,000 hectares (370,000 acres). (Reuters)
WASHINGTON - Twenty-nine countries show alarming levels of hunger and more than a billion people were hungry in 2009, according to a new report on global
hunger.
World leaders are far from a 1990 goal of halving the number of hungry people by 2015, according to the annual Global Hunger Index published by the
International Food Policy Research Institute and other aid groups.
"The index for hunger in the world remains at a level characterized as 'serious,'" the report states. "Most of the countries with 'alarming' GHI
scores are in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia." (Reuters)
Reptiles are being moved to make way for a solar-powered generating station.
Reporting from Primm, Nev. — More than 100 biologists and contract workers fanned out across a nearly pristine stretch of the eastern Mojave Desert on Friday
to start rounding up tortoises blocking construction of the first major solar energy plant to be built on public land in Southern California. (LA Times)
Bugs & birds can shut down commercial development but poor old reptilia, at least Testudines, are served eviction notices to accommodate
eco bling? Discrimination much? I say, stand up for turtle rights! Turtles before rent seekers!
THE Murray-Darling river system could be an "environmental paradise".
That would happen if the maximum amount of additional surface water needed for the catchment were returned.
And the Murray mouth would be open all the time, creating the healthiest possible scenario for the basin.
The Murray-Darling Basin Authority's analysis indicated between 3000 and 7600 gigalitres a year was needed to repair the system's environment.
Authority chairman Mike Taylor said yesterday: "The higher end of that spectrum would create the absolute best possible scenario for the system overall.
However, it simply would not be socially or economically viable." (The Australian)
Before European settlers engineered the river for navigation and water storage it only flowed occasionally, half the time it was a string of
billabongs (waterholes) and dry watercourse, irregularly fed by floods from La Niña events and landfalling tropical cyclones. "Restoring" the river
to its natural state means letting it die.
AUSTRALIAN households are already pay the highest ever rates for electricity. Now get ready to start doing the same for food and clothing.
Murray-Darling And it's all in the name of saving the environment - well part of it anyway.
Proposed drastic cuts to water allocations in the Murray-Darling Basin will hit farmers from Griffith to Narrabri and send supermarket prices soaring, industry
experts said.
The Murray-Darling Basin Authority - an independent body charged with "restoring balance" in some of the country's most productive agricultural areas
- released a proposal yesterday to cut up to 37 per cent from irrigators' water allotments. (Daily Telegraph)
“Enron also welcomed the challenge of responsible environmental stewardship, and called on industry to address the issue of global warming even as some
companies feared the impact of pollution control on their bottom lines.”
- Bill White, “In These Challenging Times, Enron Deserves Our Thanks,” Houston Chronicle, October 26, 2001.
Former Houston mayor and current gubernatorial candidate Bill White is running away from his far Left energy/environmental past–one that he developed as
deputy secretary of the Department of Energy in the Clinton/Gore Administration from 1993 until 1995. And when times were good and when Obama was cool,
Houston’s mayor flaunted his climate alarmism. But no more…
White now pretends to be a fiscal conservative and no longer supports cap-and-taxtrade. But isn’t
this the same fellow that as Houston mayor created new staff positions and supported high-cost energy to promote his Climate Alarmism
agenda? White, indeed, championed wildly uneconomic solar projects for Houston
and has promoted industrial windpower at every turn. White tells as much in a toned-down interview with Mother Jones.
Mayor White also introduced Tim Flannery at the Progressive Forum, another wide-eyed
climate alarmist who states: “If humans pursue a business-as-usual course for the first half of
this century, I believe the collapse of civilization due to climate change becomes inevitable.”
With such dire prognostications, why not let government grow and the cost of energy and energy appliances rise in the name of ’stabilizing climate’ and
’saving mankind’.
This begs the question: What would Governor Bill White do through the back door to promote the Obama/Gore climate agenda.
Rick Perry Has Energy Issues Too
I am no particular fan of Texas Governor Rick Perry and have critically blogged on him at
MasterResource. I remember standing just a few feet from him at a fundraiser some years ago where he criticized George W. Bush for losing his way in
Washington towards big government–only to then launch into how great Texas was because of its windpower boom. [Read more →] (MasterResource)
China hit back on Saturday at U.S. claims it was shirking in the fight against climate change, likening the criticisms to a mythic pig preening itself.
Frustration between the world's two top carbon polluters overshadowed week-long U.N. talks seeking progress on the shape of a new climate pact, with negotiators
making some progress on financing but failing to dispel fears the process could end in deadlock.
Su Wei, a senior Chinese climate change negotiator, swiped at comments from top U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern as the climate change talks drew to a close in the
north Chinese city of Tianjin.
Stern, in remarks at a U.S. university, said Beijing could not insist rich nations take on fixed targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions while China and other
big emerging nations adopt only voluntary domestic goals. (Reuters)
After Copenhagen, there was Bonn. Now there's Tianjin, China. Next month, there will be Cancun, Mexico. It seems the United Nations is continually holding
climate change meetings that require thousands of delegates to fly all over the world in an effort to reduce the world's greenhouse gas emissions. But it's a
big question whether any of these talks will produce a concrete result. If not, there's always next year's big meeting in South Africa. NPR's Mary Louise Kelly
talks with Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, about the carbon footprint of this rolling series of
international meetings, proposals to reduce it, and what is actually supposed to be taking place. (NPR)
A global deal on emissions curbs by airlines struck late on Friday will allow the European Union to press ahead with plans to charge airlines for emissions
permits from 2012, the European Commission said on Saturday.
The EU agreed in 2008 that airlines should be included in its emissions trading scheme (ETS), which forces industry to pay for permits for each tonne of carbon
dioxide they emit into the atmosphere.
The ETS is the EU's main tool for combating climate change and it wants to see the system adopted worldwide. Aviation is responsible for some 2 percent of the
world's carbon emissions. (Reuters)
THE federal government aims to legislate for a price on carbon late next year and have a scheme operating well before the next election in a bid to lessen
the impact of a predicted fear campaign as voters go to the polls. (SMH)
There will be no such legislation "late next year" for the simple reason the rainbow conglomerate government will be history by
then. Australia will never have any form of carbon tax.
JULIA Gillard has been advised that putting a price on carbon is "the only practical way" Australia can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
A report released yesterday by the Prime Minister's task group on energy efficiency has urged her to push ahead with implementing a price on carbon along with
rolling out a national energy savings initiative.
The day after she dumped her citizens' assembly idea in favour of a climate change commission of industry experts, Ms Gillard restated her commitment to the
introduction of a carbon price. (The Australian)
At every turn they want to reduce the quality of life for human beings or in the worst case authorise a doctor to help kill some via euthanasia.
How can any political party charged by the constitution with the responsibility of governing for the peace, order and good government of the Australian people
be taken seriously when the people always come second. And be under no illusions, the Greens are part of the cobbled together Labor government.
Gillard said before the election no carbon tax. Reason for the change? - a demand for one by The Greens.
There will be a Citizens Assembly, Gillard said before the election, to discuss a consensus approach to climate change. After the election no Citizens Assembly.
Instead a committee is established to take this role but only believers need apply. (Bronwyn Bishop, The Punch)
THE weather data used by the federal government to determine how billions of dollars are spent to make buildings more energy-efficient is 30 years out of
date.
The old data seriously undermines policy objectives to limit climate change, experts have declared.
The problems are acknowledged internally by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency but its senior officers have not released up-to-date weather
data, despite repeated pleas over several years from the industry.
The failure to release updated data means that any change in climate affecting Australia's cities, towns and regions since the 1970s was not influencing the
development of environmentally friendlier buildings.
The weather data, a sophisticated package of climate measurements done by Australia's meteorological networks, is used to determine how buildings should be
constructed to achieve optimum energy efficiency. The requirements to improve energy efficiency are widening and becoming more stringent. (The Australian)
Poor, poor pitiful Michael Mann. Check out his op-ed in
last Friday’s Washington Post — our comments in bracketed bold.
Get the anti-science bent out of politics
By Michael E. Mann
Friday, October 8, 2010; A17
As a scientist [Wanna poll that assertion?], I shouldn’t have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that
I — and indeed all my fellow climate scientists — do. [Republicans = Inquisition, don't ya know...]
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would
be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen [There's no evidence that the e-mails were "stolen."]
from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists,
including me. [As between so-called climate-change deniers" and Michael Mann, "falsely"
and "wrongdoing" only apply to Mann.] Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change
and energy security.
My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me [False: PSU never
really investigated Mann; it more or less just took his word that he had done nothing wrong. Since there was no genuine investigation, he could not have
been genuinely "exonerated."] after a thorough investigation [LOL!] of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five
independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the
scientists of accusations of impropriety. [All were as whitewashey as PSU's. "Independent" is probably not the right adjective to describe the
investigations; "staged" is much more accurate.]
Nonetheless, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investigating my previous employer, the University of Virginia, based on the stolen e-mails. [Even
if the e-mails were stolen, how exactly does that exonerate Mann? BTW, Daniel Ellsberg stole files (Pentagon Papers) and he was/is a hero of the Left.]
A judge rejected his initial subpoena, finding that Cuccinelli had failed to provide objective evidence of wrongdoing. [The judge said that Cuccinelli
was within his rights to file such subpoenas and that he needed to be more specific as to what he was looking for.] Undeterred, Cuccinelli appealed the
decision to the Virginia Supreme Court and this week issued a new civil subpoena.
What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published? [Evidence of
f-r-a-u-d.]
The truth is that they don’t expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science
and promoting doubt where there is none. [No, they are just questioning whether the hockey stick was a fraud and whether a fraud was perpetrated on
taxpayers.]
Cuccinelli, in fact, rests his case largely on discredited claims that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) made during hearings in 2005 at which he attacked me and my
fellow researchers. [Discredited? By who? When? Where? Any names? Details?] Then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) had the courage and character
to challenge Barton’s attacks. We need more political leaders like him today. [Boehlert = RINO]
We have lived through the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer [Tobacco company hijinks = Michael Mann
innocence?], and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. [What false claims is he referring to?
Does he know anything about either? Or is this just more guilt by Mann-uendo?] The same dynamics and many of the same players are still hard at work,
questioning the reality of climate change. [No one questions "the reality of climate change"; it's the causes and drivers that are being
debated.]
The basic physics and chemistry of how carbon dioxide and other human-produced greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere have been understood for
nearly two centuries. Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting
glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes. Even without my work, or that
of the entire sub-field of studying past climates, scientists are in broad agreement on the reality of these changes and their near-certain link to human
activity.[These last three sentences are disputed by skeptics.]
Burying our heads in the sand would leave future generations at the mercy of potentially dangerous changes in our climate. [Humans have always been
at the mercy of nature. Fossil fuels have greatly lessened our vulnerability.] The only sure way to mitigate these threats is to reduce global
greenhouse gas emissions dramatically over the next few decades. [Really? No more bad weather if we reduce CO2 levels?] But even if we don’t
reduce emissions, the reality of adapting to climate change will require responses from government at all levels. [There is no evidence that reducing
greenhouse gas emissions will have any discernible effect at all on the climate.]
But the attacks against the science must stop. [No one is attacking science. We're attacking junk science.] They are not good-faith
questioning of scientific research. They are anti-science. [Mann accuses his opponents of what he is doing — an old trick of narcissists and
Communists.]
How can I assure young researchers in climate science that if they make a breakthrough in our understanding about how human activity is altering our climate
that they, too, will not be dragged through a show trial at a congressional hearing? [Easy... tell them not to engage in junk science or fraud.]
America has led the world in science for decades. It has benefited our culture, our economy and our understanding of the world. [No thanks to Michael
Mann and his kind.]
My fellow scientists and I must be ready to stand up to blatant abuse from politicians who seek to mislead and distract the public. They are hurting American
science. And their failure to accept the reality of climate change will hurt our children and grandchildren, too. [If Michael Mann wants to "stand
up" to something, why doesn't he stand up for a debate against a skeptical climate scientist? I think we all know the asnwer to that one.]
Michael E. Mann, the author of “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming,” is a professor in the meteorology department at Penn State
University and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center.[PSU's continued employment of Mann gives a whole new meaning to Nittany
lion.]
We urge people to move to Virginia just so they can vote for Ken Cuccinelli in future elections. (Green Hell Blog)
Conformity: "Vote Democrat," says a meteorologist and noted global warming proponent. But Democrats won't be getting the vote of the esteemed
physicist who just resigned from a scientific body for silencing debate.
Michael Mann, director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center, took to the pages of the Washington Post Friday to say that while "as a scientist, I
shouldn't have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections," he regretted to announce that "unfortunately, it seems that I — and indeed all my fellow
climate scientists — do."
Mann warns that Republicans would launch "a hostile investigation of climate science." But investigation is, in fact, warranted.
Harold Lewis, physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has been a member of the American Physical Society, the second-largest
association of physicists in the world, for 67 years — most of the organization's existence. A couple of days before Mann's piece appeared, Lewis tendered his
resignation. (IBD)
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr,
Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society. (James Delingpole, TDT)
The rift between real science (the pursuit of truth) and PR-science (the pursuit of of money and power) is growing. Associations like The Royal Society, the
APS, and the American Chemical Society are beginning to fracture internally as eminent members reject the unscientific pronouncements made on their behalf by
small “secret and stacked” committees.
Hal Lewis comes from the elite upper levels of science — a physics professor at University of California (Santa Barbara), and a member of the Defense Science
Board (a group of the top 40 or so, advising the Pentagon).
He’s resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) today, after 67 years. The APS is the world’s second largest organization of physicists, with 48,000
members. He is scathing of the fall from grace of the once renowned institution. (Jo Nova)
A handful of US scientists have made names for themselves by casting doubt on global warming research. In the past, the same people have also downplayed the
dangers of passive smoking, acid rain and the ozone hole. In all cases, the tactics are the same: Spread doubt and claim it's too soon to take action.
With his sonorous voice, Fred Singer, 86, sounded like a grandfather explaining the obvious to a dim-witted child. "Nature, not human activity, rules the
climate," the American physicist told a discussion attended by members of the German parliament for the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP) three
weeks ago.
Marie-Luise Dött, the environmental policy spokeswoman for the parliamentary group of Angela Merkel's center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), also
attended Singer's presentation. She said afterwards that it was "extremely illuminating." She later backpedaled, saying that her comments had been
quoted out of context, and that of course she supports an ambitious climate protection policy -- just like Chancellor Merkel.
Merkel, as it happens, was precisely the person Singer was trying to reach. "Our problem is not the climate. Our problem is politicians, who want to save
the climate. They are the real problem," he says. "My hope is that Merkel, who is not stupid, will see the light," says Singer, who has since
left for Paris. Noting that he liked the results of his talks, he adds: "I think I achieved something." (Spiegel)
Prof Schellnhuber: Climate science would
not stand a chance in a public debate. Photo source: PIK
That’s the amazing thing warmist and alarmist Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber has recently admitted, according to Der Spiegel here (read the last paragraph).
And again they assert that the public is just too stupid to have a say in this important public issue.
Schellnhuber is even so arrogant that he compares himself, his fellow “climate scientists” and climate science to Albert Einstein and the theory
of relativity (read below).
More on that in just a bit, but first during the night, Anthony Watts posted news that prominent scientist Hal Lewis is
resigning from the American Physical Society. Anthony asked other bloggers to spread the news. Anthony feels so strongly about this that he even equated it
to Martin Luther:
Dr. Lewis has had enough of the charlatans and frauds infesting climate science all over the world. Read his complete resignation letter here. In it he writes
about Climategate’s aftermath and climate science:
It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not
science; other forces are at work.- Hal Lewis
Now, Schellnhuber and Der Spiegel
Two days ago Der Spiegel came out with one of the nastiest hit pieces I’ve seen in a long time called: Crusade Against Science – The Charlatans of Climate Science. (Note they’ve softened the
title in English). The title I translated was the one used here, scroll down.
After reading the Der Spiegel piece, the first thing that popped into my head was:
Wow! No wonder Fred Singer left Germany in 1940!
Fred Singer. Photo source: CFACT
Der Spiegel singled out Fred Singer and attacked every aspect about him, rehashing all the old tobacco and merchant-of-doubt stuff. Naomi Oreskes’s
fingerprints were everywhere here. Face it, she’s hopelessly infatuated with Fred Singer.
Der Spiegel calls Singer “one of the most influential climate deniers worldwide” and a lead denier in the NIPCC, which it describes:
Sounds impressive, but is actually just a collection of like-minded scientists that have gathered around him. Also one German is in it: Gerd Weber. a
meteorologist who for 25 years was at the service of the German coal industry.
Der Spiegel also goes after Pat Michaels and Myron Ebell, writing that spreading doubt in USA has been easier than in Europe, but that Singer and the
“deniers” are working on that too, and have teamed up with the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).
Der Spiegel:
Behind the impressively sounding name is hardly anything more than a post office box in Jena. President Holger Thuss is a local CDU politician [conservative
party].
Indeed it is so. There is simply no funding for them and so this small but committed group is forced to operate on a shoestring. EIKE is not showered with
tens of millions of euros like activist groups and warmists are. Yet, notice how fearful Der Spiegel and the Science Establishment in Germany are. Even Der
Spiegel feels it has to mobilise and slap down the EIKE shoestring operation.
Schellnhuber and debate
Der Spiegel writes that Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research has nothing against having a
discussion with serious scientists, but refuses to debate with whom he considers “amateurs”. Der Spiegel:
In the end, the science has gotten so complex that the large part of the population is not able to follow it. The climate sceptics, on the other hand, are
satisfying “a need for simple truths”.
And that’s precisely where Schellnhuber sees the sceptic’s secret to success. Unfortunately a public debate would not help: “Imagine if Einstein had to
defend his theory of relativity on talkshow Maybritt Illner. He wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.”
What Schellnhuber is saying here is amazing. He’s saying that his climate science would not stand a chance in a public debate. How right
you are Herr Schellnhuber. But here it is so because your science is light-years away from Einstein’s when it comes to quality, and not because the people in
the land of poets and thinkers are unable to understand it.
And so that’s why he accepts having a discussion only with people who agree with him.
UPDATE: A look back…more on The Great Transformator here:
Certain names or words trigger predictable responses to an article. People use software designed to detect keywords and immediately some respond with
attacks, invariably prefaced by false personal attacks. Often responses are strategies by special interest groups. I’ve done radio for years and learned how
they coordinate to phone in first and take the same personal attack approach. They rarely discuss the issues. Radio stations learned to bypass them by skipping
the first number of calls. (Tim Ball, CFP)
With the science of climate change still in its infancy, Dr Ruairi Hanley believes the Green movement’s predictions of global apocalypse are mere
scaremongering
In 1989, aged 12, I recall reading my geography textbook with a sense of terror. The authors stated that world oil supplies would be exhausted by 2010. Other
cheerful predictions revolved around lethal acid rain, which would destroy crops and result in global famine amid swarms of rampaging locusts.
All of this was presented to Irish schoolchildren as incontrovertible fact, supported by unnamed ‘scientific experts’.
Some 21 years later, oil reserves have actually increased as a result of human ingenuity. Worldwide food production has also improved dramatically due to
advances in agricultural science. Even the dreaded acid rain mysteriously failed to materialise and is apparently no longer an issue.
In 2010, we now have a new group of global ‘experts’ who tell us, once again, that we stand on the brink of apocalypse via a phenomenon known as climate
change. This latest scare has spawned a multi-billion dollar global industry and a political movement that spans the developed world. It has evolved from an
environmental theory to something approaching a religious cult, such is the level of zeal that its adherents demonstrate. (Irish Medical Times)
FARTING camels could be the reason for global warming.
The feral, wind-breaking creatures will soon be monitored in Central Australia to find a link between the animals and emissions that cause global warming.
And while the camels are able to give off emissions while they are alive, new research is trying to prove the animals are even worse when they are dead.
The Territory Government has given Charles Darwin University $10,000 to "engage Aborigines to monitor feral camels' impacts on carbon emission".
This will allow them to find out if greenhouse gas emissions from decomposing and farting camels can be blamed for climate change. The Northern Institute's
camel researcher Dr Benxiang Zeng said the project was going to monitor the impact camels had on vegetation and the degeneration of landscapes.
But it will also look into the impact of released greenhouse gases from farts and dead animals.
"We are trying to do some monitoring on feral camels - including research on the impact of camel culling activities and camel farts," he said.
"We want to find out what impact it has, to cull hundreds of feral camels.
"They die on the ground and break down."
The project, to be conducted on indigenous land in Central Australia, will combine invasive species, climate change and Aboriginal participation by engaging
indigenous communities. "I believe it is the first time to link feral camels to climate change," Dr Zeng said. (Northern Territory News)
BOULDER--Changes in population growth and composition, including aging and urbanization, could significantly affect global emissions of carbon dioxide over
the next 40 years, according to a new study out next week.
The research, appearing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), was conducted by an international team of scientists from the National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration. It was funded by a European Young Investigator's Award, the Hewlett Foundation, and the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR's sponsor.
By mid-century it is estimated that global population could rise by more than three billion people, with most of that increase occurring in urban areas. The
study showed that a slowing of population growth, following one of the slower growth paths considered plausible by demographers at the United Nations, could
contribute to significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The researchers found that such slow growth paths by 2050 could account for 16 to 29 percent of
the emissions reductions thought necessary to keep global temperatures from causing serious impacts. The effect of slower population growth on greenhouse gas
emissions would be even larger by the end of the century. (NCAR/UCAR)
Last November, the headlines read “NASA Satellites Detect Unexpected Ice Loss in East Antarctica“
Remarkably, they claimed that ice was disappearing at a rapid rate from an area of East Antarctica (500 km from the coast) – where the temperature never gets
anywhere close to the melting point. (Real Science)
a new study published in the September issue of Nature Geoscience
suggests that the true melt rate might be much slower than that. (Access a PDF of the study here.)
A joint team of American and Dutch scientists took another look at the GRACE data and found that Greenland and West Antarctica may be melting just
half as fast the earlier studies estimated. As researcher Bert Vermeersen, a professor at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, told the AFP, the earlier estimates
failed to account for glacial isostatic adjustment—the rebounding of the Earth’s crust after the end of the last Ice Age:
Hansen’s “non-linear” theory was ridiculous
to begin with, and was undermined by the JPL study.
Under BAU [business as usual] forcing in the 21st century, the sea level rise surely will be dominated by a third term: (3)
ice sheet disintegration. This third term was small until the past few years, but it is has at least doubled in the past decade and is now close to 1
mm/year, based on the gravity satellite measurements discussed above. As a quantitative example, let us say that the ice sheet contribution is 1 cm for
the decade 2005–15 and that it doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. That time constant yields a sea
level rise of the order of 5 m this century.
His doubling has been halved. That means ice loss rates have not changed, which was obvious from sea level data. Temperatures in Antarctica are cold and
getting colder.
How does this crap get through peer review? Ice doesn’t melt in summer temperatures of -10C, and Antarctica is getting colder.
John Holdren holds the highest position of scientific authority in the country. He was hand chosen by President Obama. He also appears to have less
scientific competence than most first graders.
...if you lose the summer sea ice, there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well. And if you lose
that sea ice year round, it’s going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere. - John Holdren, 2009
Temperatures are well below freezing across the Arctic now, and about -20C near Greenland. they will continue to get colder for the next few months. New ice
is forming at the rate of one Manhattan every minute and a half, in areas that were previously ice free.
The North Pole has gone completely dark. There is no SW radiation to warm things up. Temperatures are too cold to hold much water vapour, so there is almost no
greenhouse effect. It is butt cold in the Arctic, and only a scientific illiterate would think otherwise. (Real Science)
CORVALLIS, Ore. – The soils in large areas of the Southern Hemisphere, including major portions of Australia, Africa and South America, have been drying up
in the past decade, a group of researchers conclude in the first major study to ever examine "evapotranspiration" on a global basis.
Most climate models have suggested that evapotranspiration, which is the movement of water from the land to the atmosphere, would increase with global warming.
The new research, published online this week in the journal Nature, found that's exactly what was happening from 1982 to the late 1990s.
But in 1998, this significant increase in evapotranspiration – which had been seven millimeters per year – slowed dramatically or stopped. In large portions
of the world, soils are now becoming drier than they used to be, releasing less water and offsetting some moisture increases elsewhere.
Due to the limited number of decades for which data are available, scientists say they can't be sure whether this is a natural variability or part of a
longer-lasting global change. But one possibility is that on a global level, a limit to the acceleration of the hydrological cycle on land has already been
reached. (Oregon State University)
Large areas of Australia were in drought, which rather reduces evapotranspiration but that is no longer the case. For example climate
hysteric Flimflam Flannery claimed Brisbane (Queensland) would be out of water in 2010 but as of 03:00 GMT, October 12, current water holdings are 110.4%
(completely full yielding some 8 years requirement impounded, with some emergency flood control storage temporarily [we hope] occupied for controlled release).
An unusually small percentage of Australia is currently drought affected (some portion of this arid land is always so declared) while the majority is somewhat
soggy.
Last November, I reported on accusations from New Zealand that a government agency called NIWA — New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and
Atmospheric Research – had cooked the books on global warming. According to global warming skeptics at the Climate Conversation Group and the New
Zealand Climate Science Coalition, the country’s temperatures had not climbed over the last century, as graphs produced by the agency claimed. Based on
the actual raw data for the last century, New Zealand’s temperature has been steady over that same period.
The skeptics took the agency to court to demonstrate that it had cooked the books. Their Statement of Claim, filed on behalf of the New Zealand Climate
Science Education Trust, asked the High Court to determine
that the New Zealand Temperature Record was invalid and to stop NIWA from providing this invalid data to any governmental authority that might use it to set
policy. In this way, the plaintiffs hoped to prevent New Zealand from setting a global warming policy on the basis of flawed science.
Last month, NIWA filed its own Statement of Defence,
and it was startling. Yes, NIWA declared, it did publish temperature data called the New Zealand Temperature Record, or NZTR as it was widely known, but it was
not required to do so by law.
“There is no ‘official’ or formal New Zealand Temperature Record;” the Statement of Defence went on, the temperature record merely being “an
informal description for a collection of different streams of climate information.”
Next question: Should the New Zealand government base its official climate change policy on an informal, unofficial data set?
“The majority of businessmen prefer power and government-guaranteed profits to philosophical consistency; they are more than willing to trade off market
principles for a system that promises less competition and more security…. Almost every major piece of interventionist legislation since 1887 has had
important business support, and certainly regulation in the oil and gas industry is no exception.”
“Economic planning by its very nature is people planning. It is part of a misguided policy that would
return us to the dark ages of political economy where the State controlled the entire economy and society in its own political interests. To return to that
system is to finally abandon the American experiment and the American dream.”
- – Charles G. Koch (1977)
I would now like to turn to the more subtle historical and political implications of Thornton Bradshaw’s call for planning in oil. Bradshaw would have us
believe that his stance on government planning is an unorthodox, even radical political position for a prominent business leader to take, and a sharp break with
tradition. This is a totally misleading impression, however. Important and influential business leaders have always been anxious to convince the public and the
Congress that the free market cannot work efficiently (in their industry), and that some governmental planning and regulation would be more rational and in the
public interest. They have told us repeatedly that the free market cannot work, that it is often “irrational”, and that it is incapable of planning and
investing long-range. [Read more →]
(MasterResource)
BY JACK DINI – What’s the most effective thing you could do to save energy? When asked this question during a recent survey, 20% of the respondents said
that they could turn off the lights. Wrong! Lighting accounts for a relatively small proportion of the average person’s energy use and almost all of us could
save far more energy in other ways—for instance by turning the heating down as little as a single degree.
What about glass versus aluminum containers? Which requires the most energy? If you said glass you were correct but most folks in the survey didn’t. Glass
requires so much energy to make—or recycle—that it is always more eco-friendly to use aluminum cans, even if one is talking about virgin cans compared to
recycled bottles. Making a glass container from virgin material uses 40 percent more energy than making an aluminum one, and 2,000 percent more when recycled
material is used. (Hawaii Reporter)
It’s hard to sufficiently mock President Obama’s decision to install solar panels on the White House. But I’ll try.
The cost of the panels at this point is unknown. But the White House has assured the public that the installation job will be offered through a competitive
bidding process. Given that Jimmy Carter spent about $30,000 in the 1970s installing solar panels on the White House (removed in 1986 by President Reagan), you
can bank on President Obama’s folly blowing that price tag away, especially when you consider all the federal employee staff time, and security and public
relations efforts that will go into the project.
Since the annual savings of the system is estimated to be only $2,300, you could also safely bet that the system will never actually pay for itself—no
matter how many decades (centuries?) the system is used.
The system won’t make the White House energy independent since nighttime, clouds and rain will all force the building to remain hooked up to its existing
power sources and back-ups.
Finally, the system will offer no environmental benefits. Whether or not you believe that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are changing global climate for
the worse, whatever few tons of carbon dioxide emissions that might possibly be avoided through White House (or anyone else’s) use of solar panels will
scarcely offset the new coal-fired power plant that China erects every other week.
The panel installation can be, then, little more than a too-little-too-late exercise in public relations to salvage something legislatively for President
Obama’s green base.
While even President Obama has given up on a cap-and-trade bill coming out of this Congress, he no doubt would like to prod Congress into passing a so-called
national renewable electricity standard (RES) in the upcoming lame duck session of Congress. An RES would require that a certain percentage of electricity
generation come from solar, wind biomass and other supposedly renewable sources. Conveniently, Senators Jeff Bingaman (D.-N.M.) and the retiring Sam Brownback
(R.-Kan.) have just introduced such a bill (S. 3813).
Although the Bingaman-Brownback bill is little more than cap-and-trade in renewable drag, it
has attracted some Republican support in the Senate from Susan Collins (Maine), Jon Ensign (Nev.) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa). But Democratic skeptics like Mary
Landrieu (La.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) have offset these Republican votes. Sen. Dick Durbin has also rained on the Bingaman-Brownback RES
parade, telling Congressional Quarterly, “It’s not an easy and quick bill. There are many choices, and most of them are controversial. To think we can do
them quickly in a lame duck is a long shot.”
The President’s desperate green supporters insist the White House project is not completely symbolic. The CEO of solar panel maker Sungevity told
Climatewire that, “This is not about Carter and another President doing solar; it’s about the fact that solar is able to save customers money.” Just who
those customers are and how much money they’re actually saving, wasn’t disclosed, however.
The Center for American Progress’ Richard Caperton told Climatewire that if the President used the solar panel announcement “appropriately,” he could
“show that the [solar] industry leads to jobs.” But of course the vast majority of solar manufacturing jobs are in China, where renewable energy workers
earn about 1/10 of American workers.
DuPont is expanding its facility in Circleville, Ohio, to manufacture solar energy materials, accepting $56 million in federal stimulus and state aid for the
$175 million project. What does the taxpayer get for all that money? Seventy new jobs created, 444 existing jobs retained and 230 construction jobs. Add all the
jobs up and divide and you get a per job cost of $235,000, $76,000 of which comes from taxpayers.
Taxpayers are on the hook for about $114,000 for each stimulus-funded solar panel job at projects in Longmont, Colo., and Tipton, Ind. Then there is the
$592,000-per-solar-job cost at the Emmet J. Bean Federal Center in Indianapolis, Ind.
Pardon me, but since the purpose of all this is to force consumers to spend more money buying high-priced energy (but only when the sun shines), as a
taxpayer, I vote for unemployment.
Mr. Milloy is the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com. His columns and op-ed pieces have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Financial
Times, and Los Angeles Times. He is the author of “Green Hell,” a new book from Regnery
Publishing. (Green Hell Blog)
The banana-fication of California is reaching critical mass.
The Antelope Valley Union High School District has entered into public-private partnership (taxpayer beware!) with private firm PsomasFMG to build a 9.6
megawatt photovoltaic system, according to a report in Climatewire. And what a deal it is.
The school system, which expects to save $40 million over the life of the panels (no word of how long “life” is), will not have to put any money down,
instead signing a 20-year power purchase agreement with PsomasFMG for about 80 percent of its power needs. Southern California Edison will generously provide
the other 20 percent at a reduced rate. A “bonus” feature of the deal is that PSomas will donate $20,000 to train a teacher to design a special algebra
curriculum (6th grade to high school) to train students to work in the solar industry. Solar algebra? Are you kidding me?
But while the school district is “saving” millions in electricity bills (who knows how the “savings” were actually calculated), federal and state
taxpayers will be paying for this scam, including a 22-cents-per-kilowatt-hour subsidy from the state-run California Solar Initiative. While it apparently is illegal for school districts to get federal
funding for such projects directly, the project will evade the law by using PsomasFMG as the subsidy recipient. Try a scheme like that at home with, say,
federal tax or election laws and see in which federal prison you land!
And many Californians appear to approve of this sort of activity.
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll claims that Proposition 23, a ballot initiative to roll back
California’s global warming law until unemployment recedes, is losing 49%-37%. That any Californian who could vote himself out of a paper bag would oppose
Proposition 23 is incredible — the state has a budget deficit of $19 billion and and unemployment rate of 12 percent. The state needs to create economic
growth and revenue producing jobs as opposed to innovative ways to milk a shrinking tax base.
Perhaps, we can hope, the poll is just another mainstream media ploy to discourage voters from turning out to save California from the green grifters.
In any event, the people behind the Antelope Valley school district scheme should be investigated — not cemented in place by the defeat of Proposition 23.
(Green Hell Blog)
A sign that shale gas has great potential is that greens are trying to shut it down
Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert said this week that Alaskan natural gas would likely flow through the province ahead of gas
from the Mackenzie Delta. Not so long ago, such a statement would have been regarded as treasonable. Now it appears merely common economic sense. In fact, the
real issue is whether either source of Arctic gas will be developed before the age of hydrocarbons ends. That is due to the stunning improvements in the
technologies of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that have made the production of vast amounts of shale gas feasible.
This gas not merely presents the possibility of an economic bonanza in many areas, including B.C. and Quebec, but of enhancing much-coveted U.S. energy
independence. It also promises to rearrange energy geopolitics. But for the moment, it is aggravating a supply glut in North America. On Thursday, prices on the
New York Mercantile Exchange slumped 6.4% to US$3.62 per million British thermal units (which is roughly equal to a thousand cubic feet).
South Africa must review its biofuels policy to include maize to allow farmers to use their surplus crop for energy production, the agriculture minister said
on Friday.
The government unveiled blending ratios for biofuels three years ago but said maize, South Africa's staple food, could not be used in the production of biofuels
in order to ensure food security and keep a lid on high prices.
"Agriculture is not only about food production but also concerns energy. So with the surplus maize, we as government must look again at our biofuel
policy," Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson told a conference. (Reuters)
WHEN Neil Rayner put solar panels on his roof, he did so under two assumptions: it would help clean up the planet and that his electricity bills would become
noticeably cheaper.
He was wrong on the second count.
Mr Rayner's electricity costs are increasing - the result of being forced to pay a much higher rate for power drawn from the national grid than people without
household solar systems.
Advertisement: Story continues below
''It is a rip-off and the problem is we are not told that this would happen when we put solar on,'' he said.
Mr Rayner is not alone. The average non-solar home is charged between 17¢ and 19¢ per kilowatt hour of electricity used due to a Victorian government
moratorium on price increases while a new ''smart'' metering system is rolled out.
But in what is described as an oversight, the moratorium does not apply to households that sign a contract to receive a premium rate for excess power generated
on their roof and fed into the grid.
Instead, energy companies are charging people with photovoltaic solar panels up to double the standard rate during peak hours.
In Mr Rayner's case, AGL charges him 32¢ per kilowatt hour during the evening - the time he is most likely to need the power grid to run his home in McKinnon.
''If I had known, I would not have put panels on my roof - it's not worth it,'' he told The Age.
''I reckon I could just about set up a business explaining to people what they need to look out for if they are thinking of putting solar on, because it's
become a very complicated exercise.''
Chris Shattock, of Beaumaris, estimates that since installing solar panels at his home his electricity charges have been 40 per cent higher than if he had been
charged the lower rate reserved for non-solar homes.
''By having panels I am at a big disadvantage, even though I am being paid to feed some electricity back into the grid,'' he said. (The Age)
Europe’s Ill Wind is a film about the views of people living near existing or planned wind farm developments. Their objections have been dismissed by the
wind industry, government and pro-wind campaigners as selfish NIMBYism, leaving unanswered many questions about the reliability and environmental credentials of
wind energy.
This site is under construction. In the near future, we will be publishing more information about the views in the film, and links to many further sources of
information. There will also be an extended version of the film and extended interviews with the people who have appeared in it.
“The people who build wind farms are not environmentalists. . . . Business is a delicate balancing act, and chief executives are always walking a tightrope
between the needs of the community, their employees, and the marketplace.”
- Paul Gipe, Wind Energy Comes of Age (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995), p. 454.
The front page exposé in the New York Times of another problem of industrial wind—coming on top of Robert Bryce’s eye-opening Wall Street
Journalpiece on air emissions relating to firming wind
energy—presents another problem for Big Wind and Big Environmentalism.
Windpower’s noise problem is nothing new–it has just been swept under the rug by the industrial wind complex. The oft photoshoped pictures of wind
turbines skip the sound–that would ruin the idyllic facade of the energy source that is radically uneconomic and an inferior energy source compared to
conventional electricity generation.
Small wind has a noise problem too. Big wind? Suffice it to say you don’t want to live or
work near an industrial wind park, or even a solitary wind turbine, unless you have to.
Property values will work to internalize the externality over time, which is bad for existing owners and good for new owners. And some existing land owners
will receive land royalties to put up with their discomfort. But what about victimized neighbors? And in a free society, wind turbines would not
exist for the noise problem to be an issue. (Funny how government intervention has unintended
consequences.) Electricity would be generated in much greater quantities indoors in power plants.
Tom Zeller’s “For Those Near, the
Miserable Hum of Clean Energy” (New York Times, October 5, 2010, p. 1) brings wind’s noise problem to the attention of the environmental
Left, in particular. Wind has not solved this problem, one that Paul Gipe spent 20 pages (pp. 371–91) discussing in his 1995 book, Wind Energy Comes of
Age (New York: John Wiley & Sons).
Gipe confronts the noise issue squarely (p. 371):
“Next to aesthetic impact, no aspect of wind energy creates more alarm or more debate than noise…. Wind turbines are not silent. They are audible. All
wind turbines create unwanted sound, that is, noise. Some do so to a greater degree than others. And the sounds they produce—the swish of blades through the
air, the whir of gears inside the transmission, and the hum of the generator—are typically foreign to rural settings where wind turbines are the most often
used.”
“The people who choose to live in [rural, wild] locations do so primarily because the land is unsuitable for other urban uses,” Gipe explains in his book
(described as “the most complete reference ever published on generating electricity from wind”). “They reasonably expect that the area will remain rural
and undeveloped” (p. 324).
Zeller’s NYT piece is reprinted in its entirety due to its historical importance. [Read more →] (MasterResource)
WASHINGTON — Just a few years ago, the economic prognosis for new nuclear reactors looked bright. The prospect of growing electricity demand, probable caps
on carbon-dioxide emissions and government loan guarantees prompted companies to tell the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they wanted to build 28 new
reactors.
The economic slump, which has driven down demand and the price of competing energy sources, and the failure of Congress to pass climate legislation has changed
all that, at least for now.
Constellation Energy’s announcement on Saturday that it had reached an impasse with the federal government over the fee for a loan guarantee on a new reactor
in Maryland is a sign of how much the landscape has been transformed.
Essentially, the Energy Department argued that Constellation’s project is so risky that the company must pay a high fee or provide other assurances of
repayment if it wants the taxpayers to guarantee its construction loans. Constellation said the government’s demand was “unreasonably burdensome.”
The government is hardly the only one to question the economics of nuclear power right now. The would-be builders of seven reactors around the country have
deferred their projects in the last few months.
J. Scott Peterson, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s trade group, said the “pause” in nuclear building plans mirrors delays in
other industrial projects. “It’s principally because of the economic situation,” he said. (Reuters)
That the Obama administration would allow a mere $880 million to come between it and its supposed goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is absurd. The
administration has blown billions of dollars on a variety of allegedly green stimulus projects that have no prospects of accomplishing anything meaningful.
President Obama is doing what the greens want (i.e., killing off nuclear power) and he is doing it in a way that provides political cover (i.e., making
Constellation the bad guy). (Green Hell Blog)
The U.S. has invested billions of dollars trying to create a controlled form of nuclear fusion that could be the energy source for an endless supply of
electricity. But as a federal laboratory prepares for a key test, major questions remain about pulling off this long-dreamed-of technological feat. (Alex
Salkever, e360)
On September 30th, Janet Adamy reported for The Wall Street Journal that McDonald’s
was considering canceling its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless new Obamacare regulations were waived. The White House
pushed back hard with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Jessica Santillo claiming:
“This story is wrong. The new law provides significant flexibility to maintain coverage for workers.” But this Tuesday we learned that Adamy was correct.
According to Bloomberg News
McDonald’s had sought, and eventually won, a waiver from the upcoming Obamacare regulations. This allows them to continue providing health insurance coverage
to 115,000 workers. In fact, McDonald’s workers were just some of the over 1 million of Americans who were spared losing their current
health care coverage thanks to one-year
waivers from the Obama HHS.
The White House effort to discredit reports that Obamacare is forcing companies to consider dropping health care coverage comes on the heels of a letter HHS
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent to the nation’s health insurers threatening to exclude them from the yet to be implemented Obamacare health exchanges.
The letter warned there “will be zero tolerance” for
“falsely blaming premium increases” on Obamacare. And who would determine if premium increases were or were not due to Obamacare? The Obama administration
of course. When it comes to the health care sector, Obamacare has turned Secretary Sebelius into judge, jury, and executioner. And we are just beginning to
witness the scope of Obamacare’s bureaucratic powers. Continue
reading... (The Foundry)
WASHINGTON - Republicans could keep their promises to stop healthcare reform even if they cannot repeal it, simply by blocking legislation needed to pay for
it, one expert argued on Wednesday.
Control of one house of Congress could give the Republicans power to cripple the law, creating "zombie legislation," healthcare expert Henry Aaron of
the Brookings Institution wrote in a commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Healthcare reform is President Barack Obama's signature policy.
The Affordable Care Act passed in March without a single Republican vote. It is supposed to get health insurance to 32 million Americans who currently lack it,
help set up local clinics to help provide needed care, set new standards for health insurance and, eventually, begin to transform the fragmented U.S. healthcare
system.
Many Republicans running for Congress in November have been promising to roll back as many of its provisions as possible or even to repeal it if they gain
control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Repeal would be unlikely, Aaron said, as Obama would veto any such attempt.
Republicans are headed for gains in both chambers in the November 2 elections and could take control of the House, but are not expected to win enough seats to
override a presidential veto.
"A more serious possibility is that ACA opponents could deliver on another pledge: to cut off funding for implementation," Aaron wrote. (Reuters)
Below is a media release from the pharmaceutical-medical industrial complex whining that we only spent $139 billion on health research
last year.
No mention of what the public got for that sum -- regardless Research!America says that not enough is being spent.
The whole public-private public health research establishment is quite a racket -- ripe for the 112th Congress to reform.
Research spending stagnant since 2005 as portion of health costs
WASHINGTON—October 7, 2010—The U.S. invested $139 billion last year in health research from all public and private sources, according to Research!America's
latest annual estimate. That amount represents only 5.6% of the $2.47 trillion overall U.S. health spending in 2009—or 5.6¢ of every health dollar—which
varies no more than 0.2% from 2005 levels.
The estimate is available here: http://www.researchamerica.org/uploads/healthdollar09.pdf.
The 2009 investment grew by only 0.1% over 2008. This small increase can be attributed largely to the federal stimulus funding for research provided through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Federal research investment was nearly $46.8 billion in 2009, up from $38.6 billion in 2008. (EurekAlert)
Big R&D spenders say they won't step up funding of university research in the UK to make up for science funding cuts
Companies and charities that spend billions of pounds on research and development in the UK have said it is not their job to fill the gaps in university funding
that will be left if the government's proposed cuts to the science budget go ahead. (Guardian)
Indeed it is not their function. It is an open question whether taxpayers should be stuck with the bill for the welfare queens either, rather
obviously I think not. Public funds must return some benefit and not be used as open checks for resume-buffing politicians and celebrity causes. How do you
suppose a cost-benefit analysis of "the war on cancer" would come out? Note the disproportionate spending on say, breast cancer, simply because no
politician is game to deny the feminist brigade. Far too much money is squandered studying the "health effects" of gorebull warbling, despite the fact
that only occurs in PlayStation® games written expressly to generate scary warming scenarios. We need to get back to a rational basis for how society directs
its effort and resources.
California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state's clean-air standards, and scientists have spent the
past several months revising data and planning a significant weakening of the landmark regulation, The Chronicle has found.
The pollution estimate in question was too high - by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and
adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces
businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other
industries.
The staff of the powerful and widely respected Air Resources Board said the overestimate is largely due to the board calculating emissions before the economy
slumped, which halted the use of many of the 150,000 diesel-exhaust-spewing vehicles in California. Independent researchers, however, found huge overestimates
in the air board's work on diesel emissions and attributed the flawed work to a faulty method of calculation - not the economic downturn.
The overestimate, which comes after another bad calculation by the air board on diesel-related deaths that made headlines in 2009, prompted the board to suspend
the regulation this year while officials decided whether to weaken the rule. (SF Chronicle)
NEW YORK - Babies born to mothers with high levels of arsenic exposure are five times more likely to die before their first birthday than infants whose
mothers had the least exposure to the toxic mineral, new research shows.
"We observed clear evidence of an association between arsenic exposure and infant mortality," Dr. Anisur Rahman of Uppsala University Hospital in
Sweden and colleagues state in the November issue of Epidemiology. And the fact that death risk increased as exposure rose, they add, "is supportive of a
causal relationship."
The study was conducted in Bangladesh, where millions of tube wells dug 30 years ago to improve the country's water supply are now known to be contaminated with
naturally occurring arsenic.
Public health experts estimate that as many as 77 million people in Bangladesh have been poisoned by arsenic in drinking water; potential approaches to reducing
exposure include filtering water through pond sand, using different types of wells, and harvesting rainwater.
Arsenic causes cancer, and has also been linked to diabetes, high blood pressure, and many other chronic illnesses. But studies investigating the effects of
prenatal arsenic exposure have had mixed results, Rahman and colleagues say. (Reuters Health)
It was one of the most dramatic moments in the annual hostilities between the Japanese whaling fleet and members of the militant conservation group Sea
Shepherd: the ramming of a protest boat, which sank in the icy waters of the Antarctic.
But all was not as it seemed, according to the Ady Gil's captain, Pete Bethune, who claimed yesterday that Sea Shepherd deliberately scuppered its own boat last
January as a publicity stunt. Acting on orders from the group's founder and president, Paul Watson, Mr Bethune boarded the vessel with two fellow activists and
opened compartments and hatches to let in water, he said.
The allegation was denied by Mr Watson, who released emails revealing that Mr Bethune, a New Zealander, had been expelled from the organisation. The group
posted a video on its website which appears to confirm that Mr Bethune let the Ady Gil sink while it was being towed back to port by another Sea Shepherd
vessel, the Bob Barker.
However, the sabotage claim and the public war of words between the two former comrades seem certain to damage Sea Shepherd's credibility. (Independent)
Resulting ecological damage is serious, but could be reduced by wider use of more sustainable, time-honored practices
Humans are overloading ecosystems with nitrogen through the burning of fossil fuels and an increase in nitrogen-producing industrial and agricultural
activities, according to a new study. While nitrogen is an element that is essential to life, it is an environmental scourge at high levels.
According to the study, excess nitrogen that is contributed by human activities pollutes fresh waters and coastal zones, and may contribute to climate change.
Nevertheless, such ecological damage could be reduced by the adoption of time-honored sustainable practices. (NSF)
The ocean has absorbed a significant portion of all human-made carbon dioxide emissions. This benefits human society by moderating the rate of climate
change, but also causes unprecedented changes to ocean chemistry. Carbon dioxide taken up by the ocean decreases the pH of the water and leads to a suite of
chemical changes collectively known as ocean acidification. The long term consequences of ocean acidification are not known, but are expected to result in
changes to many ecosystems and the services they provide to society. Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean reviews
the current state of knowledge, explores gaps in understanding, and identifies several key findings.
Like climate change, ocean acidification is a growing global problem that will intensify with continued CO2 emissions and has the potential to change marine
ecosystems and affect benefits to society. The federal government has taken positive initial steps by developing a national ocean acidification program, but
more information is needed to fully understand and address the threat that ocean acidification may pose to marine ecosystems and the services they provide. In
addition, a global observation network of chemical and biological sensors is needed to monitor changes in ocean conditions attributable to acidification. (NAP)
US study finds reduced numbers of crop-damaging pests on corn farms that adjoin those growing GM crops
Farmers growing conventional corn next to GM crops can benefit from the reduction in crop-destroying pests without paying the premium for GM seeds, a new study
has shown.
The research, published today in the journal Science, examined 14 years of records in the top US corn-producing states of Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska
and Wisconsin, looking at the prevalence of the European corn borer, a moth whose caterpillars eat into corn stalks and topple the plants.
The so-called Bt GM corn varieties were first planted in 1996 and produce toxins taken from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, which is deadly to
the pest. In GM fields, the pest is eradicated, but the data showed that in neighbouring non-GMO fields the pest populations shrank by 28-78%, depending on how
much GM corn was being grown in the surrounding area.
The study also found that the caterpillar-killing GM varieties grown in the vast US corn belt had retained their potency 14 years after being first sown,
showing the pests had not developed resistance. (Guardian)
The cultivation of genetically modified plants increased globally in 2009 with the field area rising by nine million hectares over 2008 to a total of 134
million.
This growth totalled 3% in industrialised nations (2 million hectares) and 13% in developing nations (7 million hectares). In the case of soy, approximately 77%
of global production is achieved with GM soybeans and his figure is 49% in the case of cotton. (MercoPress) [1 ha = 1.47 ac]
NORTH MANCHESTER, Ind. — The stuff doesn’t even smell that bad.
In Henhouse No. 1 at the Hi-Grade Egg Farm here, the droppings from 381,000 chickens are carried off along a zig-zagging system of stacked conveyor belts with
powerful fans blowing across them.
The excrement takes three days to travel more than a mile back and forth, and when it is finally deposited on a gray, 20-foot high mountain of manure, it has
been thoroughly dried out, making it of little interest to the flies and rodents that can spread diseases like salmonella poisoning.
Standing by the manure pile on a recent afternoon, Robert L. Krouse, the president of Midwest Poultry Services, the company that owns the Hi-Grade farm, took a
deep breath. The droppings, he declared, smelled sweet, like chocolate.
“This is the kind of thing that gets egg farmers excited,” Mr. Krouse said.
Controlling manure and keeping henhouses clean is essential to combating the toxic strain of salmonella that sickened thousands of people this year and prompted
the recall of more than half a billion eggs produced by two companies in Iowa. (NYT)
The cause of the mysterious decline of the honey bee in the United States – and elsewhere in the world – may have been found in the form of a
"double whammy" infection with both a virus and a fungus.
A unique collaboration between university researchers and military scientists in the US has found that a combination of a virus and a fungus in the gut of honey
bees may result in the phenomenon known as colony-collapse disorder.
Over the past four years, bee keepers in the United States, Europe and Asia have reported dramatic declines of the key insect that is critical to the
pollination of many valuable crops. Between 40 and 60 per cent of honeybee colonies have suffered a complete collapse in the US alone.
One of the difficulties of finding a cause is that the affected bees often fly off in different directions leaving behind, at most, a single queen and a few
workers. This has made it almost impossible for entomologists to carry out post mortems on corpses of the missing bees.
Now a team of researchers led by Jerry Bromenshenk of the University of Montana in Missoula has completed an exhaustive survey of bees that bee keepers have
managed to collect from collapsed colonies to see whether they are suffering from any unusual infections. Working with scientists at the US Army Edgewood
Chemical Biological Centre in Maryland, who have developed expertise in detecting and analysing biological molecules, Professor Bromenshenk and his colleagues
found that many of the bees were infected with both a virus, called invertebrate iridescent virus (IIV), and a fungus known as Nosema apis.
"These findings implicate co-infection by IIV and Nosema with honey bee colony decline, giving credence to older research pointing to IIV, interacting with
Nosema and mites, as probable cause of bee losses in the USA, Europe and Asia," the researchers write in their study published in the journal PLoSOne. The
scientists do not know how the combination of the two infections could be causing the disorder, but they point to the fact that both virus and fungus
proliferate in cool, damp weather as well as infecting bees through the gut, indicating that insect nutrition may be involved. (Independent)
Common frog populations around the UK have declined by more than four-fifths because of a virus which causes their internal organs to haemorrhage.
Populations infected with ranavirus, which is thought to be relatively new to the UK, suffered an average 81 per cent decrease in adult frogs over a 12-year
period, research from the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) found.
The study, using data collected from the public by the frog mortality project and charity Froglife, showed long-term declines in numbers because of the virus
– as well as the sudden mass die-offs of frogs which the disease is known to cause.
But the research, published in the ZSL journal Animal Conservation, also found that some populations of frogs recovered from mass mortality events –
suggesting that some frogs may be immune to the virus. (Independent)
That humans can alter the natural environment is well known. We have been hunting,
fishing and clearing land for agriculture for tens of thousands of years. More recently humans have gained the ability to drain swamps, dam rivers, level
mountains and pave over darn near anything. Environmentalists think this kind of activity is abhorrent, and go so far as to claim that H. sapiens are
responsible for a new major wave of extinctions. In general, animal species can either move, go extinct or adapt to human caused environmental changes. Many
biologists will tell you that species just can't evolve fast enough to deal with rate of human induced change. As it turns out, this isn't exactly true.
Rapid morphological change in mammals has been infrequently documented. However, recent research has revealed that evolution often occurs on
contemporary timescales, often within decades. Well known examples of rapid evolution include such morphological changes as beak length in Florida soapberry
bugs, wing length in Galapagos finches, or female lifespan in Trinidadian guppies. In “Contemporary
evolution meets conservation biology,” Craig A. Stockwell, Andrew P. Hendry and Michael T. Kinnison link rapid contemporary evolution to the same root
causes of the so called extinction crisis.
“Ultimately, contemporary evolution is influenced by complex interactions among population size, genetic
variation, the strength of selection, and gene flow, making most management scenarios unique.” they stated in the February 2003 issue of Trends in Ecology
& Evolution. “In a world filled with contemporary evolution, conservation efforts that ignore its implications will be less efficient and perhaps even
risk prone.”
Recently, a team of scientists used next-generation sequencing technology to conducted a genome scan of nucleotide diversity and
differentiation in natural populations of threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Sticklebacks are a small silver-colored fish, under two inches
in length, that are found throughout the Northern Hemisphere in both fresh and saltwater habitats. According to a report in PLoS Genetics by Paul A. Hohenlohe et al., oceanic threespine
stickleback have invaded and adapted to freshwater habitats countless times across the northern hemisphere. These freshwater populations have often evolved in
similar ways from the ancestral marine stock from which they independently derived.
Example of rapid stickleback evolution.
”Populations of freshwater stickleback arise when new habitats open up and are colonized,” said William A. Cresko, professor of biology,
member of the University of Oregon's Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and a member of the research team. “Alaska has a lot of lakes that have been
around only about 10,000 years, formed after glaciers receded. Instead of dying out when they were cut off from saltwater, they evolved very rapidly and in a
lot of ways, such as in their bones and armor, the shapes of their jaws, as well as coloration and behavior. When one population no longer recognizes and won't
mate with another population, they effectively become a new species, so some of the regions we are identifying may be important for speciation, too.”
Here is documented evidence of evolutionary adaptation to climate change that must have taken place very rapidly, on the order of just a few
thousand years, or in a few instances in just a few decades. But stickleback are just tiny fish with a genome about one sixth the size of a human's. Even more
exciting evidence of rapid adaptability has surface—this time involving mammals.
The Norway or Brown Rat (rattus norvegicus) is found through the world.
In another recent PLoS article, “Recent and Widespread Rapid
Morphological Change in Rodents,” Oliver R. W. Pergams and Joshua J. Lawler report that over the last 100+ years, rapid morphological change in rodents
has occurred quite frequently. Prior examples have often been identified within isolated island populations but Pergams and Lawler report that these changes
have taken place on the mainland as well as on islands. Their results suggest that these changes may be driven, at least in part, by human population growth and
climate change. Here is how they charaterize their work in the article's abstract:
Here we document rapid morphological changes in rodents in 20 of 28 museum series collected on four continents, including 15 of 23 mainland
sites. Approximately 17,000 measurements were taken of 1302 rodents. Trends included both increases and decreases in the 15 morphological traits measured, but
slightly more trends were towards larger size. Generalized linear models indicated that changes in several of the individual morphological traits were
associated with changes in human population density, current temperature gradients, and/or trends in temperature and precipitation.
Some biologists would argue that the rapid changes often observed in such studies are due to phenotypic plasticity—the ability of some
species to adjust their physical characteristics in response to their environment. Phenotype is what an organism looks like, its observable physical or
biochemical characteristics as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences. As University of Toronto evolutionary biologist Anurag A. Agrawal
explained in “Phenotypic Plasticity in the Interactions and Evolution of Species” (Science
October 12, 2001):
When individuals of two species interact, they can adjust their phenotypes in response to their respective partner, be they antagonists or
mutualists. The reciprocal phenotypic change between individuals of interacting species can reflect an evolutionary response to spatial and temporal variation
in species interactions and ecologically result in the structuring of food chains. The evolution of adaptive phenotypic plasticity has led to the success of
organisms in novel habitats, and potentially contributes to genetic differentiation and speciation. Taken together, phenotypic responses in species interactions
represent modifications that can lead to reciprocal change in ecological time, altered community patterns, and expanded evolutionary potential of species.
Evolutionary biologists have been interested in studying the genetic basis of phenotypes, and early work was focused on traits presumed to be
unaffected by the environment. Simply defined, evolution involves changes in the predominant genotypes of a local population as a result of natural selection.
The change is either a result of selection favoring a recent mutation or a previously rare genotype. Nowadays, it is recognized that phenotypic changes can be
influenced by environmental changes without altering an organism's genetic makeup, or genotype. In other words, phenotypic plasticity is a non-genetic
adaptation to changing environmental conditions.
Examples of phenotypic plasticity in fish.
Noting that plasticity is notoriously difficult to distinguish from direct genetic evolution, Pergams and Lawler contend that phenotypic
plasticity can also be the result of natural selection. “Our results clearly demonstrate rapid morphological change in multiple rodent species from both
island and mainland populations.” they conclude. “Furthermore, some of these changes appear to be driven by altered climates and growing human
populations.” Regardless of whether you call it evolutionary change or phenotypic plasticity it amounts to the same thing—successful organisms can rapidly
adapt to changing environmental conditions, regardless of the source of those changes.
The bottom line according to Pergams and Lawler: “Species that are able to respond quickly to environmental changes, whether through
phenotypic plasticity, movement, or evolution will have a higher probability of surviving the rapid human-driven land-use and climate changes projected for the
coming centuries.” In other words, the evolutionary race belongs to the adaptable. In this sense, whatever pressure mankind is putting on other creatures is
simply a part of the evolutionary winnowing process. Far from being a threat
to nature we are doing nature's evolutionary dirtywork.
And far from being H. sapiens' helpless victims, all sorts of lifeforms are busily adapting to environmental changes, both natural and
man-made. From an evolutionary point of view, the cause of change does not matter, only the response. One of the reasons for mankind's success is our
adaptability. We have spread to practically every continent and every type of ecosystem on Earth.
Rat Evolution. Picture by Alexis Rockman from Future Evolution.
It should, therefore, not be surprising that rats, a species that is found in many of the same places as people, are also highly adaptable.
Omnivorous and opportunistic the Norway or brown rat (Rattus norvegicus) is one of the best known and most common rats. Thought to have originated in
northern China, this rodent has now spread to all continents, except Antarctica, making it the most successful mammal on the planet after humans.
As I pointed on in my post about Tyrannosaurs rex, when a
dominant species eventually answers nature's final curtain call, its extinction makes room for the rise of its successor. Perhaps we should reflect on the fact
that the ever adaptable rat is waiting in the evolutionary wings.
Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical. (Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth)
President Obama killed the climate change bill. That's the brunt of the article, "As the World Burns, How the Senate and White House missed their best
chance to deal with climate change" by Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker. Lizza tells the tale of how Washington's erstwhile "Three Amigos" - also
known as K.G.L., for Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.- cobbled together a cap-and-trade climate-change bill that
had "the support both of the major green groups and the biggest polluters" - until the deal fell apart.
The story has generated a lot of Beltway buzz and some ire among Senate staffers. But if the White House did have a role in killing the bill, kudos to
Obamaland. (Debra J. Saunders, SF Chronicle)
This is going to sound a little weird, but I think my friend and former colleague Ryan Lizza's long New Yorker piece on the failure of cap and trade is both
a phenomenal tour de force of reporting while also fundamentally wrong. As an argument, the article makes two basic claims. First, the failure of cap and trade
means "perhaps the last best chance to deal with global warming in the Obama era, was officially dead." And second, the legislation's death can be
largely, or perhaps even principally, attributed to the Obama administration's bungling and lack of commitment. (Jonathan Chait, New Republic)
Republicans are poised to make big gains in the November 2 congressional elections, putting them in position to reverse Democrats' drive for comprehensive
climate control legislation.
President Barack Obama's Democrats currently hold majorities in both chambers of the U.S. Congress.
A Republican takeover of either chamber, or even large gains by Republicans, will make it harder, or impossible, for Obama to win legislation imposing mandatory
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes.
That's especially true if next year's Senate is populated by more skeptics of human-induced global warming.
Even with tough opposition though, Obama will have the power to steer the country away from fossil fuels. And Republican bills that stray too far from Obama's
energy and environment goals will surely be vetoed, with little chance of Congress mustering the supermajority needed to override him.
Here are some possible moves to look out for if Republicans do well at the elections. (Reuters)
NEW DELHI: With the formal UN climate talks getting stalled in the penultimate round of the year, US has come out in the open threatening to break away from
the consensus route and try to seal a climate deal outside the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The US deputy special envoy for climate change Jonathan Pershing was quoted as having said at the on-going Tianjin talks, "It may mean that we don't use
this process (the UN negotiations) exclusively as the way to move forward."
Murmurs over an attempt by US and other rich countries to get key economies to sign a `plurilateral' agreement outside the UN climate convention gained ground
with the US and developed countries remaining entrenched in their recession-year position of not offering deep emission reduction targets or substantial funds.
(Times of India)
China said a failure by developed nations to honor their commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions is hindering progress in talks in Tianjin aimed at
reaching an agreement to mitigate climate change.
Negotiations between delegates from about 175 governments in Tianjin, northern China, are being held up as the host country declined to discuss the legal
framework for a second set of emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol after the first expires in 2012.
China is boycotting the talks because developed countries listed in the Protocol are trying to add a global target rather than discuss their individual
commitments, said Huang Huikang, China’s special representative for climate change negotiations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
“Our intervention is not to block discussions of the Kyoto Protocol group, we just want to keep the group’s discussion the right way,” Huang told
reporters today. “The key issue is the lack of substantive progress on the developed countries’ side.”
China, the most populous country and biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, is hosted a meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for the first
time. (Bloomberg)
General Electric and Other Corporations Win the Taxpayer-Funded Sweepstakes, says National Center of Public Policy Research
Washington, D.C. -- Today policy experts from the National Center for Public Policy Research are calling attention to corporate special interest groups that
received taxpayer money through the stimulus thanks to the President and that also are lobbying for Obama's energy policy.
"It's alarming that many of the remaining corporate members of the United States Climate Action Partnership – a cap-and-trade lobbying group – such as
General Electric, Duke Energy, NextEra Energy, Exelon, and Honeywell all received economic stimulus funds. It seems pushing Obama's agenda has financial
rewards. The coordinated effort between big government and big business threatens our free enterprise system," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the
National Center's Free Enterprise Project. (National Center)
[Editor Note: This letter by Koch Industries's CEO Charles G. Koch,
addressed to Fortune Editor-in-Chief Hedley Donovan, provides a pro-free market rebuttal to ARCO's CEO Thornton Bradshaw's "My Case for National
Planning" (Fortune, February 1977).
Koch's scholarly effort is reproduced below as a historically important document in the energy debate. It is authored by a
rarity of rarities, a principled free-market capitalist. The context and timeliness of the rebuttal was stated in the Libertarian Review:
While this essay was only the latest in a series of attacks on a free market economy and defenses of
National Economic Planning to appear over the past few years by intellectuals, businessmen and labor leaders alike, Bradshaw's piece deserves special scrutiny.
For it comes to us from a man who both is a leading representative of American major oil companies, and was a member of Jimmy Carter's task force on energy
during the 1976 presidential campaign. Moreover, it has been published at a time when both oil and government energy policy are getting widespread public
attention.
"Let's Try a Free Market in Energy" by Charles Koch
This article is a reply to Thornton Bradshaw's provocative "My Case for National Planning" which appeared in the February, 1977 issue of Fortune. In that essay, Bradshaw asserted that a free market has never worked efficiently in crude oil, that it never
could work efficiently in oil (or in the more exotic energy sources that must be developed), and that the only solution to our present crisis is to adopt
governmental planning and pricing in certain energy raw materials. I will maintain, in rebuttal, that most of Thornton Bradshaw's major contentions are
wrong-headed and blatantly self-serving, and that his proposal for planning and pricing can only make matters far worse than they already are. [Read more →] (MasterResource)
China said on Thursday it will not bow to pressure to rethink a key climate change treaty and was preparing to cope with a "gap" in the pact after
2012 if rich nations fail to add new greenhouse gas goals in time.
Envoys from 177 governments are holding week-long talks in the northern Chinese city of Tianjin on the shape of a successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol, the
U.N.'s main weapon in the fight against climate change.
Kyoto's first phase, which binds about 40 rich nations to meet emissions targets, expires in 2012 and there's no clarity on what happens after that, worrying
investors in clean-energy projects who want long-term certainty on climate policies and financing. (Reuters)
The world's nations are moving toward agreements that will bind us together in an effort to limit future greenhouse gas emissions. With such agreements will
come the need for all nations to make accurate estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and to monitor changes over time. In this context, the present book focuses
on the greenhouse gases that result from human activities, have long lifetimes in the atmosphere and thus will change global climate for decades to millennia or
more, and are currently included in international agreements. The book devotes considerably more space to CO2 than to the other gases because CO2 is the largest
single contributor to global climate change and is thus the focus of many mitigation efforts. Only data in the public domain were considered because public
access and transparency are necessary to build trust in a climate treaty.
The book concludes that each country could estimate fossil-fuel CO2 emissions accurately enough to support monitoring of a climate treaty. However, current
methods are not sufficiently accurate to check these self-reported estimates against independent data or to estimate other greenhouse gas emissions. Strategic
investments would, within 5 years, improve reporting of emissions by countries and yield a useful capability for independent verification of greenhouse gas
emissions reported by countries. (NAP)
Two things:
What agreements? and;
Who cares?
Time for everyone to realize the planet actually is quite fine with anthropogenic CO2 emissions and people benefit from them mightily, so forget
about 'em and start looking at real problems for a change.
Producers of heavy trucks protested on Thursday at European Union plans to impose strict curbs on emissions of carbon dioxide from the vehicles, saying they
were unrealistic and ill-designed.
The chiefs of Volvo, Fiat's unit Iveco and DAF said they had asked the European Commission and the European Parliament to redesign the planned law, warning them
of chaos in an industry employing 250,000 people.
The 27-nation EU wants to cut emissions of CO2 by 20 percent from their 1990 level, by 2020, in its battle against global warming. Reducing pollution from heavy
trucks is to be part of the plan, which the Commission is likely to propose next year.
The EU is debating plans to cut emissions from vans and light trucks to 175 grams of CO2 per km by 2016, and the CEOs fear a similar scheme might be imposed on
heavy trucks. (Reuters)
Julia Gillard is seeking to create a “community consensus” on the need for a carbon price. She has established the Climate Change Committee that includes
the Greens and two independents, and the Climate Change Commission, which will be staffed by true believers in anthropogenic global warming. It is assumed that
there is no legitimate scientific doubt that man-made CO2 is the principal driver of climate change.
However, the Gillard Government is navigating an increasingly difficult political path between a new breed of trendy middle class radicals who have invaded
hitherto working class bailiwicks in inner city electorates, and suburban battlers who are becoming increasingly stroppy about rising electricity prices.
Thus she could be seeking to buy time. The committee’s proceedings will supposedly be confidential, thus lessening pressure on the Government from the Greens
and their allies, provided nobody leaks. However, with garrulous Rob Oakeshott now on this committee, the chances of maintaining confidentiality appear remote.
And whoever heard of the Greens remaining silent in the face of an opportunity for still more publicity? (Quadrant)
THE government will push its case for a price on carbon further today with a report that finds ambitious cuts in energy use will be more easily achieved if
done in conjunction with an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax.
The report by the prime minister's taskforce was handed to the cabinet in July and recommends Australia adopt a target of a 30 per cent increase in energy
efficiency by 2020. (SMH)
WHEN Labor and the Greens say the new climate committee will consider ''all options'' they really mean all options except one. The one option off the table
is an emissions trading scheme, at least one implemented straight away.
The tacit understanding between Labor and the Greens is that they can't agree on emission reduction targets - the Greens think Labor's minimum target of 5 per
cent by 2020 is negligently inadequate and Labor thinks the Greens' proposed minimum target of 25 per cent would be political suicide. (SMH)
Any form of carbon constraint is political, economical and environmental suicide. Don't do it. Don't talk about it. Don't even think about it
because it is too stupid for words. Atmospheric carbon dioxide supports aerobic life on Earth. It is an asset, a valuable resource. Leave it alone.
One of the world's most famous global warming contrarians says he sees eye to eye with Al Gore on climate science – for the most part – and claims his
view have been distorted by those on both sides of the global warming debate.
Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish academic and the self-proclaimed "skeptical environmentalist," said he "fundamentally" agrees with the global
warming crusader and former vice president.
“We agree that global warming is real, that it’s man-made that it is an important problem," Lomborg told POLITICO in an interview Wednesday. But, “We
disagree very much about how to tackle it.” (Politico)
As we have pointed out many times, Lomborg is merely a less-loony believer but a total believer nonetheless. He has always been a gorebull
warbler, not a skeptic at all.
The controversy over ‘Satellitegate’ hots up as NOAA faces a court appearance for refusing to release evidence that would show whether one or more US
satellites exagerrated global warming temperatures.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a federal agency focused on reporting the condition of the oceans and the atmosphere. When the
story first broke NOAA bizarrely announced it would withdraw satellite ‘images’ from its archives but failed to state whether reams of cooked data had also
been withdrawn.
An official US Government statement last July confirmed that the NOAA-16 earth orbiting satellite used to measure surface temperatures suffered failure due to a
“degraded” sensor system. But skeptics now fear that because government climate scientists won’t answer any more questions or reveal the discredited data
archives they may be guilty of fraudulently cooking the books to show super boiling temperatures.
The story broke after an anonymous member of the public contacted a skeptic blog when he stumbled across thousands of alarming readings on a government website.
The website showed thousands of surface temperatures of over 400 degrees Fahrenheit. Dubbed Satellitegate the shocking revelations proved that all such bogus
data had been fed automatically into data banks that the US Government then sold all over the world.
As proprietary temperature data products the junk numbers were used by domestic and international weather and climate researchers. Fears are growing that the
junk data may have contaminated scores of climate models worldwide and artificially increased average global warming records by several degrees.
In the three months since the story hit the news NOAA still hasn’t come clean as to the true extent of the data contamination. Now it may be necessary for
lawyers to file an official Freedom of Information request (FOIA) to compel the government, under federal legislation, to stop the cover up and reveal the
truth. (Climate Realists)
Thursday, 07 October 2010 08:48 John O'Sullivan, Suite 101
In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud.
New Zealand’s government via its National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has announced it has nothing to do with the country’s
“official” climate record in what commentators are calling a capitulation from the tainted climate reconstruction.
NIWA’s statement claims they were never responsible for the national temperature record (NZTR).The climb down is seen as a dramatic legal triumph for skeptics
of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) who had initiated their challenge last August when petitioning the high court of New Zealand to invalidate
the weather service’s reconstruction of antipodean temperatures.
According to NZCSC, climate scientists cooked the books by using the same alleged ‘trick’ employed by British and American doomsaying scientists. This
involves subtly imposing a warming bias during what is known as the ‘homogenisation’ process that occurs when climate data needs to be adjusted.
The specific charge brought against the Kiwi government was that it’s climate scientists had taken the raw temperature records of the country and then
adjusted them artificially with the result that a steeper warming trend was created than would otherwise exist by examination of the raw data alone.
Indeed, the original Kiwi records shows no warming during the 20th century, but after government sponsored climatologists had manipulated the data a warming
trend of 1C appeared.
New Zealand Government Abandons ‘Official’ Climate Record
The NZCSC story reports that the NZ authorities, “formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to
apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue
“excellence.”
NIWA now denies there was any such thing as an “official” NZ Temperature Record, although there was an official acronym for it (NZTR). However, the position
now taken by the NZ government is that all such records are now to be deemed as unofficial and strictly for internal research purposes.
The article urges that if the government will not affirm that their temperature reconstruction is official then, “Nobody else should rely on it.”
Researcher from Climategate University Implicated in Data Fraud
As reported in a Suite101 article by the same writer of April 2010 'Kiwigate is a Carbon Copy of Climategate' it was shown that the scientist who made the
controversial “bold adjustments” is none other than Jim Salinger who is also a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Salinger was dismissed by NIWA earlier this year for speaking without authorization to the media. The discredited researcher originally worked at Britain’s
Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the institution at the center of the Climategate scandal.
Salinger was also among the inner circle of climate scientists whose leaked emails precipitated the original climate controversy in November 2009. In an email
(August 4, 2003) to fellow disgraced American climate professor, Michael Mann, Salinger stated he was “extremely concerned about academic standards” among
climate skeptics.
Bogus Data Destroyed before it could be independently verified
In circumstances strangely similar to those witnessed in the Climategate controversy Kiwigate appears to match Climategate in three key three facets. First,
climate scientists declined to submit their data for independent analysis. Second, when backed into a corner the scientists claimed their adjustments had been
‘lost’. Third, the raw data itself proves no warming trend.
References:
Treadgold, R., ‘Observations on NIWA’s Statement of Defence,’ (October 6, 2010), Climate Conversation Group (www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz:
accessed online: October 6, 2010)
Costa, A.C. and A. Soares, ‘Homogenization of Climate Data: Review and New Perspectives Using Geostatistics,’ Mathematical Geoscience, Volume 41, Number 3 /
April, 2009.
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, ‘NIWA Challenged to Show Why and How Temperature Records Were Adjusted’ (February 7, 2010), accessed online April 26,
2010.
NZCSC & Climate Science Conversation Group; Press Statement of December 18, 2009; accessed online ( April 26, 2010).
Salinger, J. Climategate email Filename: 1060002347.txt. (August 4, 2003).
The climate change debate should focus on evidence rather than on smearing opponents
To dismiss the findings of any scientist due to his or her funding sources is a logical fallacy referred to as “motive intent”—assuming that what someone
is saying is wrong because of a suspect ulterior motive.
While it may be a convenient shortcut for those who do not want to take the time to learn the science, it makes no sense unless a particular scientist has a
history of dishonesty, or suddenly changed his or her opinion after funding from a vested interest is known to have started.
In the case of the climate scientists who work with the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), this has never been the case. Indeed, the research of
professors Tim Patterson, Bob Carter and Chris Essex has never been funded by special interests such as energy companies or environmental lobby groups, and all
three of these experts have displayed a consistent and balanced stance on climate change for years before it became an intense political issue. (Tom Harris,
Epoch Times)
“The Large-Scale Biosphere- Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia (LBA) is multidisciplinary international scientific project that seeks to understand the
functioning of Amazonia as a unique ecosystem. The AGU monograph Amazonia and Global Change, edited by Michael Keller, Mercedes Bustamante, John Gash, and
Pedro Silva Dias, synthesizes the results of the study. In this interview, Eos talks with micrometeorologist John Gash, who specializes in measuring and
modeling evaporation from forests. He is a senior researcher in the Department of Hydrology and Geo- environmental Sciences at Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam”
and excerpts include the questions and answers [where I have highlighted key text]
Eos: One section of the book focuses on land use changes. How have land use and land cover in the Amazon
region changed in recent years? What are the effects of land use and land cover change on the region? What is the impact of land use on the climate?
Gash: The deforestation of Amazonia has been proceeding seemingly inexorably since the early 1970s.
Recent years have seen an acceleration of soya production, but cattle ranching still dominates managed lands. Both land uses completely replace the forest
ecosystem. LBA has given us new understanding about the role of new roads and the development options for intensification rather than extensification of
agriculture. Physically, deforestation changes the albedo (reflectivity) of the surface, the surface aerodynamic roughness, and the response to drought.
While the deeper rooted trees continue to transpire and photosynthesize during the dry season, pasture grass and crops are dormant. This affects the
balance between water and heat fluxes into the atmosphere, which in turn affects atmospheric boundary layer growth. Small- scale
deforestation may lead to increased rainfall, but large- or basin- scale deforestation is expected to lead to less rain.
Eos: Another section of the book covers the atmosphere. How does the Amazon’s biosphere interact with the
atmosphere?
Gash: The surface energy and water balance affects the thermodynamics and therefore the dynamics of the
atmosphere. Changes in Amazon precipitation caused by land use change have been shown to interfere with climate patterns in areas as distant as Europe
and North America. The emission of biogenic volatile organic compounds that form cloud nuclei affects rainfall generation, and increasing atmospheric
carbon dioxide (CO2) may be increasing plant productivity. All these interactions change when forest is replaced by agriculture.
Eos: Does smoke from biomass fires have direct and indirect effects on the atmosphere? If so, what are those
effects?
Gash: Yes, definitely. Smoke particles create a new regime of aerosols. In the wet season, when there is
little burning, aerosol concentrations are very low and large cloud droplets form on naturally emitted organic condensation nuclei; but in the dry season,
aerosols released during burning produce a large population of small droplets, which inhibits precipitation. These aerosols can be transported long
distances from the source regions, and their effect may be significant over large areas. The dry season aerosol concentration also increases the amount
of diffuse sunlight; this initially increases photosynthesis, but at high concentrations, photosynthesis is seriously diminished. Large-scale burning inhibits
dry season rainfall.”
This interview is yet another example which documents that hypothesis 2b in our paper
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski,
E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol.
90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union
is rejected. Hypothesis 2b reads
Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and are dominated by the
emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, the most important of which is CO2. The adverse impact of these gases on regional and global climate
constitutes the primary climate issue for the coming decades.”
The only hypothesis that is consistent with the Gash interview is
Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and involve a diverse
range of first-order climate forcings, including, but not limited to, the human input of carbon dioxide (CO2). Most, if not all, of these human influences on
regional and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades.
The 2007 IPCC clearly failed in properly testing the hypotheses that we present in our EOS paper. The next assessment, of course, has been made aware of this
and we will see if they properly include this issue in their next assessment. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
MUST SEE (via Climate Realist site): Piers Corbyn latest on "Climate Fools Day 2010", "Climate Wars" and the Royal Society Review = http://bit.ly/9HueD5 (Weather Action)
Large-scale crop failures like the one that caused the recent Russian wheat crisis are likely to become more common under climate change due to an increased
frequency of extreme weather events, a new study shows.
However, the worst effects of these events on agriculture could be mitigated by improved farming and the development of new crops, according to the research by
the University of Leeds, the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Exeter. (University of Leeds)
and written by Joanna D. Haigh, Ann R. Winning, Ralf Toumi, and Jerald W. Harder (UK, US). The authors focus on an important subtlety - the spectral dependence
of the solar variations.
Valiant efforts of British physicists to deny that the Sun is important in climate change have always been good for a laugh. Names like Mike Lockwood and
Arnold Wolfendale spring to mind. But with what she’s published in today’s Nature a professor at Imperial
College London, Joanna Haigh, wins the my Gag of the Year prize.
The 200-year-old problem for solar-terrestrial physicists is to explain why the historical record shows strong and persistent links between solar activity
and climate change over decades, centuries and millennia. Variations in visible light won’t do the job. The only mechanism powerful enough is Svensmark’s
hypothesis about cosmic rays governing low cloud cover – see http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3b-the-svensmark-hypothesis/.
Haigh has never gone along with Svensmark, preferring instead to focus on ultraviolet light from the Sun, which does vary more than the visible light, and
generally to minimize solar effects on climate. But in her new paper she offers to tear everything up and scatter it to the wind, because a satellite measured
an increase in the intensity of visible light between 2004 and 2007, when solar activity was in decline. From the paper:
Daily measurements of the solar spectrum between 0.2 mm and 2.4 mm, made by the Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM)
instrument on the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite3 since April 2004, have revealed that over this declining phase of the solar cycle
there was a four to six times larger decline in ultraviolet than would have been predicted on the basis of our previous understanding. This reduction was
partially compensated in the total solar output by an increase in radiation at visible wavelengths.
As summarized in an ICL press release:
The researchers used satellite data and computer modelling to analyse how the spectrum of radiation and the amount of
energy from the Sun has been changing since 2004. Instruments on the SORCE satellite have been measuring the Sun’s energy output at many different
wavelengths. The researchers fed the data from SORCE into an existing computer model of the Earth’s atmosphere and compared their results with the results
obtained using earlier, less comprehensive, data on the solar spectrum.
The complexity of solar forcing has been emphasized previously also [and thanks to the encouragement of Kiminori Itoh on this subject!]. Peter
Pilewskie, for example, emphasized the role of changes in the absorption of solar irradiance as a function of altitude in the troposphere as part of his
excellent talk to my class in 2007; see
This subject was also proposed as a “strawman” for a National Research Council Panel in 2008, which started with the text
Detection and Attribution of the Solar Influence on Climate Change
Summary: The NRC will convene a one-day meeting that will consider the timeliness and utility of a study or workshop that would be focused
on applying current understanding to help clarify an ongoing debate on the contribution of solar variability to the observed climate change, both regionally and
globally.
with excerpts
Despite an emerging scientific consensus that natural causes cannot explain the observed warming, either in the past few decades, or during the industrial
epoch, a rancorous and sometimes political debate over solar versus anthropogenic causes of climate change continues, especially in the popular media. Indeed,
absent resolution of enduring claims that solar variability has caused significant (30-70%) recent surface global temperature increases, it is difficult to
envision policymakers here or abroad undertaking what are likely to be, at least in the short term, unpopular and/or economically painful measures to slow
global warming.
and
The study under consideration would augment and advance two recent NRC reports on 1) Radiative forcing and 2) Responses, by assessing how the extended
complexities of the climate system likely precludes such a separation of forcings and responses, especially in the case of solar variability. A third NRC report
assessing surface and atmospheric temperature trends is also relevant since the atmospheric responses to solar forcing becomes increasingly stronger, relative
to anthropogenic (and other) influences, at increasing heights above the surface, so that the attribution of anthropogenic change in the troposphere and
stratosphere is unlikely to be the same as that of surface temperature.
The proposal was rejected as I wrote in my post. As I summarized
Except for Judith Lean, Art Charo and myself, however, there was no support for the Strawman proposal. The proposal for a formal NRC Panel
was rejected by the others, unless it was very narrowly focused, such as on “decadal forecasts”. The agency representatives (from NASA and the NSF) were
similarly not willing to support such a study.
The reason, undoubtedly preordained before we even met on that Monday, is that a significant number of the members of the
Committee were (and presumably still are) active participants of the IPCC assessment, as documented above.
Thus, the intensity of the dismissive and negative comments by a number of the committee members, and from even several of the agency
representatives, with respect to any view that differed from the IPCC orthodoxy, made abundantly clear, that there was no interest in vesting an assessment of
climate to anyone but the IPCC.
The IPCC is actually a relatively small group of individuals who are using the IPCC process to control what policymakers and the
public learn about climate on multi-decadal time scales. This NRC planning process further demonstrates the intent of the IPCC members to manipulate the
science, so that their viewpoints are the only ones that reach the policymakers.
Events since 2008 have confirmed the conclusion in the last paragraph. (Roger Pielke Sr.,
Climate Science)
An explosion of outrage was triggered by the detonation of children by alarmists at 10:10, Bill Gates wants fewer customers and the Maldives installed solar
panels and blondes.
There’s only three days left before the green day of action on 10/10/10, but I hesitate to start a countdown in case hippies gets the wrong idea. (Daily
Bayonet)
More accurate forecasts of climate conditions over time periods of weeks to a few years could help people plan agricultural activities, mitigate drought, and
manage energy resources, amongst other activities; however, current forecast systems have limited ability on these time- scales. Models for such climate
forecasts must take into account complex interactions among the ocean, atmosphere, and land surface. Such processes can be difficult to represent realistically.
To improve the quality of forecasts, this book makes recommendations about the development of the tools used in forecasting and about specific research goals
for improving understanding of sources of predictability. To improve the accessibility of these forecasts to decision-makers and researchers, this book also
suggests best practices to improve how forecasts are made and disseminated. (NAP)
Emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels have ushered in a new epoch where human activities will largely determine the evolution of
Earth's climate. Because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some
of which could become very severe. Emissions reductions decisions made today matter in determining impacts experienced not just over the next few decades, but
in the coming centuries and millennia.
According to Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts Over Decades to Millennia, important policy decisions can be informed by
recent advances in climate science that quantify the relationships between increases in carbon dioxide and global warming, related climate changes, and
resulting impacts, such as changes in streamflow, wildfires, crop productivity, extreme hot summers, and sea level rise. One way to inform these choices is to
consider the projected climate changes and impacts that would occur if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were stabilized at a particular concentration level.
The book quantifies the outcomes of different stabilization targets for greenhouse gas concentrations using analyses and information drawn from the scientific
literature. Although it does not recommend or justify any particular stabilization target, it does provide important scientific insights about the relationships
among emissions, greenhouse gas concentrations, temperatures, and impacts.
Climate Stabilization Targets emphasizes the importance of 21st century choices regarding long-term climate stabilization. It is a useful resource for
scientists, educators and policy makers, among others. (NAP)
As I began to work on my review of Robert Bryce’s latest book, Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, it became
less a traditional review and more a summary/commentary on some of the key points in the book. [Read More] (Robert Rapier, ET)
Lithium miners are reaping the benefits of a political and industry push to get more electric vehicles on the road, with shares in some Canadian-listed
miners up more than 50 percent in the past two months.
Four major producers have long dominated lithium output and demand is likely to double in the next 10 years as automakers roll out hybrid and electric cars
using lithium-ion batteries. (Reuters)
China's imported auto market continues to flourish with sales of 460,000 in the first seven months of this year. It represents a growth rate of 150% compared
with the same period of last year. (MercoPress)
The Obama Administration is continuing its goal of making the United States reduce its carbon footprint by enacting climate and energy legislation, although
it may come in “chunks” rather than in one comprehensive bill. According, to President Obama, his proposed energy policy “is good for our economy, it’s
good for our national security, and, ultimately, it’s good for our environment.” (Institute for Energy Research)
Mr. Edward Hanlon
Designated Federal Official
Science Advisory Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Mail Code 1400R
Washington, D.C. 20460-4164
Dear Mr. Hanlon,
This letter responds to the comments of the Environmental Working Group (EWG)
concerning the nomination of Dr. Michael Economides to serve on the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Panel for the Review of the Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Plan.
The EWG objects to the nomination of Dr. Economides because, by authoring an op-ed that was published in the Syracuse Post-Standard on September 13, 2010,
“Mr. Economides appears to be biased in favor of a predetermined outcome to EPA’s study…”
If such a standard — i.e., publicly expressing an opinion relating to an area of one’s expertise — is grounds for disqualification, then the SAB will
need to disqualify many of its current members.
For example, consider the following examples of current SAB members with well-known opinions and biases:
Gina Solomon, a member of the SAB Drinking Water Committee is an employee of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental
activist group. Ms. Solomon, herself a self-acknowledged activist, has a long history of making alarmist statements to the media on a variety of environmental
topics — too many to do justice in this short letter. But one may get a flavor of her various biases from her blog
(http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolomon/).
Arnold Schecter, a member of the SAB Dioxin Review Panel, has many times expressed his alarmist opinions regarding dioxin. Mr. Schecter’s
Facebook page, not surprisingly, reveals that he is a fan of the Environmental Working Group — which perhaps is why EWG hasn’t requested to have Mr.
Schecter disqualified from serving on the Dioxin Review Panel.
Bruce Lanphear, a member of the SAB Lead Review Panel, has often expressed alarmist opinions about exposure to lead, including that
“there is no safe exposure to lead.” Mr. Lanphear has also called for a ban on commercial uses of lead.
There is no question that many other members of the SAB and its ad hoc committees and panels could be exposed for the apparent wrong of expressing an
opinion.
If Dr. Economides is to be disqualified for holding opinions in his field of expertise, is the EPA prepared to similarly disqualify the above-mentioned
individuals as well as all other SAB participants who can be shown to have publicly expressed their opinions?
Sincerely,
/s/
Steve Milloy
Publisher, JunkScience.com
cc:
Lisa Jackson, Administrator
Angela Nugent, DFO SAB
Pierre Henry farms wheat and corn east of Paris in an area famous for its Brie cheese. The next big hit might be crude oil.
Henry’s farm, 78 kilometers (49 miles) from the French capital, sits atop what geologists call the Paris Basin, an area bordering Champagne and Chablis
vineyards that struck oil in 1958. Henry leased a field to Exxon Mobil Corp. in 1985, which drilled wells that have pumped for a quarter century.
These days Vermilion Energy Inc., Toreador Resources Corp. and partner Hess Corp. are targeting a bigger prize, oil trapped in Paris Basin shale rock that was
previously too hard to tap. Techniques developed to pulverize rock and release petroleum have revolutionized exploration and boosted U.S. natural gas production
20 percent since 2006. Vermilion said it has had “positive” results so far in the area.
“If the Paris Basin was in West Texas it would already be drilled and would have pretty substantial production,” Craig McKenzie, Toreador’s chief
executive officer, said in a telephone interview in August. (Bloomberg)
The soaring price
of electricity is due to the green-energy activism of George Smitherman
The Swedish retail giant IKEA announced yesterday it will invest $4.6-million to install 3,790 solar panels on three Toronto
area stores, giving IKEA the electric-power-producing capacity of 960,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. According to IKEA, that’s enough electricity to power
100 homes. Amazing development. Even more amazing is the economics of this project. Under the Ontario government’s feed-in-tariff solar power scheme, IKEA
will receive 71.3¢ for each kilowatt of power produced, which works out to about $6,800 a year for each of the 100 hypothetical homes. Since the average
Toronto home currently pays about $1,200 for the same quantity of electricity, that implies that IKEA is being overpaid by $5,400 per home equivalent.
Welcome to the wonderful world of green economics and the magical business of carbon emission reduction. Each year, IKEA will receive $684,408 under Premier
Dalton McGuinty’s green energy monster — for power that today retails for about $115,000. At that rate, IKEA will recoup $4.6-million in less than seven
years — not bad for an investment that can be amortized over 20.
No wonder solar power is such a hot industry. No wonder, too, that the province of Ontario is in a headlong rush into a likely economic crisis brought on
skyrocketing electricity prices. To make up the money paid to IKEA to promote itself as a carbon-free zone, Ontario consumers and industries are on their way to
experiencing the highest electricity rates in North America, if not most of the world.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Gregory Jaczko has ordered his staff to stop the review of the nuclear materials repository at Yucca Mountain.
Aside from the harmful policy implications of this action, the chairman seems to be moving forward without any authority to do so.
What Does the Statute Say?
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, clearly states that the federal government is responsible for
managing America’s commercial nuclear waste, and the Yucca Mountain Development Act of 2002
explicitly identifies Yucca Mountain as the location of the nation’s nuclear materials repository.
No Congress has passed any bill to reverse these laws. Thus it becomes very questionable how the Administration or NRC can shut down all Yucca activities
without either a plan to replace Yucca or congressional authority to terminate the project. Continue reading... (The Foundry)
A new chemical process may help unlock biofuels from trees and plant waste in a shift from using food crops such as sugar cane to generate fuel, scientists
said Thursday.
They said they found an enzyme that helped break down chitin, a stiff material similar to woody cellulose that is found in the skeletons of crustaceans -- such
as lobsters or crabs -- as well as insects.
"We regard this as a breakthrough," Gustav Vaaje-Kolstad, a Norwegian scientist who led the study in the journal Science, told Reuters. "Our goal
is to make more valuable production from waste."
Other scientists are also developing ways to accelerate the breakdown of "biomass" waste ranging from sawdust to citrus peel that could create a new
generation of biofuels. Biofuels help cut use of fossil fuels blamed for stoking global warming. (Reuters)
Newswise — Babies whose mothers had relatively high levels of the chemical DDE in their blood were more likely to both grow rapidly during their first 6
months and to have a high body mass index (BMI) by 14 months, according to a team of scientists based in Barcelona, Spain. DDE, an endocrine disrupter, is a
by-product of the pesticide DDT.
Published online October 5 ahead of print in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), the study examined data collected between 2004
and 2006 on a representative sample of 518 Spanish women in their first trimester of pregnancy. Among babies whose mothers were normal weight pre-pregnancy,
those babies whose mothers had DDE levels in the top 75 percent of exposure were twice as likely to grow rapidly during their first 6 months as babies whose
mothers had the lowest DDE levels. Infants in the top 50 percent of exposure were three times more likely to have high BMI scores at 14 months. The researchers
did not observe an association between DDE and weight for babies of mothers who were overweight before pregnancy.
Two other human studies have shown an association between prenatal DDE exposure and obesity later in life. “However, this analysis suggests, to our knowledge
for the first time, that fetal DDE exposure may promote rapid growth starting in the immediate postnatal period,” report lead author and epidemiologist
Michelle A. Mendez, of the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology, and her colleagues. Laboratory studies have suggested that “exposure to
chemicals with endocrine-disrupting properties might promote shifts in appetite regulation, but may also promote obesity through metabolic changes,” says
Mendez. (Press Release)
And why didn't this effect show up when people were significantly exposed to DDT and its metabolites? After the Second World War DDT was seen
as the miracle crop and domestic pesticide and liberally sprayed indoors and out but there was no concern about obesity during decades of significant exposure.
Why now when there is really trivial exposure by comparison? Are they suggesting people have evolved a new response to the compounds in the last decade or two
that did not exist during the decades of extensive exposure? Looks more like a case of kids that are fed a lot grow faster and are more likely to be overweight
later. It also looks to be a really shaky data dredge-based hypothesis.
THE air you breathe on a plane is as likely to make you sick as being in an office environment, a new report has found.
The study, by the National Research Council in the US, contradicts previous investigations that have found high levels of dangerous toxins in the air on planes.
Risks: How flying can harm your health
It found that cabin air is as no more of a health threat than the air in any other enclosed environment such as cinemas, offices and trains.
“There is always an increased risk of infection whenever you enter a confined space, but an aircraft cabin is no worse an environment than the office you sit
in every day,” said Dr Mark Gendreau, an aviation medicine expert. (news.com.au)
Americans die sooner than citizens of a dozen other developed nations and the usual suspects -- obesity, traffic accidents and a high murder rate -- are not to
blame, researchers reported on Thursday.
Instead, poor healthcare may be to blame, the team at Columbia University in New York reported.
They found that 15-year survival rates for men and women aged 45 to 65 have fallen in the United States relative to the other 12 countries over the past 30
years.
Such figures are frequently cited by supporters of healthcare reform, and critics often point out that the United States also has higher rates of obesity, more
traffic fatalities and more murders than these countries.
Columbia's Peter Muennig, who led the study published in the journal Health Affairs, said his team accounted for these factors this time.
"But what really surprised us was that all of the usual suspects -- smoking, obesity, traffic accidents, and homicides -- are not the culprits,"
Meunnig said in a statement. (Reuters)
The shame of it is that health care zealots may be to blame by misdirecting so much effort (and funding) to politically correct causes
(anti-tobacco; obesity; gun crime; speed limits...). Always addressing the wrong problems just doesn't improve health outcomes, no matter how good or superior
it makes the zealots feel.
LONDON, Oct 6 - Women who have one or two alcoholic drinks a week during pregnancy do not harm their children's behavioural or intellectual development,
according to a study by British scientists on Wednesday.
The researchers found that pregnant women who drank up to a glass (175 millilitres) of wine, up to 50 ml of spirits or just under a pint of beer a week did not
affect their children.
But children whose mothers were heavy drinkers were more likely to be hyperactive and have behavioural and emotional problems than those whose mothers did not
drink during pregnancy, the scientists said. (Reuters)
The World Health Organization (WHO) recently recommended
that the allowable concentration of atrazine in water be increased to 100 parts per billion, up from its previous two parts per billion standard.
The new WHO safety standard greatly exceeds the U.S. EPA mandate that water contain less than three parts per billion, which “activists groundlessly say is
still too much,” points out ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. She also expresses her pleasant surprise at reading this report. “The fact that the WHO comes out
and loosens the standard is truly amazing to me. I’m not used to reading news like this. They were following a scientific path — now the U.S. EPA should
take lessons from WHO and do the same.”
The stringent U.S. requirements were implemented in light of an NRDC campaign launched against the EPA and backed by the work of one scientist — University of
California, Berkeley biologist Tyrone Hayes — whose finding that atrazine harms frogs has not been replicated by any other lab and whose intemperate
assertions have been widelydiscredited. (ACSH)
Genetically modified corn is trickling into Mexico after overcoming years of legal barriers, but where some farmers see the promise of reduced imports others
see a threat to their heritage.
For years the revered status of corn in Mexico, widely believed to be the birthplace of the grain, has made the country hesitant to adopt transgenic maize
seeds.
Mexico is a major food importer and is finding itself outpaced by agriculture exporting giants like the United States to the north and Brazil to the south.
Proponents of GM crops say they could help reverse the trend.
Last year, after a decade of political wrangling, Mexico completed a package of laws to allow for controlled experiments with the genetically engineered seeds,
designed to resist certain pests or herbicides, reduce costs and increase yields.
In small, isolated fields in three states in northern Mexico, Monsanto and Pioneer Hi-Bred, the agricultural unit of DuPont, recently completed the tests with
positive results. (Reuters)
On September 21, 2010, U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) introduced a bill that would create an insidious national “Renewable Electricity Standard” (RES).
Bingaman now has 32 cosponsors but expects 60.
The bill would result in higher monthly bills for millions of home owners and renters, farms, businesses, industries, hospitals, educational institutions,
and any other organization that uses electricity.
Despite the intense citizen displeasure with Congress, Bingaman’s RES bill shows that both Democrats and Republicans, while in Washington, are eager to
favor special interests and their lobbyists while ignoring the adverse impact of their actions on the nation’s ordinary citizens, consumers and taxpayers. The
bill belies Republican claims that they favor less federal government intrusion, control, and damage.
Key Provisions
The bill would require that, by 2013, 15% of the electricity sold by an electric utility must be generated from wind or certain other “renewable” energy
sources, or from energy efficiency. The bill would create a new US Department of Energy (DOE) bureaucracy to oversee and enforce the new federal demands. Under
the bill, up to 4 of the mandated 15% could, theoretically, be achieved by actions that improve energy efficiency but the measures that qualify are tightly
defined so utilities may have to use electricity from renewables instead of energy efficiency to meet the bill’s requirements.
As demonstrated by states and European countries that have imposed similar “renewable” energy requirements, higher electric bills are a direct result. [Read more →] (MasterResource)
In an interview with Politico.com about her damn-the-critics approach to greenhouse gas
(GHG) regulation, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said,
“The Clean Air Act is a tool. It’s not the optimal tool. But it can be used. And, in fact, I’m legally obligated now to use it. And so
we’ve laid a lot of groundwork on that and we’ll continue.” [Emphasis added]
But EPA is not, in fact, legally obligated to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act.
In its March 2007 decision Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled only that the EPA may — not that it had to — regulate GHGs. And the
Bush administration subsequently declined to regulate GHGs.
It wasn’t until December 2009 that the Obama EPA got around to declaring greenhouse gases to be a threat to the public welfare (the so-called
“endangerment” finding), an optional pronouncement that enabled the EPA to move toward regulating greenhouse gases.
But just as the EPA opted to make the endangerment finding, it could opt to reverse it, thereby relieving the agency of any obligation to regulate GHGs under
the Clean Air Act.
Lisa Jackson knows full well that the EPA does have to regulate GHGs, yet she plays to the media like her hands are tied to following an
economically-suicidal and environmentally-futile course. (Green Hell Blog)
Tough new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency restricting greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the global mean temperature by only 0.006
to 0.0015 of a degree Celsius by the year 2100, according to the EPA's analysis.
As a side effect, these rules would “slow construction nationwide for years,” the EPA said in a June 3 statement.
Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee highlighted those findings in a report released last week.
The GOP minority report, issued
last Wednesday, said a series of proposed and partially implemented new regulations on industrial boilers, greenhouse gas emitters, and ozone levels will put
over 800,000 jobs at risk with little environmental benefit.
The authors cite the EPA’s own staff to show that greenhouse gas regulations, which would require major sources of CO2 (carbon dioxide) to obtain permits and
limit their output, could seriously harm the economy if implemented. (Chris Neefus, CNSNews.com)
The global carbon market will not be worth $1-2 trillion a year by 2020 if the United States does not speed up efforts for a federal emissions trading
scheme, delegates warned at a carbon conference in London on Monday.
"There will be, I'm afraid, no real expansion of the carbon markets to their global potential without movement in the U.S.," said Henry Derwent, chief
executive and president of the International Emissions Trading Association.
"Until someone explains to them (the U.S.) how wrong they are, we will be stuck with a comfortable living in the European market but nothing, nothing
near the potential we should be earning," he added. (Reuters)
... carbon scammers are not raking off the fortunes to which they feel entitled and it's all those nasty 'murica's fault, too! Bad 'murica!
US negotiating stance deemed 'totally unacceptable' by China after American climate envoy accuses delegates of trying to renegotiate Copenhagen accord
(Guardian)
Jonathan
Pershing, the lead U.S. negotiator at global climate-change talks in China, said little progress has been made and warned that efforts may splinter if no
accord is reached at the next meetings in Cancun, Mexico.
“The consequences of not having an agreement after Cancun are something to worry about,” Pershing said today in a briefing with three news media in Tianjin.
At the same time, the U.S. deputy special envoy for climate change said he remained optimistic. “I still believe compromise can be reached.”
Greenhouse gas emissions worldwide risk overshooting by a third the threshold beyond which dangerous global warming looms, the environment group WWF said on
Wednesday, urging climate talks in China to tackle the gap.
Negotiators from 177 governments are meeting this week in the north Chinese city of Tianjin trying to agree on the shape of the successor to the current phase
of the Kyoto Protocol, the key U.N. treaty on fighting global warming, which expires in 2012.
Climate talks so far this year have focused on trust-building funding goals, with little talk about countries' targets to reduce the greenhouse gases,
especially carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and other sources, heating up the atmosphere.
The report from WWF said the world is precariously close to eating up its "carbon budget" -- the limit of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas
emissions that would hold atmospheric concentrations below levels likely to trigger dangerous climate change, says the report. (Reuters)
Do you suppose there's any point in trying to explain to these fools there's no such thing as an achievable maximum limit on anthropogenic
carbon dioxide emissions? As far as life on Earth is concerned there is only adequate atmospheric carbon dioxide resource or there is not and the "is
not" means shortage and starvation.
The Post tries to exonerate Mann by claiming that he was cleared by the National Academy of Sciences and his employer, Penn State. Neither claim is true.
First, while the post refers to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, it was actually a panel of the non-prestigious, for-hire National Research
Council that actually reviewed Mann’s work. Below is the NRC’s conclusion about the hockey stick:
In response to a request from Congress, this report assesses the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over
approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts for our understanding of global climate change. Because widespread, reliable
temperature records are only available for the last 150 years or so, scientists estimate temperatures in the more distant past by analyzing “proxy
evidence,” which includes tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, boreholes, and glaciers. Starting in the late 1990s,
scientists began using
sophisticated methods to combine proxy evidence from many different locations in an effort to estimate surface temperature changes during the last few hundred
to few thousand years. This report concludes that large-scale surface temperature reconstructions are important tools in our understanding of global climate
change that allows us to say, with a high level of confidence, that global mean surface temperature
was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. Less confidence can be
placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600, although available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at
many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. Very little
confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900, primarily because of the
scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence. [Emphasis added]
No part of that conclusion, of course, exonerates Mann or his hockey stick. Where in that conclusion, for example, does it say that the hockey stick
appropriately deleted the Medieval Optimum or the Little Ice Age? Where in that conclusion does it say that Mann appropriately grafted late-20th century
thermometer data onto the tree ring data (while deleting tree ring data not favorable to his case for warming) to give the impression of dramatic, manmade
warming during the 20th century? For more on Mann and his hockey stick, check out JunkScience.com’s “Michael
Mann: Defamed or defined by ‘Hide the decline’?“
As to Penn State’s “investigation” into Mann’s hijinks, click here to
read about that whitewash.
By labeling Cuccinelli’s request for data from a state university a “witch hunt,” the Post is trying to liken the Virginia AG to Sen. Joe McCarthy. In
that case, I’m all for such witch hunts, because Sen. McCarthy was correct. The U.S. Government was chock full of Soviet agents, communists, fellow travelers
and other security risks during the mid-20th century. These “witches” did real damage to the U.S. and other nations around the world. Similarly, Mann and
his ilk have done real damage to science and our educational system, while helping to advance the misanthropic “progressive” (read
Marxist-socialist/neo-communist) political agenda.
The Red Menace is back — although it never really went away in the first place. We should all hope that Cuccinelli has the same fortitude, persistence and
resilience as McCarthy.
[Note: Readers interested in Joe McCarthy and the supposed communist "witch hunts" should read M. Stanton Evans' shocker "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator joe McCarthy and
His Fight Against America's Enemies." What you'll learn is that "McCarthyism" isn't what Joe McCarthy did to others; it's what the
communists and their enablers did to him. Ann Coulter called Evans' book "The greatest book since the Bible." At this point in our nation's history,
though, I disagree. "Blacklisted by History" is the greatest book ever.] (Green Hell Blog)
But it didn’t rise to a criminal level (that was the UK deleting emails in advance of Freedom of Information requests, not Michael Mann). What Ken
Cuccinelli is doing is going fishing for wrongdoing without an allegation of such wrongdoing–and that’s not how we should be doing things in this country.
I’ll get a lot of flack from you on this–and don’t be shy, I can take it. But remember as you write–District Attorneys are not always Republican, and
controversial scientists can be skeptics at times, too. Don’t let your desire for a short term victory in the daily news cycle let you ignore what would be an
erosion of all our civil liberties, I beg of you.
Let’s begin by examining the validity of your statement, “But it didn’t rise to a criminal level (that was the UK deleting emails in advance of Freedom
of Information requests, not Michael Mann). What Ken Cuccinelli is doing is going fishing for wrongdoing without an allegation of such wrongdoing–and that’s
not how we should be doing things in this country.” On the contrary, there are outstanding allegations of wrongdoing.
Who would believe that any green group would cast themselves as murderous eco fascists?
The uproar over the “eco snuff” video put out by British climate alarmist organization 10:10 is more than a minor
embarrassment for the warmist cause. Ten ten is not just any old bunch of hysterical radicals. It is virtually a propaganda arm of the U.K. government.
Moreover, thousands of corporations, local councils and schools have signed on to the group’s Orwellian “pledge” to reduce carbon emissions by 10% by
the end of 2010.
The “satirical” video — which 10:10 posted last week but had to withdraw in the face of an angry backlash — consists of four
segments in which, respectively, school kids, corporate employees, former French soccer ace David Ginola, and X Files star Gillian Anderson are told
that there is “no pressure” to get onside with the carbon reduction program. Then, those who refuse to sign up (including Messrs. Ginola and Anderson) are
blown up, with a great deal of splattered blood. Side-splitting! Literally.
When I first saw it, I thought it had to be a spoof of the insanities of environmental extremism. Who would believe that any green organization would
cast themselves as potentially murderous eco fascists? What message could one take from the movie but “Those who fail to agree with us will die,” even if
we’ll just kill them tongue in exploding cheek. But the video, which was written by Richard Curtis, who penned Four Weddings and a Funeral, was
comedically dead serious.
Shocking British short to promote cutting carbon emissions shows skeptics being blown up for not participating.
Red is the new green, according to a horrific short film put together by global warming alarmists in Britain for 10:10 a “Global Day of Doing.” Blood red
that is.
The group 10:10 UK’s “No Pressure” video advertisement that was intended to promote its cause begins with a teacher lecturing her students: “Just before
you go there’s a brilliant idea in the air that I’d like to run by you. Now it’s called 10:10 – the idea is that everyone starts cutting their carbon
emissions by 10 percent, thus keeping the planet safe for everyone, eventually.”
Preaching global warming alarmism to children is nothing shocking, but the next part of the film was. The teacher singles out the two students who are skeptical
about participating, presses a red button and BLAM! those children’s bodies explode as blood and guts cover their classmates.
Skeptical soccer players, businesspeople and even actress Gillian Anderson all get blown up in the “disturbing” video for not complying with the wishes of
the global warming crowd.
The violent depiction may be a new low for the environmental movement, but its violent rhetoric has been in use for years. Yet, the response from the liberal
news media in the U.S. has been minimal, despite the willingness of the same outlets to portray – without a shred of evidence – conservatives as
“incendiary” and violent.
Despite the horrific nature of the video and the message that skeptics should be killed, the television news media, with the exception of Fox News, haven’t
reported on it as of October 5.
The New York Times has run a couple of articles on its website, and James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal wrote a strong condemnation October 5 of the
“green supremacists” that created the video. But, so far at least, much of the national news media have ignored the controversy. (Julia A. Seymour, Business
& Media Institute)
A couple of weeks ago, [actually September 30 --Ed] a new short film by comedy screenwriter Richard Curtis was released for the 10:10 environmental campaign.
And apparently, that film offended a lot of people.
I actually thought it was kind of funny. But I do have a sense of humor.
So why were people so offended?
Well, in the film, a few overzealous environmentalists use detonators to blow up those who don't want to do their part to reduce carbon emissions. I think the
graphic scenes rubbed some folks the wrong way. Although the quality of the special effects made the whole thing about as realistic as the head explosion scene
in the 1981 chesse-fest, Scanners.
Nonetheless, I'm calling bullshit on the whole “Oh, I'm offended” thing.
This movie was not offensive. What is offensive is the fact that we still entertain climate change deniers who use fossil fuel-funded studies to push their
dishonorable agendas.
What's offensive is the result of continued inaction on climate change. (Green Chip Stocks)
The fool doesn't even understand the offensive nature of blowing to a bloody pulp those with whom you disagree. RT Jones thinks teachers
murdering students and bosses murdering employees is a jolly laugh. Since when did pogrom become a laughing matter? What's next from these sociopaths, Holocaust,
the Musical ? Sheesh!
In fact, every child on earth born after June 23, 1988 belongs to what I call Generation Hot. This generation includes some two billion young people,
all of whom have grown up under global warming and are fated to spend the rest of their lives confronting its mounting impacts.
For Generation Hot, the brutal summer of 2010 is not an anomaly; it's the new normal.
One wouldn't know it from most media coverage, but the world's leading climate scientists have concluded that last summer's rash of extreme weather --
including record heat across much of Europe (especially Russia) and the United States -- was driven in no small part by man-made global warming. Of course no
single event can ever be definitively attributed to global warming; weather results from many factors.
But according to the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, the extraordinary heat, rains, drought and flooding that occurred this summer fit the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's projections of "more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming." In other
words, dangerous climate change is no longer tomorrow's problem; it is here today.
It's not that we weren't warned. I date the beginning of Generation Hot to June 23, 1988 because that is when humanity was put on notice that greenhouse gas
emissions were raising the temperatures on this planet. The warning came from NASA scientist James Hansen's testimony to the U.S. Senate and, crucially,
the decision by the New York Times to print the news on page 1, which in turn made global warming a household phrase in news bureaus, living rooms and
government offices the world over.
"This was a crime," Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the climate adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, told me, referring to the past two decades of
global inaction. But the wrong people are being punished. My daughter and her peers in Generation Hot have been given a life sentence for a crime they
didn't commit; they will spend the rest of their lives coping with a climate that will be hotter and more volatile than ever before in our civilization's
history. Meanwhile, the perpetrators of this crime continue to reap record corporate profits, win political re-elections and get invited onto national TV and
radio programs.
Probably the most far-sighted work is taking place in the Netherlands, which has launched a well-funded, politically tough-minded 200 Year Plan to adapt
to climate change. (No, 200 is not a typo.) Most countries, however, like most private companies and local communities, are doing little or nothing to prepare
for the storm bearing down upon them. (Mark Hertsgaard, Puffington)
Didn't they used to be five year plans? This guy has serious problems... (h/t DA)
1) Science has sufficiently made the case that climate change is a significant threat that requires action.
2) Neither the public nor politicians will accept economic contraction for the purpose of reducing carbon emissions.
This he calls the "iron law of climate policy," and from my reading the book supports this notion pretty well.
3) Cap-and-trade increases the cost of energy and therefore violates the iron law. Furthermore the cap-and-trade-style program envisioned by the Kyoto Protocol
has not worked to accelerate carbon emission reductions in Europe.
4) There simply aren't good policy options now available to address climate change, and there haven't been since the problem was identified.
5) Modern energy technology falls far short of what's needed to address climate change.
6) The best potential solution is a slight tax on carbon that would be all but unnoticeable to the public but would generate billions of dollars for much-needed
research into alternative energy resources, technologies such as batteries and carbon sequestration.
Overall the book provides a good explanation of why cap-and-trade policies probably will fail on a global scale, and does an very nice job of outlining the
magnitude of the challenge of decarbonization. It is enormous in the face of rising energy demand.
Have a look, and let me know if you have any questions! (Roger Pielke Jr.)
The problem with Junior is that he believes all that gorebull warbling and that enhanced greenhouse constitutes a real problem to be addressed. How can you
be a policy analyst when you can't identify genuine problems?
NOTE: This is the first in a series of monthly posts in which Senior Fellow Patrick J. Michaels reviews interesting items on global warming in the scientific
literature that may not have received the media attention that they deserved, or have been misinterpreted in the popular press.
The Current Wisdom only comments on science appearing in the refereed, peer-reviewed literature, or that has been peer-screened prior to presentation at a
scientific congress. (Cato at liberty)
An increase in solar activity from the Sun actually cools the Earth, suggests new research that will renew the debate over the science behind climate
change.
The research overturns traditional assumptions about the relationship between the sun and global warming.
Focused on a three-year snapshot of time between 2004 and 2007, the findings will be seized upon by those who believe that man's role in rises in the earth's
temperature has been overstated.
As solar activity waned at the end of one of the Sun's 11-year cycles, the new data shows the amount of light and heat reaching the Earth rose rather than fell.
Its impact on melting polar ice caps, and drying up rivers could therefore have been exaggerated by conventional climate models during the period.
Scientists also believe it may also be possible that during the next upturn of the cycle, when solar activity increases, there might be a cooling effect at the
Earth's surface.
However while this may support climate change sceptics' arguments in the short term, long term analysis suggests it actually provides further evidence that the
heating of the planet is more than a natural, cyclical phenomenon.
Over the past century, overall solar activity has been increasing and should therefore cool the Earth, yet global temperatures have increased. (TDT)
Turning up the big heater in the sky cools the planet... Consider me still skeptical.
Advocates for seeding regions of the ocean with iron to combat global warming should be interested in a new study published today in Geophysical Research
Letters. A Canada-US team led by University of Victoria oceanographer Dr. Roberta Hamme describes how the 2008 eruption of the Kasatochi volcano in the Aleutian
Islands spewed iron-laden ash over a large swath of the North Pacific. The result, says Hamme, was an "ocean productivity event of unprecedented
magnitude"—the largest phytoplankton bloom detected in the region since ocean surface measurements by satellite began in 1997.
Phytoplankton are free-floating, single-celled plants that form the base of the marine food chain. They take up carbon dioxide (CO2) to grow, which is why
seeding key regions of the ocean with iron has been proposed as one way to offset increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
But although the volcanic ash fueled such a massive phytoplankton bloom, it resulted in only a "modest" uptake of atmospheric CO2, says Hamme.
"The event acts as an example of the necessary scale that purposeful iron fertilizations would need to be to have an impact on global atmospheric CO2
levels." (University of Victoria)
In recent decades documented biological changes in the far Northern Hemisphere have been attributed to global warming, changes from species extinctions to
shifting geographic ranges. Such changes were expected because warming has been fastest in the northern temperate zone and the Arctic.
But new research published in the Oct. 7 edition of Nature adds to growing evidence that, even though the temperature increase has been smaller in the tropics,
the impact of warming on life could be much greater there than in colder climates.
The study focused on ectothermic, or cold-blooded, organisms (those whose body temperature approximates the temperature of their surroundings). Researchers used
nearly 500 million temperature readings from more than 3,000 stations around the world to chart temperature increases from 1961 through 2009, then examined the
effect of those increases on metabolism.
"The expectation was that physiological changes would also be greatest in the north temperate-Arctic region, but when we ran the numbers that expectation
was flipped on its head," said lead author Michael Dillon, an assistant professor of zoology and physiology at the University of Wyoming. (University of
Washington)
Except there is no expectation of warming in the tropics, at least not from enhanced greenhouse effect. We could see an expansion of the
tropical zone, as has happened in Earth's history but the tropics are already infrared opaque so more greenhouse gas makes no difference.
Judy – This is another outstanding, much needed post!
I would like to add to this discussion by introducing your readers to Section E of the IGBP BAHC book
Pielke, R.A. Sr. and L. Bravo de Guenni, Eds., 2004: How to evaluate vulnerability in changing environmental conditions. Part E In: Vegetation, Water, Humans
and the Climate: A New Perspective on an Interactive System. Global Change – The IGBP Series, P. Kabat et al. Eds., Springer, 483-544. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cb-33.pdf
including the Conclusion chapter [http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cb-42.pdf].
In this material, we recommend the adoption of a bottom-up perspective as the most effective (and inclusive) approach to assess the vulnerability of key
resources to climate and other environmental and social issues.
Indeed, we do not know what is “dangerous” until such an assessment is performed. Even with respect to a top down view, alterations in large scale
weather patterns, as one example, are only “dangerous” if they negatively influence these resources.
More recently, I posted with the title
A Way Forward In Climate Science Based On A Bottom-Up Resourse-Based Perspective
[http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/a-way-forward-in-climate-science-based-on-a-bottom-up-resourse-based-perspective/]
in which I wrote
““There are 5 broad areas that we can use to define the need for vulnerability assessments : water, food, energy, [human] health and ecosystem function.
Each area has societally critical resources. The vulnerability concept requires the determination of the major threats to these resources from climate, but
also from other social and environmental issues. After these threats are identified for each resource, then the relative risk from natural- and
human-caused climate change (estimated from the GCM projections, but also the historical, paleo-record and worst case sequences of events) can be compared with
other risks in order to adopt the optimal mitigation/adaptation strategy.”
To establish what is “dangerous”, the following are the questions that need to be answered
1. Why is this resource important? How is it used? To what stakeholders is it valuable?
2. What are the key environmental and social variables that influence this resource?
3. What is the sensitivity of this resource to changes in each of these key variables? (this includes, but is not limited to, the sensitivity of the
resource to climate variations and change on short (e.g. days); medium (e.g. seasons) and long (e.g. multi-decadal) time scales.
4. What changes (thresholds) in these key variables would have to occur to result in a negative (or positive) response to this resource?
5. What are the best estimates of the probabilities for these changes to occur? What tools are available to quantify the effect of these changes. Can
these estimates be skillfully predicted?
6. What actions (adaptation/mitigation) can be undertaken in order to minimize or eliminate the negative consequences of these changes (or to optimize a
positive response)?
7. What are specific recommendations for policymakers and other stakeholders?
I have been appointed as an Editor-in-Chief of a 5 volume set of books that focus on these questions for water, food, energy, human health and ecosystem
function which should appear late 2011 or early 2012. We will then have a bottom-up focus on the issue of what are the “dangerous” risks to the key social
and environmental resources.
Cairn Energy's first Greenland oil drilling season was a "royal flush" and the company will invest $1.2bn (£755m) on up to 12 wells over the next
three years.
The Edinburgh-based exploration company is already spending $400m on four wells in the unexplored Arctic region this year, of which the first found traces of
gas and the second traces of both oil and gas. A third is under way and will report at the end of the month.
Cairn's deputy chief executive Mike Watts said the company's success rate was "about as good an outcome as we could have expected", sufficient to
secure Greenland's place as "a new oil and gas province in the making". (Independent)
With Ontario power utilities asking for rate hikes approaching 20% — this on top of outsized rate hikes in previous years – the press and the public has
been asking for the cause of the rate hikes.
The reason for the UK’s dramatic hikes? The UK’s so-called green energy program, which like Ontario’s is embarking on a building binge of wind farms
and other unneeded generating stations, topped off by a not-so-smart grid to bring this unneeded power to market.
Ontario is on the same path. Getting off the path and reversing the upward spiral would be easy to do: Simply tear up the Ontario Green Energy Act and begin
a return to normalcy.
The announcement by Ofgem, the UK electricity regulator, can be found here.
ELECTRICITY prices have skyrocketed over the past five years, with new research showing hikes of more than 50 per cent in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.
Electricity prices in parts of Australia have increased at nearly four times the rate of inflation, according to the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). (AAP)
While US energy is mired in silly, ideologically imbued debates from the moratorium on offshore drilling to the outright preposterous environmentalists’
arguments on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, China and Russia initiated a geopolitical energy deal that will resonate for decades. [Read More] (Michael J. Economides, ET)
The European Commission is looking into mechanisms to boost public acceptance of renewable energy projects to meet its climate goals, but behavioural
scientists warn that obvious solutions like individual compensation do not always work.
But renewable projects often run into resistance from local communities, who have to live with the noise of wind turbines or the visual changes to their
landscapes.
Mindful that developers of renewables projects often run into public resistance at the permitting stage, the European Commission's energy department has
launched a study investigating how to increase local acceptance. (EurActiv)
Some wind and solar energy companies could be headed for collapse as government funding priorities change, a UBS banker told the Reuters Restructuring Summit
on Wednesday.
"Green" technology companies have benefited from government support such as tax revenue or grants, but many could face restructuring or bankruptcy
once that support goes away, said Steven Smith, managing director and global head of restructuring for UBS Securities LLC.
If many of these companies go bust, it could echo the flop of ethanol companies, which began filing for bankruptcy in 2008, unable to support themselves amid
fluctuating corn and oil prices. (Reuters)
VINALHAVEN, Me. — Like nearly all of the residents on this island in Penobscot Bay, Art Lindgren and his wife, Cheryl, celebrated the arrival of three
giant wind turbines late last year. That was before they were turned on.
“In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” Mr. Lindgren said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.”
Now, the Lindgrens, along with a dozen or so neighbors living less than a mile from the $15 million wind facility here, say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of
the 123-foot blades is making life in this otherwise tranquil corner of the island unbearable.
They are among a small but growing number of families and homeowners across the country who say they have learned the hard way that wind power — a clean
alternative to electricity from fossil fuels — is not without emissions of its own.
Lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property value have cropped up in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and
Massachusetts, among other states.
In one case in DeKalb County, Ill., at least 38 families have sued to have 100 turbines removed from a wind farm there. A judge rejected a motion to dismiss the
case in June.
Like the Lindgrens, many of the people complaining the loudest are reluctant converts to the antiwind movement.
“The quality of life that we came here for was quiet,” Mrs. Lindgren said. “You don’t live in a place where you have to take an hour-and-15-minute ferry
ride to live next to an industrial park. And that’s where we are right now.” (NYT)
You've surely heard the information presented here, right? Or, given the inane
visual and rhetorical campaign promoting windmills and solar panels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil -- because, you know, the menace of all of
those (foreign-) wind- and solar-powered cars...er, ...because we get electricity from burning oil...or, something -- you've seen this in stories about
windmills just as you recently were inundated with snaps of the oil-covered pelican?
There are plenty more where that came from. And as one fellow just emailed me, with an amazing series of photos of wind turbines ablaze:
There have been at least 152 [fires caused by turbines] to date. Sooner or later, forest fires are bound to be caused by burning wind turbines. Some may have
occurred already, and the cause covered up - politically correct oblige.
Given the obsession with the media portraying any downside of energy sources that actually work, and provide that which in fact makes us richer, freer and
safer, just consider these things when you read about the sunshine and lollipops that await us if only we would get beyond our fear of success and leap forward
to the future to relying on inefficient, uneconomic, and yes ecologically harmful windmills and solar panels. The stuff we abandoned when we learned to
liberated even better energy.
Coal saved the forests, petroleum saved the whales and all hydrocarbons saved an awful lot of birds. (American Spectator)
NEW YORK - A massive Arizona campaign to get bystanders to do hands-only CPR if they see someone collapse appears to have paid off, state officials said on
Tuesday.
Doctors have traditionally recommended mouth-to-mouth rescue breathing in addition to chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but recent
studies suggest that doesn't help most patients.
Five years after Arizona started promoting hands-only CPR, the chances of surviving a cardiac arrest have more than doubled, according to a new report in the
Journal of the American Medical Association.
"I am really optimistic that this is going to help move the needle on bystander CPR across the country," said Dr. Bentley J. Bobrow, medical director
of Arizona's Bureau of Emergency Medical Services & Trauma System in Phoenix, who worked on the study.
He said the statewide campaign, called SHARE, was launched to help turn the tide on the state's drab survival statistics for cardiac arrest, which kills more
than 250,000 Americans every year. (Reuters Health)
CHICAGO - Newborn babies whose mothers get a flu shot while pregnant are less likely to get the flu or to be admitted to the hospital with a respiratory
illness in the first 6 months of life, suggest results of study released Monday.
During most flu seasons, babies under 6 months tend to have fewer cases of flu-like illnesses than those who are 6 to 12 months old, most likely because they
are protected by their mothers' natural antibodies.
But in severe flu seasons, such as the 2009 swine flu pandemic, these youngest children, who are too young to get flu shots themselves, are more likely to be
hospitalized and die from flu than older babies.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has for years recommended that pregnant women be vaccinated against seasonal flu, but the study adds to
other research showing that newborn babies benefit, too. (Reuters)
NEW YORK - Neurotic people aren't only making themselves miserable; they cost society billions of dollars in health care spending and lost productivity,
according to new research from the Netherlands.
"We thought that economic costs would be a good way to assess the overall impact of neuroticism," Dr. Pim Cuijpers of VU University Medical Center in
Amsterdam, one of the study's authors, told Reuters Health in an email. "We were surprised that the impact was this large."
While the least neurotic individuals cost society less than $3,000 per year, he and his colleagues found, the most neurotic people cost more than $22,000
annually.
Neuroticism -- a proclivity toward worry, anxiety and emotional ups and downs -- is considered to be a personality trait with genetic roots, and is strongly
associated with several types of mental illness, including depression, anxiety and schizophrenia. (Reuters Health)
Science is increasingly being manipulated by those who try to use it to justify political choices based on their ethical preferences and who are willing to
suppress evidence of conflict between those preferences and the underlying reality. This problem is clearly seen in two policy domains, health care and climate
policy.
A recently released World Health Organization (WHO) document has recommended a drinking water standard of 100 parts per billion, up from the previous WHO
standard of two parts per billion. The atrazine drinking water standard enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is three parts per billion. Jere
White, Triazine Network chairman and executive director of the Kansas grain sorghum and corn growers associations, said the recent World Health Organization’s
recommendation reaffirms the safety of atrazine.
“While our EPA is in the middle of an unscheduled re-review of atrazine because of activist campaigns, the World Health Organization quietly relied on
scientific evidence and found that atrazine is safe at levels up to 100 parts per billion,” White said. “Here in the U.S., activists, insisting that
atrazine levels at or even below 3 parts per billion are dangerous, have led EPA and the American taxpayer on an expensive wild goose chase.” (WebWire)
NEW YORK - Despite some evidence to the contrary, people's blood levels of calcium and vitamin D may be unrelated to their thinking, memory and other brain
functions, a new study suggests.
The findings, based on a government health study of Americans ages 20 to 90, bolster past evidence showing no association between vitamin D levels in the blood
and cognitive function.
They also cast doubts on recent research that has linked higher calcium levels to a quicker mental decline in older adults.
"Although some recent data suggest that even moderately elevated (blood) calcium levels may be related to impaired cognitive performance, the results of
this study do not support these results," researcher Dr. Anna-Maija Tolppanen, of the University of Bristol in the UK, noted in an email to Reuters Health.
The findings also back up a previous analysis of the same study cohort done by a different research team. That study found no association between higher vitamin
D levels and better cognitive performance in young or older people. (Reuters Health)
Canadians shackled to their desks at work each day may need bigger chairs as a new study suggests long hours spent in the office is causing rising obesity
rates.
After looking at six Statistics Canada databases that analyzed Canadians' physical activity at work — both when commuting and during leisure time —
University of Montreal researchers are convinced that spending the work week sitting in the office is linked to obesity.
"People eat better and exercise more today than they did in the 1970s, yet obesity rates continue to steadily increase," said lead investigator
Carl-Etienne Juneau. "My hypothesis is that our professional life is linked to this seemingly contradictory phenomenon."
Juneau said obesity rates climbed a "very significant" 10 per cent between 1978 and 2004, as the number of Canadians working in the office also
increased. (Carmen Chai, Postmedia News)
WASHINGTON - Researchers who persuaded slender volunteers to gorge themselves on sweets to gain weight said on Monday they have overturned the common wisdom
that adults cannot grow new fat cells.
As they gained weight, the volunteers added new fat cells on their thighs, while fat cells on their bellies expanded, Michael Jensen of the Mayo Clinic in
Rochester, Minnesota and colleagues found.
"It sort of inverts the old dogma that we don't make new fat cells when we are adults," Jensen said in a telephone interview.
Doctors have long believed that, in adults, fat cells just get bigger and bigger when people gain weight. (Reuters)
Norway's $470 billion sovereign wealth fund should refrain from earmarking funds specifically for green projects, the central bank said as Norway debates
expanding its investment universe to include private equity.
The central bank-run wealth fund -- the world's second largest after that of the United Arab Emirates -- and the fund's owner, the Norwegian government, have
been in a tug-of-war over whether the SWF should earmark funds for environmental projects.
Norges Bank and its Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) arm say such specialization would water-down the fund's mandate of maximizing financial returns for
"future generations."
But Norges Bank welcomed opening the fund -- which can now invest in stocks, bonds and real estate -- to investments in unlisted or pre-IPO companies as well as
infrastructure, as long as these projects were picked according to returns, not subject. (Reuters)
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley is defending his stance on renewable fuels, following an op-ed piece in Sunday’s Cedar Rapids Gazette. Grassley says he firmly
backs the national Renewable Electricity Standard, which would mandate that utility companies set aside part of their profits for developing things like wind
and solar energy.
“I do support renewable electric standards because I voted for it several times in the last ten years and support what came out of the Energy Committee, which
is run by Senator (Jeff) Bingaman, a Democrat,” Grassley says. “I happen to agree with him on renewable electric standards.” The editorial was written by
author Steve Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com. (Radio Iowa)
Guess what, Chuck? We agree with your statement “We wouldn’t have an ethanol industry if we had not put the tax incentive in place”
and that's kind of the point -- there shouldn't be a fuel ethanol industry because it is simply big ag welfare and a rank boondoggle.
Yesterday, Ken Lay urged for climate action as a easy winner in benefits versus
costs–something that was hardly true when he said it and known to be untrue now. Drastic action barely registers on the temperature/sea level/precipitation
scale.
Here is Ken Lay (with Roger Sant) a year later with more advice for California in its current debate over whether to pass California’s Prop. 23, a measure to suspend the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).
Enron had seven profit
centers tied to regulating carbon dioxide (CO2). What ‘Enrons’ are involved in the climate scare today?
Kenneth Lay & Roger Sant, “Controlling Climate Change: It Is Not A Sprint, It Is A Marathon.” The Energy
Daily (September 1, 1998)
Man-made emissions of certain gases—primarily carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels—could alter the world’s climate in
the next century. The threat is long term and global, but the current debate is too narrowly focused on a 10 to 15 year target.
Although there is some disagreement among scientists on the rate at which climate change will occur or whether is already
occurring, there is little doubt that world population growth, economic growth, inefficient energy use and heavy reliance on fossil fuels are a potentially
disastrous mix.
As energy company executives, we are aware of the difficulty of meeting the climate change challenge. The good news is that we
have time. The race, however, is not a sprint. It is a marathon. If we start sprinting—focusing primarily on emissions reductions in the next decade—we risk
squandering our resources. But this is not a call for inaction. If we fail to start now, we will not finish in time.
One hundred energy and environmental leaders with very diverse views recently gathered at the Aspen Institute in Colorado to
discuss climate change. We were encouraged to speak for ourselves and not be bound by our companies’ or organizations’ positions, and we were surprised at
the level of consensus we reached.
We believe a broad bipartisan majority of Americans could agree with these eight conclusions of the Aspen group.
1. Take a long-term focus.
Climate change is a long-term problem, and the focus should be on achieving sustainable levels of greenhouse gas concentrations
at the least cost, not merely on near-term emissions reductions. Nevertheless, certain early actions, based on industry and other public suggestions, are
desirable to develop institutions, mechanisms, technologies and domestic and international support for long-term programs.
2. Do not reject the Kyoto Protocol nor seek its ratification now.
The protocol agreed to last December and signed so far by 49 countries would require the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by 7 percent by 2008 to 2012. It is an imperfect agreement that cannot be accepted unless it is improved.
Submission to the Senate now for the promised quick rejection would remove the U.S. from a constructive political leadership
role and put America at a competitive disadvantage in the development of a sustainable energy system. A delay offers an opportunity that should be attractive
for both proponents and opponents to broaden the international base of support and participation, to begin to reduce the cost of compliance, and to take the
issue out of the partisan political area in 1998 and 2000.
3. De-politicize the issue and educate the public.
U. S. political and intellectual leadership should undertake a high-priority effort to increase public understanding of the
issues, moderate the political aspects of the debate and develop a broad public consensus that can be sustained through many electoral cycles.
One option for the administration to consider is the establishment, in consultation with Congress, of a bipartisan blue ribbon
commission to lead in the development of a national consensus. Former presidents, Nobel Prize winners and leaders of similar stature could help put the debate
on a constructive plane.
4. Establish bilateral programs with developing countries.
A major concern with the Kyoto Protocol is the failure of key developing countries to participate. As the expected largest
emitters of greenhouse gases in the next century, they must be a part of any solution, yet their immediate economic needs make it difficult for them to commit
resources to solving a future problem that they argue was caused by the industrialized nations.
The administration should work aggressively and quickly to establish bilateral carbon reduction programs with countries such as
China, India and Brazil. A focus on an early start toward cost-effective energy efficiency and a long-term reduction in the dependence on fossil fuels would
allow them to participate in an international climate change approach while also contributing to their economic development.
5. Increase R&D
To reduce the cost of eventual stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, we should significantly
increase public and private spending for research and development of lower carbon and carbon-free fuels, technologies and systems, including end-use efficiency
and the capture and non-atmospheric disposal of carbon dioxide.
Such spending should build on the successes and failures of past programs. Coordination between public and private research
efforts should be increased, and the commercial deployment of successful technologies should be left to the private sector.
6. Set the rules for crediting early voluntary reductions.
Many industries are ready and willing to make voluntary emission reductions now. They fear, however, that any future program
will take their lower emissions as a new baseline. The government, with broad industry and other public involvement, should quickly establish rules for
crediting these voluntary emissions reductions against any future requirements.
7. Review barriers to innovation.
Many lower carbon technologies and more efficient systems are available now, but long-standing laws and regulations often
discourage their adoption. These barriers should be reviewed and, where more valuable objectives are not being served, should be removed promptly.
8. Ensure policies are flexible.
We know enough to begin action now, but we also know from experience that we should expect surprises. Any governance mechanisms
and policies we adopt should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to changing scientific knowledge and to the lessons we learn during implementation.
Adoption of these Aspen recommendations will help prepare us to win the climate change marathon. It is a race we cannot afford
to lose.
Lay is chairman and CEO of Enron Corporation; Sant is chairman of AES Corporation and of the World Wildlife Fund. The
views expressed are their own. (MasterResource)
I highly commend to you Ryan Lizza's new New Yorker piece on why the climate-change legislation died. It's fairly long, but worth the time: you will really
see how this stuff works on Capitol Hill. (Michael Tomasky, Guardian)
Amazing. It looks like the writer and some subsequent commenters actually believe doesn't it? Guys, "climate legislation" is the
political version of Homer saying: "Look! A distraction!" It was never really meant to be taken seriously and modern societies cannot function in a
carbon constrained world. Get over it.
SCHEMES that pay households to produce power using rooftop solar panels are costing about 25 times as much to cut greenhouse gases as a nationwide ETS.
The warning comes from electricity generators who say the schemes will lead to soaring energy bills.
In a confidential submission obtained by The Australian, the National Generators Forum has told the NSW government that its scheme is costing between $520 and
$640 to reduce each tonne of carbon dioxide - compared with the $23 per tonne proposed in the emissions trading scheme shelved by Kevin Rudd.
The submission states that although the scheme will create green jobs, each job created will cost between $130,000 and $700,000. "The cost of the scheme is
borne by all energy customers but hidden," the submission states. "There is a widespread community view that solar generation is good for the
environment. However, there is little public understanding of the cost of delivering those perceived benefits." (Annabel Hepworth, The Australian)
The cost is admittedly horrendous but that is not the biggest problem. The real problem is that there is no benefit for all the cost. The
planet is more than comfortable with increasing atmospheric CO2 and aerobic life depends on its abundance. Even if there were merit in the
enhanced greenhouse hypothesis (an increasingly dubious proposition) the trivial difference that can be made by these idiotic "make electricity to
expensive to use" schemes is literally too small to measure. In short, carbon constraint in any form is all cost and no benefit. Just don't do it.
COLLEGE STATION, Texas, Oct. 5, 2010 —You may ride your bike to work or you may drive the biggest SUV on the block. In either case, your carbon
footprint’s effect on the environment may not be known for 40 years or more, according to a study undertaken by Texas A&M University geographers.
“Benchmarking the War Against Global Warming,” published in the October issue of Annals of the Association of American Geographers, paints a good news-bad
news scenario for either side of the climate debate, say lead authors Doug Sherman and Steven Quiring, professors in the College of Geosciences Department of
Geography. Their method analyzes 150 years of climate data to determine past trends and annual temperature fluctuations and then it uses those data to simulate
possible temperature scenarios for the rest of this century.
Sherman and Quiring, along with graduate students Bailiang Li and Eugene Farrell, based their calculations on historical temperature records from 1850 — the
earliest date for verifiable instrumental records — to 2008. Using a 30-year moving window, they extracted the observed temperature trend and the variability
about the trend for all 130 overlapping 30-year periods.
“As we moved past 2008, we relied on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) emission scenarios to provide the temperature trend and the
natural temperature variability was simulated based on the historical temperature records,” Quiring notes. Their approach, which provides 1,000 possible
future temperature scenarios from 2008 to 2100 for four different emissions scenarios (namely A1B, A2, B2 and constant commitment), takes into account natural
climate variations such as volcanic activity, solar output and fluctuations in the ocean from phenomenon like El Nino and the North Atlantic Oscillation.
“This method incorporates the natural variability or noise in climate data,” Quiring explains.
The results produced a detailed and empirically based view of how the climate could change. And even though it is evident that the world is currently
experiencing one of the fastest warming rates since the beginning of the observational record, the results suggest it will take a long time, in the human
context, before a statistically significant difference can be seen between the different IPCC future temperature trends and the current trend because of the
impact of natural climate variability.
“In the end,” Sherman said, “we found that even with an aggressive international effort to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases, it may be decades before
we can see definitive results.” (Texas A&M)
5 October 2010 – In the run up to next month’s major climate change conference in Cancún, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) will release
one case study daily for 30 days to prove that solutions to combat global warming – ranging from planting trees to creating mass markets for solar water
heaters – are available, accessible and replicable.
Known as “30 Ways in 30 Days,” the scheme was launched today in Mexico City at a summit co-hosted by UNEP, the UN Global Compact, and the non-governmental
organizations World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Global Initiatives. (UN News)
White supremacists, for one example. On the morning of Sept. 15, 1963, members of a Ku Klux Klan “splinter group” set off dynamite under the Sixteenth
Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala., killing four girls: Denise McNair, Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson and Cynthia Wesley. Denise was 11; the other
three were 14.
Islamic supremacists, for another example. Groups like Hamas and al Qaeda not only attack civilians indiscriminately but frequently employ Muslim children
as suicide bombers …
There’s a new kind of supremacist on the scene: green supremacists. They haven’t blown up any children – not in real life. But they’ve been
thinking about it.
Indeedtheyhave. Formerly friendly corporations are re-thinking things, however. And in a new Washington Post poll,
this option seems to be doing well:
Recent policy discussions on climate change have focused on limiting global average temperature increases. For instance, the European Union has set a goal of
limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). However, this goal represents a global average—regional and local temperature changes
may vary, and substantial increases in regional extreme heat events could occur, possibly with serious consequences for some communities. To help inform
discussion, Clark et al. used an ensemble of climate simulations to study the potential increase in extreme heat waves under a scenario in which global warming
is limited. They found that even if average warming is limited to 2 degrees C, estimated increases in temperature during the hottest days range from 2 degrees C
to 6 degrees C (11 degrees F) for parts of Europe, North America, and Asia. The researchers also investigate the sources of uncertainty in estimates of regional
changes.
Amid the clamor about the threat of global warming from increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there are several scientific voices with surprising
contrary ideas. The evidence is now coming together that there are substantial health benefits from greenhouse gases and these benefits are great enough to
reconsider the campaign to cut carbon emissions.
Sure, there will be drought in Saskatchewan and fewer fish in the Great Lakes. But look on the bright side: The cruise-ship season could expand by 50 per
cent.
As the global environment warms through the course of this century, the Canadian climate will change in both bad and good ways, according to a new publication
from the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy and the Royal Canadian Geographic Society. (Globe and Mail)
We hope there'll be warming because it is an infinitely better prospect than cooling but there is an equal chance of either. This is
such a stupid game...
While sea ice extent has declined dramatically in the Arctic in recent years, it has increased slightly in the Antarctic. Some scientists have suggested that
increased Antarctic sea ice extent can be explained by the ozone hole over Antarctica. Previous simulations have indicated that the ozone hole induces a large
change in atmospheric circulation in austral summer and that this change in circulation could contribute to the changing Antarctic sea extent.
To learn more, Sigmond and Fyfe use a climate model, forced by monthly varying observed stratospheric ozone changes from 1979 to 2005, to simulate the effects
of stratospheric ozone depletion on Antarctic sea ice extent. Contrary to predictions of previous studies, their model finds that ozone depletion would lead to
a year-round decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent rather than the increase that was observed. The results suggest that processes other than ozone depletion must
be causing the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. It remains unclear why Southern Hemisphere sea ice trends differ so greatly from Northern
Hemisphere trends.
Title: Has the ozone hole contributed to increased Antarctic sea ice extent?
Authors: M. Sigmond: Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;
J. C. Fyfe: Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
That’s what the reporter in the following clip seems to suggest. So it means the warmists will start claiming cold winters as proof of warming. A number of
blogs are buzzing about the “coldest winter in a 1000 years” being reported here: RT Prime Time. Western Asia and Eastern Europe are expecting a cold
winter, but let’s not go over the edge here. This is a nutty claim.
We are not even in a little ice age. Does anyone seriously believe the Baltic Sea, and possibly the River Thames will freeze over, for weeks this winter?
Take this notion of a 1000-year winter, or even a 100-year winter, and stuff it. Aint gonna happen.
Infobabe suggests that scientists say global warming could be behind a projected 1000-year winter.
The TV reporter in the above clip quotes meteorologists: “It’s supposed to be a beast of a winter.” That’s a fair claim.
NOAA is projecting a cold winter for Russia, Siberia and possibly Europe too. The reporter talks about the cold hitting the western
Russia-European region.
Joe Bastardi in his latest post, however, did not make any commitment, though he seems to be hinting that we ought to expect cold. I
have to say I get the feeling he sees something unusual, and so he’s going to take his time to really make sure – maybe just my imagination is just running
wild.
An unusually cold winter is not far-fetched. But a 1000-year winter? Get out of here! That’s TV bullcrap. Unless Joe Bastardi
comes out later this fall and says so, I aint buying it.
What are the reasons for the projected vicious cold asks the reporter in the studio? “Is it climate change?”
They don’t really know. They’re looking at global warming.
That along with other factors. Global warming – what nonsense. The following NOAA chart definitely supports Russian
meteorologists’ claims that the winter will be harsh.
Despite cooling in the tropics, the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly has stubbornly refused to follow suit: +0.60 deg. C for
September, 2010.
Since the daily global average sea surface temperature anomalies on our NASA Discover web
page have now cooled to well below the 2002-2010 average, there remains a rather large discrepancy between these two measures. Without digging into the
regional differences in the two datasets, I currently have no explanation for this.
For those following the race for warmest year in the satellite tropospheric temperature record (which began in 1979), 2010 is slowly approaching the record
warm year of 1998. Here are the 1998 and 2010 averages for Julian Days 1 through 273:
1998 +0.590
2010 +0.553
[NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum
resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT's are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the
instruments.] (Roy W. Spencer)
Since I just provided the September 2010 global tropospheric temperature update, I decided it was time to update the global SST
data record from the AMSR-E instrument flying on Aqua.
The following plot, updated through yesterday (October 4, 2010) shows that both the global average SST, and the Nino3.4 region average from the tropical E.
Pacific, continue to cool.
(click on the plot for the full-size, undistorted version. Note that the global values have been multiplied by 10 for easier intercomparison with Nino3.4)
Past experience (and radiative-convective equilibrium) dictates that the global tropospheric temperature, still riding high at +0.60 deg. C for September,
must cool in response to the cool ocean conditions.
But given Mother Nature’s sense of humor, I’ve given up predicting when that might occur. (Roy W. Spencer)
It's time for some climate change facts. This text is just an update of two articles written three months ago and one month ago into which I will add one additional month of data and
refresh all the numbers.
The nearly final temperature readings of UAH AMSU for September 2010 are out and the global temperature anomaly was 0.60 °C, higher than 0.51 °C a month earlier.
So September 2010 was a whopping 0.34 °C warmer than September 1998 and it is just a slightly-above-average month of 2010 so far. Also, the average anomaly of
the first nine months (Part1) of 2010, 0.55 °C, is cooler than Part1 of 1998, 0.59 °C, by 0.04 °C. Of course, if this temperature difference continued for
the last three months (Part2) of 2010, 2010 would be cooler than 1998.
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - Doppler weather radar will significantly improve forecasting models used to track monsoon systems influencing the monsoon in and
around India, according to a research collaboration including Purdue University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Indian Institute of
Technology Delhi.
Dev Niyogi, a Purdue associate professor of agronomy and earth and atmospheric sciences, said modeling of a monsoon depression track can have a margin of error
of about 200 kilometers for landfall, which can be significant for storms that produce as much as 20-25 inches of rain as well as inland floods and fatalities.
"When you run a forecast model, how you represent the initial state of the atmosphere is critical. Even if Doppler radar information may seem highly
localized, we find that it enhances the regional atmospheric conditions, which, in turn, can significantly improve the dynamic prediction of how the monsoon
depression will move as the storm makes landfall," Niyogi said. "It certainly looks like a wise investment made in Doppler radars can help in monsoon
forecasting, particularly the heavy rain from monsoon processes." (Purdue University)
From CO2 Science Volume 13 Number 40: 6 October 2010
Ocean Acidification Project:
We introduce a new section of our website where we archive marine organism responses to atmospheric CO2
enrichment obtained from experiments described in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Come and find out if ocean acidification is the problem it is
claimed to be. Check back often, as new data will be added regularly. Click here to
access the project and database.
Subject Index Summary: Acclimation (Tree Species: Aspen/Poplar): Once aspen/poplar trees start
responding to an increase in the air's CO2
content, they never stop.
Plant Growth Database:
Our latest results of plant growth responses to atmospheric CO2
enrichment obtained from experiments described in the peer-reviewed scientific literature are: Longleaf Pine-Wiregrass Ecosystme (McCormack et al., 2010) and Wheat (Hogy et al., 2010).
Medieval Warm Period Project:
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 884
individual scientists from 526 separate research
institutions in 43 different countries ... and
counting! This issue's Medieval Warm Period Record comes from Anvers Island,
Antarctic Peninsula. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database, click here.
(co2science.org)
As climate science advances, forecasts about the extent of future warming and its effects are likely to become less — not more — precise. That may make
it more difficult to convince the public of the reality of climate change, but it hardly diminishes the urgency of taking action. (Fred Pearce, e360)
Fred is right in one respect, PlayStation® Climatology is worth squat as a prognosticator. Likely never will be. What he overlooks it s that
the entire non-issue is built on these fantasy exercises and not on any real-world science or observations at all. The enhanced greenhouse hypothesis itself
will not be ready to emerge from idle academic coffee table discussion for decades yet, if then and is certainly not worth political or societal consideration.
Silly game, this...
where I recommended three categories of modeling –
“Process studies: The application of climate models to improve our understanding of how the system works is a valuable application of these tools……the
term sensitivity study [can be used] to characterize a process study. In a sensitivity study, a subset of the forcings and/or feedback of the climate system may
be perturbed to examine its response. The model of the climate system might be incomplete and not include each of the important feedbacks and forcings.
Diagnosis: The application of climate models, in which observed data is assimilated into the model, to produce an observational analysis that is consistent
with our best understanding of the climate system as represented by the manner in which the fundamental concepts and parameterizations are represented. Although
not yet applied to climate models, this procedure is used for weather reanalyses (see the NCEP/NCAR 40-Year Reanalysis Project).
Forecasting: The application of climate models to predict the future state of the climate system. Forecasts can be made from a single realization, or from an
ensemble of forecasts which are produced by slightly perturbing the initial conditions and/or other aspects of the model…..”
I concluded in that post that
“… the IPCC and US National Assessments appropriately should be communicated as process studies in the context that they are sensitivity studies. It is a
very convoluted argument to state that a projection is not a prediction. The specification to periods of time in the future (e.g., 2050-2059) and the
communication in this format is very misleading to the users of this information. This is a very important distinction which has been missed by impact
scientists who study climate impacts using the output from these models and by policymakers.”
Rial, J., R.A. Pielke Sr., M. Beniston, M. Claussen, J. Canadell, P. Cox, H. Held, N. de Noblet-Ducoudre, R. Prinn, J. Reynolds, and J.D. Salas, 2004:
Nonlinearities, feedbacks and critical thresholds within the Earth’s climate system. Climatic Change, 65, 11-38. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-260.pdf
I look forward to further comments on this thread, and urge you also to publish your post in BAMS or other similar venue.”
Vladimir Putin’s message to an international audience of 400 scientists and politicians on the final day of last week’s The Arctic: Territory of Dialogue
conference in Moscow was unequivocal. There will be no “battle for the Arctic” and its potentially vast mineral resources. [Read More] (Peter C Glover, ET)
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Wind power is likely to play a large role in the future of sustainable, clean energy, but wide-scale adoption has remained elusive. Now,
researchers have found wind farms’ effects on local temperatures and proposed strategies for mediating those effects, increasing the potential to expand wind
farms to a utility-scale energy resource.
Led by University of Illinois professor of atmospheric sciences Somnath Baidya Roy, the research team will publish its findings in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. The paper will appear in the journal’s Online Early Edition this week.
Roy first proposed a model describing the local climate impact of wind farms in a 2004 paper. But that and similar subsequent studies have been based solely on
models because of a lack of available data. In fact, no field data on temperature were publicly available for researchers to use, until Roy met Neil Kelley at a
2009 conference. Kelley, a principal scientist at the National Wind Technology Center, part of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, had collected
temperature data at a wind farm in San Gorgonio, Calif., for more than seven weeks in 1989.
Analysis of Kelley’s data corroborated Roy’s modeling studies and provided the first observation-based evidence of wind farms’ effects on local
temperature. The study found that the area immediately surrounding turbines was slightly cooler during the day and slightly warmer at night than the rest of the
region.
As a small-scale modeling expert, Roy was most interested in determining the processes that drive the daytime cooling and nocturnal warming effects. He
identified an enhanced vertical mixing of warm and cool air in the atmosphere in the wake of the turbine rotors. As the rotors turn, they generate turbulence,
like the wake of a speedboat motor. Upper-level air is pulled down toward the surface while surface-level air is pushed up, causing warmer and cooler air to
mix.
The question for any given wind-farm site then becomes, will warming or cooling be the predominant effect? (UI)
Aerial Cuisinarts will only proliferate as long as rent seekers are fed from the public purse. As people wise up the propagation of White
Elephants will dry up.
Election '10: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but in the case of the "One Nation" rally it was also the sincerest form of futility.
Despite the usual media puffery, this cycle's enthusiasm gap was clearly visible.
Saturday's gathering in Washington was so sparse, according to Gateway Pundit, that C-SPAN's Web site felt it necessary to use a crowd shot from Glenn Beck's
Oct. 28 "Restoring Honor" rally. The Gadsden "Don't Tread on Me" flags in the picture were a dead giveaway.
The "astroturf" slur used by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2009 to disparage the rise of the Tea Party movement clearly applied to "One
Nation." Organizers included groups such as Code Pink, La Raza, the Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America and the International Socialist
Organization.
The main drivers were the NAACP and labor unions from the Communication Workers of America to the American Federation of Teachers to the SEIU. They provided
buses for members to get to the event, as well as free lunches, free T-shirts and free Metro fare cards. It was an offer many decided to refuse. (IBD)
Radical Rule: A discredited ideology by any other name would stink just as much. Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., Congress' only admitted socialist, explains how
spending is a drug that never satiates.
Sanders is always described as Congress' lone socialist, but what a misleading factoid that is. World Net Daily recently reported that the Democratic Socialists
of America, successor to the defunct Socialist Party of America, boasted on the AmericanSocialistVoter.com Web site that "70 of its members currently serve
in Congress." They include House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and 10 other Judiciary panel members, such as Memphis Democrat Steve
Cohen. (IBD)
“What’s needed most right now is creating the conditions where assistance is no longer needed.”
“Let’s move beyond the old, narrow debate over how much money we’re spending [on anti-poverty programs] and let’s instead focus on results—whether
we’re actually making improvements in people’s lives.”
Those quotes would certainly resonate with proponents of reform to America’s welfare system—a massive labyrinth of 70 different programs whose rolls of
dependents have increased steadily throughout the past 50 years, even as
they have failed to boost a small percentage of impoverished families to self-sufficiency. Continue reading... (The Foundry)
A featured op-ed in The Wall Street Journal
last week documented the recent, surprising successes of Bangladesh. Henry Kissinger dubbed it a “basket-case” at its inception. It has little economic
freedom, and many in the international community saw little hope for it, but it has made some large achievements in recent years. The economy is on an
upward spiral, birth rates are down, and commendable progress has been made in tackling the influence of Islamist
extremism in a Muslim majority country.
The current government has helped with these upswings, but there is a stronger and more influential force in this equation: the effect of microfinance. First
conceived of as a tool to alleviate the widespread poverty plaguing the country, it is a process in which small loans are issued to people, mainly women, with
little or no collateral which they are obligated to pay back with interest. Continue reading... (The Foundry)
The economic track record of the current administration and Congress is not a good one. Unemployment remains stubbornly high at nearly 10 percent, and many
believe federal missteps prolonged the recession and are weakening the recovery. While things like ill-advised spending, Obamacare, and looming tax hikes are
doing damage nationwide, a number of other federal measures have particularly burdened the American West, the region suffering with the highest unemployment
rate in the country. The Senate and House Western Caucuses’ recent study, “The War on Western Jobs,” documents the host of environmental
policies that have targeted the sectors crucial to the economies of Western states — especially energy production but also mining, logging, farming, and
ranching.
Delaying the introduction of eggs into babies' diets seems to increase up to fivefold the chance infants will become allergic to the food.
The finding by Melbourne researchers is the reverse of the existing widespread belief that this practice reduces the risk.
The researchers found babies introduced to eggs between the ages of four and six months were 60 per cent less likely to react against eggs than those who first
tried them at 10-12 months.
Those not given eggs until they were over 12 months old were 3.4 times more likely to develop egg allergy.
The protection appeared especially strong -- just 20 per cent of the risk -- for babies given eggs that had been boiled, scrambled, fried or poached, and less
so for those given egg-containing baked foods such as cakes and biscuits.
Until last year, guidelines in Australia, the US and Britain recommended babies at high risk of developing food allergies because of a family history not be
given eggs, peanuts and other allergenic foods until they were two or three years old.
Pediatrician Katie Allen, lead author of the new study, published online yesterday by the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, said although this advice
was changed last year to say there was insufficient evidence that such foods should be avoided, the latest results suggested the guidelines could be modified
further.
"The statement can now be revised to say that it (introducing such foods early) is likely to be protective," Associate Professor Allen said.
Egg allergy is the most common food allergy in children.
Although most grow out of it, they remain at higher risk for allergy-related conditions such as asthma. (Adam Cresswell, The Australian)
NEW YORK - Teenagers with unhealthy online habits may be at greater risk of depression, new findings from China hint.
While the study isn't proof of a causal link, it is the first to approach the question of whether some forms of Internet use might trigger mental health
problems down the road, according to the authors. (Reuters Health)
That's the title of my latest HND piece. It was inspired by the "good
news" coming from the CDC earlier this year that Americans may have reached their peak level of obesity.
Yes, friends. The obesity rates have leveled off. However, this is hardly anything to write home about as an incredible 34 percent of American adults are
obese, as are 17 percent of children. For those keeping score, compared to 30 years ago, that's twice the rate for adults and three times the rate for children.
So, what should we do about it?
Some authorities are invoking the restrictions and penalties that were placed on smoking as a way to proceed. Others talk about education.
One sure way would be to shift some of those ag subsidies onto healthier foods, only don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. It was already
proposed for the 2007 Ag bill, but the politics would not allow it. Just one more example of how much your wonderful federal government actually does care about
your welfare.
So, until they start putting their money where their mouth is, all the talk about obesity by the Feds is just "full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing." (Apologies to William Shakespeare)
NEW YORK - Getting too little sleep might prevent dieters from losing as much body fat as they otherwise would have, a small study suggests.
The findings, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, add to evidence that sleep habits play a role in weight regulation. They also suggest that
people embarking on a weight-loss plan may want to make sure they are catching enough shut-eye each night, researchers say. (Reuters Health)
Study finds less toxic pollution falling from atmosphere since 1991
SEQUIM, Wash. – Most toxic pollution falling onto Puget Sound's waters has decreased — some by as much as 99 percent — below earlier estimates, according
to a region-wide study. Despite the overall decline, the study found that industrial areas like Tacoma still have the Puget's Sound's highest air-deposited
contamination levels.
The study, by researchers at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Texas A&M University at Galveston, found the amount of
trace metals like arsenic, lead and copper falling onto the Tacoma region have decreased significantly since PNNL last measured air-deposited pollution there in
1991. But other contaminants like mercury showed a more modest decline of just 35 percent.
"Regulations and increased public focus on pollution prevention appear to be paying off," said the study's lead researcher, PNNL marine chemist Jill
Brandenberger. "But our awareness of some chemicals wasn't very high when those initial laws were passed decades ago. As a result, chemicals like flame
retardants weren't included, allowing them to accumulate in the Puget Sound." (PNNL)
Maybe, or the original guesstimates were way too high. It is true that air is getting cleaner as technology improves although this was also
true long before greenies and clean air laws.
People around the world are encouraged to change their regular lunch time habits for greener ones during Earth Lunch Hour on October 6.
Organized by electronics manufacturer Panasonic the event will begin in Japan at 11am and then following global date lines cross into Asia, India, the Middle
East, Africa, Europe, Central America, Southern America and Oceania before finishing in Japan at 11am the following day. The event is designed to show
participants how small actions, such as eating seasonal produce, or buying goods with minimal packaging, can have a big impact on the environment. (Independent)
With the UN trying to promote diminishing
biodiversity as the NEXT BIG CRISIS it is interesting to note the chaos among diversity researchers. It is hard to make definitive statements regarding loss of
diversity when science can not even tell us how many different creatures there are on the planet. Nevertheless, the UN has launched the International Year of
Biodiversity, warning that the ongoing loss of species around the world is affecting human well-being. Yet another UN generated “science based” crisis
to keep the world's citizens in a frenzy—shades of the failed global warming crisis, which the UN is rather hoping we all will forget.
In the July 2, 2010, issue of Science, Robert M. May from the Zoology Department, University of Oxford, offered a perspective on
Earth's species count. In “Tropical Arthropod Species, More or Less?” May notes that
scientists began systematically naming species just a little over two centuries ago. His best estimate is 1.6 to 1.7 million, with an additional 15,000 new
species identified each year. Here is how he opened his article:
If some alien version of the Starship Enterprise visited Earth, what might be the visitors' first question? I think it would be: "How
many distinct life forms—species—does your planet have?" Embarrassingly, our best-guess answer would be in the range of 5 to 10 million eukaryotes
(never mind the viruses and bacteria), but we could defend numbers exceeding 100 million, or as low as 3 million.
Eukaryotes have cells with a defined nucleus containing genetic material and include all complex forms of multicellular life. May suggests
“it makes sense to begin an estimate of global arthropod species numbers by focusing on tropical beetles, partly because tropical arthropods dominate the
global total, and partly because beetle species are both functionally diverse and represent roughly one-third of all arthropods.” He then goes on to issue
some other scientific guesstimates. But his attempt at clarifying the situation did not set well with all taxonomists.
Just a typical Earth creature.
Jaboury Ghazoul, of the Department of Environmental Sciences, ETH Zurich, is demanding a recount. In a letter published in the September 24 issue of Science, Ghazoul suggests that May
has got his sums wrong and has only contributed to further confusion. Ghazoul concludes that science needs greater “rigor” to avoid carelessness. Here is
his rebuttal to May's article:
If aliens visited earth, perhaps they would wonder how many distinct life forms our planet has. With their advanced intellect and technology,
they might well have the answer. It is clear from R. M. May's Perspective "Tropical arthropod species, more or less?" (2 July, p. 41) that we do not.
May inadvertently adds to the confusion by indicating that New Guinea is home to roughly one-third of tropical tree species. Given that about 6000 tropical tree
species are from New Guinea out of 37,000 tree species in all rainforests, only about 16% of tropical tree species are from this region—about half the
estimate provided by May.
Once again the truth has slipped out—science has no idea how many species share the planet with us. Not how many arthropods (animals with
exoskeletons, including insects, arachnids, and crustaceans), not how many tropical trees, not how many simple bacteria. Yet the UN in its various guises has
been clamoring about a “crisis” in biodiversity. This not withstanding good news on several fronts including a report from the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) that finds deforestation has diminished over the past decade.
According to the document, entitled “Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010,”
forest loss rates are highest in Africa and South America, where methods of controlling the phenomenon are lacking. Even so, the global average deforestation
rate is going down. Reportedly, this is not due to more people becoming aware of the importance of forests, but to the fact that China has been planting
enormous amounts of new trees yearly. Additionally, Brazil and Indonesia have been implementing programs to preserve their rain forests, punishing those who cut
down trees illegally.
Forest area as percent of total land area by country, 2010.
The true nature of the biodiversity crisis can be seen in a
local grocery store. Ecologically aware consumers are urged to only buy fish that come with a distinctive blue eco-label. This stamp of approval from the Marine
Stewardship Council (MSC), a rapidly growing nonprofit based in London, means that the associated fishing operation only catches a sustainable number of fish.
Moreover, only fishing techniques that minimize collateral damage to the ecosystem, such as accidentally catching sea birds or turtles, are employed in the
harvest. Of course, guilt-free eating comes with a premium price since approved fish can be sold for higher prices. Supposedly, this makes everybody happy,
including the fish.
Things start to get a bit fuzzy when the approval process is examined in detail. MSC sets the general policies and technical guidance but
does mot certify fisheries itself. Fishing companies are free to select any approved certifier and in 2007 several companies contracted with Moody Marine Ltd.
to evaluate the Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) fishery. The toothfish is commonly known as Chilean sea bass and is valued for its succulent,
mild tasting flesh. The outcome of the Moody contract is described in “Behind the
Eco-Label, a Debate Over Antarctic Toothfish,” in Science:
In November 2009, Moody decided that Antarctic toothfish caught by the three companies should be certified as sustainable. A month later, the
decision was appealed by the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC), an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. After paying MSC a $23,000 fee to
appeal, ASOC—backed by a group of 39 scientists—argued that the certification wasn't justified because of a dearth of key data, such as whether or how the
size of the stock has changed over the past several years or the ecosystem effects of fishing there. Weddell seals are known to prey on toothfish, for example,
but it's not clear how important the fish is to the seals' diet.
The MSC was conceived in 1997 by the World Wildlife Fund and Unilever, one of the largest manufacturers of frozen fish products. As a
cooperative venture between environmentalists and the fishing industry some activists suspect its methods, if not its motives. One such group of suspicious
environmentalists is Greenpeace International. It maintains a seafood red list—a list of fish that are commonly sold in supermarkets around the world, and
which have a very high risk of being sourced from unsustainable fisheries. In 2010, Greenpeace added the toothfish to its red list.
The Antarctic toothfish may or may not be certified.
As of the September report in Science the toothfish's MCS certification was still under review. This is a big deal to the fishing
industry since a number of retailers, including Wal-Mart, will only carry fish that have been certified. According to the Science news focus: “some 130
other fisheries are being evaluated for certification, so the toothfish most likely won't be the last controversy over the adequacy of the science.”
So the biodiversity debate muddles on—over fish, forests and other wildlife. Wolves reintroduced to areas around the Great Lakes and
Yellowstone National Park are doing so well that the government wants to shoot some of them. A number of naturalists blame the decline of elk in the Rocky
Mountain states on predation by wolves and Alaskan wolves are reportedly killing an inordinate number of young moose. A US District ruled against the Alaska
Fish and Game Department in their desire to kill seven wolves on Unimak Island, even though the wolves have reduced the island's caribou herd from 1,200 to
fewer than 400.
In Florida, concern over inbreeding among the indigenous Florida panther led scientists to introduce 8 breeding females from Texas (see “A Bit of Texas in Florida”). “Big cats may be popular in places where they've become
scarce and most people live in cities, but the rest of the world still struggles to deal with the dangers that man-eaters and cattle-killers pose to rural
residents,” states the perspective by Craig Packer. “Lions attacked more than 100 Tanzanians every year for the first few years of this millennium, and
thousands of livestock are killed by lions, leopards, and jaguars throughout the world each year.”
The endangered Florida panther.
The vigor of individual panthers and the size of the Florida panther population have both increased since the Texas relocation. But more
panthers means more incidents between humans and the big cats, who can reach a weight of 170 lbs (80 kg). It remains to be seen how the public will react to
increased pet and livestock deaths, let alone any attacks on humans. Panthers lose some of their apeal when they have just made a meal out of little fluffy or
little Susie.
Several American states have raised their yearly trophy hunting limits for panthers (called pumas or cougars in other locations). In Africa,
retaliatory poisoning is increasing outside of national parks and protected areas. It would seem that there is ongoing conflict between environmentalists'
efforts to preserve biodiversity and humans exercising their fundamental rights as animals—protection of life and territory.
Lack of proper science, contradictory claims by activists and experts, conflicts with the needs of average people just trying to live their
lives—yes, this sounds like a UN generated, politically motivated “crisis.” After all, the bureaucrats and parasites at the UN rode the global warming
gravy train for more than a quarter century. Now, with the panic over global warming all but vanished, they have started pushing a new biodiversity crisis. The economic case for global action to stop the destruction of
the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change, claims a major report from the United Nations,the Economics of Ecosystems
and Biodiversity (TEEB) report. Characteristically, the science behind the biodiversity crisis is even shakier than for
global warming.
The words of Henry Louis Mencken we quoted in The
Resilient Earth put it best: “The fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamoring to be led to safety, by
menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” This is a tactic that the UN has turned into an art form. Having succeeded with
turning global warming into a “crisis” they are now giving biodiversity a go.
Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical. (Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth)
Agricultural improvements aid in reducing emissions and in keeping food affordable
COLLEGE PARK, Md. -- In a warming 21st century, tropical forests will be at risk from a variety of threats, especially the conversion to cropland to sustain a
growing population. A new report this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition shows that crop productivity improvements and
carbon emission limits together could prevent widespread tropical deforestation over the next 100 years -- but if relying on either one alone, the world is at
risk of losing many of its tropical forests. (DOE/PNNL)
To begin with the "value" of tropical forests is largely emotional rather than intrinsic -- they are romantically portrayed as
Edens rather than the pathogen-ridden undeveloped tracts they actually are. People will get over their absurd carbon hysteria in time but if you really value
having such planetary ornaments then promote biotechnology and high productivity agriculture to reduce the required agricultural footprint.
British researchers set out the economic impact of species destruction - and their findings are changing world's approach to global warming. (Independent)
... and my lawn clippings are worth $294,731,027,612,948.17. Making up big numbers is kinda fun, I guess but completely devoid of value. Does
an undeveloped patch of [anything] enrich the host country's coffers? Of course not, although it might if developed and utilized. This "natural value"
or "natural capital" con has persisted way too long. The bottom line for undeveloped or under developed regions is develop or remain in poverty. Is it
really a hard choice?
Across the northern Rocky Mountains, bighorn sheep are dying by the hundreds from pneumonia and alarmed wildlife officials are hunting and killing the
majestic animals to halt the spread of the disease.
Since winter, nine disease outbreaks across five states in the West have claimed nearly 1,000 bighorns, prized as a game animal for the prominent curled horns
of the adult males, or rams.
Scientists recently confirmed what they long suspected -- the cause of the plague is contact between the wild bighorns and domestic sheep flocks.
Putting the blame on domestic sheep has heightened a furious debate between advocates of the wild bighorns and sheep ranchers -- one skirmish in a bigger war
between proponents of economic interests and those seeking protection of remaining wild areas and species in America's West.
The population of bighorns has declined sharply since the settlement of the West. Fewer than 100,000 sheep are believed to roam the rugged mountain slopes
today, compared with an estimated 1.2 million head of bighorn at one time. (Reuters)
Plans to build the biggest dairy farm in Britain have suffered a blow after a company involved in the project pulled out following public outcry against
"battery farming cows". (TDT)
People are pleased as punch about large herds of wild critters but much less so about husbanded ones. I wonder why?
They read like creatures in a gothic novel, but the species we've introduced round the world are real and cause untold harm
On a dark night last week a group of animal rights activists in Donegal made their own special contribution to the International Year of Biodiversity. They cut
their way into a fur farm and released 5,000 mink. This, within their circles, was considered a clever thing to do. A spokesperson for the Alliance for Animal
Rights said: "I commend whoever risked their freedom to do this." The Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade announced that "we fully support what
has happened".
Had these people tipped a tanker load of bleach into the headwaters of the river Finn, they would have done less damage. The effects would be horrible for a
while, but the ecosystem could then begin to recover. The mink, by contrast, will remain at large for years, perhaps millennia. Like many introduced species,
American mink can slash their way through the ecosystem, as they have no native predators, and their prey species haven't evolved to avoid them. Is there
anything the animal lovers in Donegal could have done that would have harmed more animals? (George Monbiot, Guardian)
Regulation: When Democrats lecture us about lower-cost clean energy and planet-friendly conservation, what are they actually talking about? Beware. Their
proposals are not as virtuous as they sound.
In keeping with President Obama's promise to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet, the Energy Department has set new efficiency standards for 26
appliances and household products. The list ranges from microwaves, to washing machines and dryers, to residential water heaters and dishwashers.
The department reportedly claims the new standards will save consumers from $250 billion to $300 billion on their energy costs through 2030. But that's what
Democrats always say about their green schemes: "We're doing this to clean up the Earth, and we're going to save you money while we do it."
If approved by the California electorate this November, Proposition 23 will suspend the implementation of AB 32, the California Global Warming
Solutions Act, until the State’s unemployment rate declines to 5.5% or less for four consecutive quarters. AB 32 requires a reduction in the State’s
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — about 25-30% below the baseline projection.
In a just-published
study for the Pacific Research Institute, Dr. Benjamin Zycher estimates that adoption of Proposition 23 will increase aggregate employment in the State
by a bit less than 150,000 in 2011, about half a million in 2012, and 1.3 million in 2020, relative to the case in which AB 32 goes into effect.
The California Air Resources Board projects that AB 32 will decrease State-wide energy consumption…
“It’s time to stop debating the issues surrounding climate change initiatives and focus instead on simple, realistic,
cost-effective solutions. This is one area where an ounce of near-term prevention will be worth considerably more than a pound of cure later on.”
- Ken Lay, “Let’s Have an Ounce of Global-Warming Prevention,” December 1997.
“An ounce of global warming prevention is worth a ton of CO2 cure. There are no emergency rooms for a sick planet.”
Given this publicity, it is only fair to resurrect the argument used by the late Ken Lay for doing just what AB 32 supporters want. After all, Lay and his political capitalism model for Enron
and America is just the opposite of the Koch’s ideal of free-market economy and Principled
Entrepreneurship™ for America and business.
Lay Op-Ed: December 1997
An op-ed published by Ken Lay in the Houston Chronicle on December 5, 1997 (p. 47A–no longer
available*) provides a case study of misdirection by a corporate CEO to benefit his profit centers. “Let’s Have an Ounce of Global-Warming Prevention”
portrays Enron and like companies as having the climate solution at their fingertips when, in fact, a pound of government was not worth an ounce of prevention
or cure. Indeed, in the most widely read post in the history of MasterResource, Chip Knappenberger calculated that an 83% reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions by
2050 (the aspirational goal of the Waxman–Markey bill) was worth less than
one-tenth of one degree of avoided warming from the alarmists’s own climate models.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has sent a new civil subpoena to the University of Virginia, renewing a demand for
documents related to a work of a former university climate scientist that was stymied when a judge blocked his previous request in August.
The new Civil Investigative Demand revives a contentious fight between Cuccinelli and the university over
documents related to the work of Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist whose research concluded that the earth has experienced a rapid, recent warming.
Mann worked at U-Va. until 2005; he is now employed by Penn State University.
In the demand sent to the university last week, Cuccinelli once again asked that the school turn over all e-mails exchanged between former university
professor Michael Mann and 39 other scientists as well as between Mann and his secretaries and research associates.
An Albemarle County judge had quashed a previous demand from Cuccinelli at the request of the
university, ruling that Cuccinelli had not properly explained his rationale for believing fraud may have been committed. He also ruled that Cuccinelli had no
right to documents about grants conducted using federal instead of state dollars. Read the rest of this entry » (SPPI)
The New Yorker has a lengthy article on the failure of US climate legislation in
the Senate in 2010. The article has the usual sordid tales of personalities and politics that lie at the heart of any major legislative effort. The
article did have a revealing passage on the connections between the Environmental Defense Fund, big-money interests and powerful politicians:
On October 28, 2009, Graham was eating dinner at the Capital Grille, an expense-account steakhouse on Pennsylvania Avenue, with Fred Krupp, the president of
the Environmental Defense Fund, and Rick Davis, a Republican consultant who had managed McCain’s two Presidential campaigns. The E.D.F., virtually alone among
green groups in trying to form bonds with Republicans, prides itself on being the most politically sophisticated environmental organization in Washington.
Krupp, who has short gray hair and a Brooks Brothers look that announces his disdain for hemp-wearing environmental activists, had helped to educate McCain on
climate change, and the two men became close. Now he wanted to do the same for Graham. He called Davis, who was an E.D.F. board member, and arranged the dinner.
Graham came to the issue strictly as a dealmaker. He saw the Democrats’ interest in capping carbon emissions as an opportunity to boost the nuclear
industry and to expand oil drilling. But now Krupp explained the basics of global-warming science and policy: how carbon trading worked, how farmers could use
offsets to earn an income from growing trees, and how different lobbyists would affect the debate. Krupp told Graham that the crucial feature of the policy was
the hard cap on emissions. The House bill required American carbon emissions to be seventeen per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. As long as that number held,
environmentalists would show flexibility on most other issues.
Here lies the real tragedy of the climate debate: All of the effort and politicking was always for naught, as the concept of a "hard cap on
emissions" is a fantasy. It is the sort of policy that one can implement in a theoretical model of the economy, but not in the real economy, for
reasons I explain in The Climate Fix.
That there is politics going on in Washington is not a surprise. What is a surprise is that so much effort and good will was wasted pursuing a policy
that was doomed to failure even if a political victory were to have been achieved. The story of how that circumstance came to be has yet to be told.
(Roger Pielke Jr.)
It’s ironic that the United Nations should be hosting its latest climate negotiations in China. Not only is China now far and away the world’s largest
emitter of carbon dioxide — believed by many (but not me) to cause global warming — China is also the main saboteur of negotiations for a deal to replace
the Kyoto accords. For instance, the collapse of talks at the U.N.’s mammoth climate gathering in Copenhagen last December was almost entirely China’s
doing, despite claims by environmentalists and reports by Western media that pinned the blame on Canada, the United States and other developed countries.
China has no interest in helping craft the next Kyoto, particularly if a new deal would mean accepting limits on its CO2 growth. China plans to open a new
coal-fired power plant roughly every month for the next decade. It’s continued rapid industrialization is fuelling the creation of something akin to a
middle-class, but that industrialization is also fuelling increases in carbon emissions that can only be described as staggering. (Lorne Gunter, National Post)
At the very beginning, Lindzen corrects the host that he is no "skeptic": a "denier" (or "realist") is actually more accurate.
Lindzen's impressive list of publications is mentioned, among many other things. It's the kind of a BBC program that would be unthinkable just a year ago.
Something has obviously changed about the forces that determine what is thinkable and what is unthinkable at BBC - and elsewhere. Don't get me wrong: the
previously unthinkable program was still hosted by the same kind of an unthinking host who would present the thinkable programs for the unthinking audiences
years ago, too. ;-)
A Review of Energy and Climate Wars by Peter Glover and Michael J. Economides
The title of Peter Glover's and Michael J. Economides' Energy and Climate Wars: How Naïve Politicians, Green Ideologues, and Media Elites are
Undermining the Truth About Energy an Climate fails to do the work justice. While the subtitle accurately reflects the book's fast-paced, biting tone,
underneath Energy and Climate Wars is a smart and philosophically principled exposition of the ideological origins of the allegedly scientific climate
discussion, freshly identifying the fundamentally unfounded and utopian aspects of the left's attempt to remake the world to their liking.
The book, intentionally or not, serves as a quick, 250-page, comprehensive guide to the current energy and climate debate, filling the first few chapters
with many of the basic conservative talking points against renewable energy and so-called green jobs. The attacks, while well-defended, merely reinforce
information that is well-chronicled and readily available from a myriad of other sources, including the arguments set forth by Economides' co-editor of Energy
Tribune, Robert Bryce, in his books Gusher of Lies and Power Hungry. One looking to disparage what the authors call the left's "Wishful
Thinking Syndrome" will find thorough refutation of wind power and of the failure of green jobs initiatives and other government subsidies of renewable
energy projects in both the United States and Europe. (American Thinker)
Science must have accurate and adequate data. It’s the basis for producing or testing theories; without it results are meaningless. Inadequate data
seriously limits climate research, but scientists and governments who manipulate it for political goals make it impossible. This occurs because most government
weather and climate agencies work to create and confirm results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (Tim Ball, CFP)
Nations must substantially narrow their differences ahead of crunch summit in Mexico later this year, Artur Runge-Metzger tells delegates at China climate
talks (Guardian)
Here's a newsflash for you Chucky, "climate talks" have always been and always will be irrelevant.
The U.N. climate change chief urged governments on Monday to make real steps toward a new treaty to fight global warming or risk throwing negotiations into
doubt.
Negotiators are meeting in the northern Chinese port city of Tianjin to try reach agreement on what should follow the current phase of the Kyoto Protocol, the
key treaty on climate change, which expires in 2012.
The fraught U.N. talks have been hobbled by lack of trust between rich and poor nations over climate funds, demand for more transparency over emissions cut
pledges and anger over the size of cuts offered by rich nations. (Reuters)
But we don't want any such deal, mainly because it's all pain for absolutely no gain.
BRUSSELS eurocrats could write the book on circumventing free trade pacts and the devious web of complex subsidies, concessions and handouts, the EU has
developed over the years.
Now comes another euroscam, this time in a fashionable shade of green, with talk of trade retaliation against nations that have not put a price on carbon. This
has nothing to do with saving the planet, but everything to do with trying to save the EU, which is struggling to rebuild its financial system and its
credibility.
Politicians such as Greens senator Christine Milne, who claim that Australia is one of the "laggards" on the planet because 32 countries have imposed
emissions trading, rarely mention that 27 of these have done so under the Brussels-run EU emissions trading scheme that began in 2005. This allows pages of
heavy industry and agricultural exemptions. (The Australian)
India's environment minister said on Monday the country could not have high economic growth and a rapid rise in carbon emissions now that the nation was the
number three emitter after China and the United States.
Jairam Ramesh's comments come as negotiators from nearly 200 governments meet in the northern Chinese port city of Tianjin. The U.N. talks aim to reach
agreement on what should follow the current phase of the Kyoto Protocol, the key treaty on climate change, which expires in 2012.
Indian per-capita emissions are still low but demand for energy is rising as the middle-class buys more cars, TVs and better housing. Much of that energy comes
from coal oil and gas, the main sources for planet-warming carbon dioxide.
But Ramesh said India's rush for wealth could not come at the expense of the environment. (Reuters)
I’ve been out of pocket for a while, partly because I have been preparing to provide expert testimony in a mock global warming trial.
The mock trial was the final event at the ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources Law Summit held at the Sheraton New Orleans this past week. We
had a good turnout, with approximately 200 attorneys there to watch the show.
The mock trial was patterned after the Comer vs. Murphy Oil lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs claim that the greenhouse gas emissions of energy
companies in the U.S. made Hurricane Katrina worse.
I was the testifying expert for the evil, GHG-spewing industry side, while a PhD ecologist, Mark Laska, represented the IPCC “scientific consensus” side.
We were fortunate to have U.S. District Court Judge Eldon E. Fallon (of Vioxx and Chinese drywall litigation fame) presiding. Judge Fallon provided advice
and insights as the mock trial progressed, not so much for the participants’ benefit, but for the audience of attorneys, some of whom anticipate being
involved in future climate-related litigation.
I must confess, I had fun. Mike Freeman, of Balch & Bingham, LLP, the defense attorney on my side of the case, did an excellent job with his opening
remarks and cross examination of Dr. Laska. Over the last few weeks, Mike quickly developed a good understanding of the key science shortcomings of global
warming theory (as I see them, anyway), and was able to turn that knowledge into effective lines of questioning.
In fact, many of us ’skeptical’ scientists have been waiting for years to see the science of global warming exposed in a trial setting. People like Al
Gore can no longer hide behind claims of supposed scientific consensus and appeals to authority.
It’s time to put up, or shut up.
Even though this wasn’t the real thing, I was able to find out how an experienced trial lawyer (Allan Kanner) would handle such a case with his opening
statement, direct examination of Dr. Laska, and cross-examination of me.
Without going into a blow-by-blow account of what transpired at the mock trial, I do want to briefly address what I now recognize will be a central problem
with the expert testimony in any future climate-related litigation.
There will be no end to the amount of irrelevant climate science which can be used to hoodwink a jury
In our very brief academic exercise, it became immediately apparent to me that one tactic will be the attempt to claim the scientific high ground.
For example, Mr. Kanner and Dr. Laska spent an inordinate amount of time describing the scientific method. You know, forming hypotheses, testing those
hypotheses with observational data, modifying the hypotheses accordingly, etc.
This totally irrelevant exercise was an apparent attempt to imply that our side does NOT employ the scientific method. At least I think that’s what they
were attempting….it never was clear exactly why they went down this Mom-and-apple-pie road.
What is really ironic about this tactic is that it is the IPCC scientific consensus side that has abandoned a cornerstone of scientific investigation —
exploring alternative hypotheses for global warming. As I have previously discussed ad nauseum, there has never been a serious research effort directed
toward exploring the role of natural, internal climate cycles as a potential cause of most of the recent warming we have measured.
I have also noticed over the years that it is those who do not actually perform climate research who tend to clothe themselves in the scientific method as
some sort of shiny coat of armor which they hope will make them impervious to criticism. Sheesh.
During Mr. Kanner’s cross examination of me, he invoked the Tragedy of the Commons in an apparent attempt to get me to agree that, even though the
defendants’ greenhouse gas emissions are a small portion of global emissions, the defendants are still just as responsible for climate change (and,
presumably, the intensification of Hurricane Katrina) as everyone else is.
But I refused to accept the premise that there is even a ‘tragedy in the commons’ when it comes to global warming. In my view, none of the participants
in the emission of greenhouse gases have caused a tragedy. If you’ve got a problem with Hurricane Katrina and what it did, take it up with Mother Nature.
After all, the vast majority of the most intense hurricanes to hit the U.S. occurred before 1970, and so occurred before the main period of “global
warming”. Yes, Katrina was a tragedy. But a hurricane disaster has been predicted for New Orleans long before global warming ever became fashionable.
And as we now close out the 5th Atlantic hurricane season since Katrina, it looks like this will be the first 5 year period without a Cat 3 or stronger
hurricane hitting the mainland since 1910-1914! What a difference five years can make to scientific ‘truth’.
In fact, if one surveys the recent literature, it is no longer obvious that warming has led to more intense hurricanes — let alone warming being the fault
of mankind.
Mr. Kanner also alluded to the alleged cover-up of global warming science by executives in the petroleum or coal industry. I assume that we are supposed to
equate any such behavior to the tobacco industry. Exactly how anyone could hush Al Gore or NASA’s James Hansen, I don’t know.
Every grade school student has heard of the 37 different ways we are all going to die from global warming. Has Exxon Mobil managed to cover up the 38th way
we will die? Gasp!
But I do know that anything that energy industry executives did or didn’t do is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand: Have mankind’s greenhouse gas
emissions caused any measurable change in the climate system or weather systems?
And I suppose this will be the Achilles’ heel of climate-related litigation: Causation. The case for mankind (versus Mother Nature) causing climate change
is so weak, that only through scientific incompetence (or a jury’s bias against big business) should the plaintiffs prevail in these lawsuits.
To me, I don’t care whether another climate expert is the equivalent of Mother Theresa, or a member of the Nazi Party. All I care about is what they can
demonstrate scientifically.
I don’t know much about legal issues or the law, so maybe my views are naive. But I do know that it will be essential for judges and lawyers to be able to
separate the wheat from the chaff in expert testimony.
This is no small task, since most of the experts in this field are rather muddled in their own thinking on the subject anyway. Climate change science covers
a wide range of complex and interrelated sub-disciplines, and the challenge will be to separate the 95% of the science that supports the theory of anthropogenic
global warming from the 5% that can trump all the rest, potentially causing the IPCC’s house of cards to collapse. (Roy W. Spencer)
People will pay some amount for climate goals — but only so much
By Roger Pielke Jr.
In late 2009, Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research in the U.K. argued that a “planned recession”
would be necessary in the U.K. to reduce emissions in response to the threat of climate change. In practice, this would mean that “the building of new
airports, petrol cars and dirty coal-fired power stations will have to be halted in the U.K. until new technology provides an alternative to burning fossil
fuels.”
Similarly, in a comment with more symbolic than substantive importance, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC),
argued that restaurants should no longer serve ice water, as an illustration of how we need to change our lifestyles.
Such calls for sacrifice are a fixture in debates over responding to climate change.
No one should be prepared to pay anything or tolerate any "action to address climate change". People can not knowingly and
predictably alter the climate. Period.
New book calls for reform of climate agency as
thousands of delegates meet in Tianjin, China
The slow death rattle of the United Nation’s climate-change apparatus grew a little louder yesterday as thousands of delegates
descended on Tianjin, China, for a five-day negotiating session. It’s the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s last chance to reach a global
carbon-emission agreement before a final meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in December.
The hopelessness of it all was captured by Christina Figueres, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, at yesterday’s opening event. “As you know, a
concrete outcome in Cancun is urgently needed a) to restore the faith in the ability of Parties to take the process forward; b) to prevent multilateralism from
being perceived as a never-ending road; c) to prevent continued disagreements from resulting in unacceptable inaction; and, most importantly, d) to prevent
climate-change impacts from reversing development gains that have been painstakingly achieved over the past few decades.”
For anyone wondering about what the final outcome will look like in Cancun, the answer is: None of the above. That the UN climate-control effort, following
the disaster at Copenhagen last year, is today heading for another calamity in Cancun is no surprise to Roger Pielke Jr., author of a new devastating book on
the monumental folly that has become the UN’s attempt to forge a global climate agreement. “International climate policy has yet to fully come to terms with
the failure at Copenhagen last year,” Prof. Pielke said in an interview yesterday. “While some think that the international negotiations can simply be
restarted, the reality is that a Plan B is needed. The UN Climate Convention is untenable.”
People will have to cut meat from their diets if the world is to stay within safer limits of planet-warming greenhouse gases, nitrate pollution and habitat
destruction, according to a journal article published on Monday.
Experts agree that eating plant products can be better for the environment, because eating meat involves consuming animals which are themselves raised on
plants, a less efficient process.
But there is some controversy about just how far people should shun meat for vegetables and grains to curb damage to the environment, partly because of wide
disagreement about exactly what those impacts are.
Monday's paper used coarse estimates to argue that, on current trends, livestock farming on its own -- disregarding all other human activity -- would push the
world near danger levels for climate change and habitat destruction by mid-century. (Reuters)
Wonder how the planet ever managed to cool down before people slaughtered all those countless millions of bison and the vast ruminant herds
of Africa, Asia and the Americas? Gosh, what was the effect of all those elephantine fermenting vats before people turned so many into billiard balls and piano
keys? Yup, cows sure present a danger all right...
Move over, polar bear. The Pacific walrus may be the new icon of global warming.
Like polar bears, walruses are dependent on floating sea ice to rest, forage for food and nurture their young.
Like polar bears, walruses are suffering because of a scarcity of summer and fall sea ice in Arctic waters that scientists attribute to climate change.
And like polar bears, which were listed as threatened in 2008, protections under the Endangered Species Act may be granted to walruses, even though it is hard
to get an accurate count of their population.
"You don't have to know how many passengers are on the Titanic to know it's in trouble when it hits an iceberg," said Rebecca Noblin, staff attorney
for The Center for Biological Diversity, which sued to obtain Endangered Species Act safeguards for the walrus. (Reuters)
Having survived for more than 400 million years, the horseshoe crab is now under threat – primarily due to overharvest and habitat destruction. However,
climatic changes may also play a role. Researchers from the University of Gothenburg reveal how sensitive horseshoe crab populations are to natural climate
change in a study recently published in the scientific journal Molecular Ecology.
The horseshoe crab is often regarded as a living fossil, in that it has survived almost unchanged in terms of body design and lifestyle for more than 400
million years. Crabs similar to today's horseshoe crabs were walking the Earth long before the dinosaurs.
"Examining the genetic variation in populations of horseshoe crabs along the east coast of America has enabled us to track changes in population size over
time," says Matthias Obst from the Department of Zoology at the University of Gothenburg, one of the authors of the study published in Molecular Ecology.
"We noted a clear drop in the number of horseshoe crabs at the end of the Ice Age, a period characterised by significant global warming."
Horseshoe crab important in the coastal food chain
"Our results also show that future climate change may further reduce the already vastly diminished population. Normally, horseshoe crabs would have no
problem coping with climate change, but the ongoing destruction of their habitats make them much more sensitive." (University of Gothenburg)
Overfishing and habitat alteration, yes but climate change? What idiot thought it necessary to throw that in when the species has survived
through Paleozoic cold periods and Mesozoic warmth?
After the record heat wave this summer, Russia's weather seems to have acquired a taste for the extreme.
Forecasters say this winter could be the coldest Europe has seen in the last 1,000 years.
The change is reportedly connected with the speed of the Gulf Stream, which has shrunk in half in just the last couple of years. Polish scientists say that it
means the stream will not be able to compensate for the cold from the Arctic winds. According to them, when the stream is completely stopped, a new Ice Age will
begin in Europe.
So far, the results have been lower temperatures: for example, in Central Russia, they are a couple of degrees below the norm. (RT)
I wonder what "Gulf Stream" they are talking about? Can't be Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) since since we've
already that's behaving quite normally.
UCI-led team cites global warming, accelerated cycle of evaporation, precipitation
Irvine, Calif. — Freshwater is flowing into Earth's oceans in greater amounts every year, a team of researchers has found, thanks to more frequent and extreme
storms linked to global warming. All told, 18 percent more water fed into the world's oceans from rivers and melting polar ice sheets in 2006 than in 1994, with
an average annual rise of 1.5 percent.
"That might not sound like much – 1.5 percent a year – but after a few decades, it's huge," said Jay Famiglietti, UC Irvine Earth system science
professor and principal investigator on the study, which will be published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He noted that while
freshwater is essential to humans and ecosystems, the rain is falling in all the wrong places, for all the wrong reasons.
"In general, more water is good," Famiglietti said. "But here's the problem: Not everybody is getting more rainfall, and those who are may not
need it. What we're seeing is exactly what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted – that precipitation is increasing in the tropics and the
Arctic Circle with heavier, more punishing storms. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people live in semiarid regions, and those are drying up."
In essence, he said, the evaporation and precipitation cycle taught in grade school is accelerating dangerously because of greenhouse gas-fueled higher
temperatures, triggering monsoons and hurricanes. Hotter weather above the oceans causes freshwater to evaporate faster, which leads to thicker clouds
unleashing more powerful storms over land. The rainfall then travels via rivers to the sea in ever-larger amounts, and the cycle begins again. (University of
California -- Irvine)
There's more water going into the oceans but sea level rise has stalled, so if anything this just means there has been an acceleration in the
transfer of latent heat from the oceans to the atmosphere. That would be a negative feedback helping to cool the planet. This too is consistent with climate
models (what isn't?).
Just by the by, no one has any idea whether these short-tern fluctuations are in any way unusual for the simple reason we have no long-term data.
Yet our nations policy on carbon emissions will be built assuming the BoM and their supporting pro-IPCC orgs have predictive skills that compel our
GreenLabor Govt to believe we will be seriously warmer over the coming century.
We are told by the BoM that September rainfall could be an all time record for Australia. Note this surreal article in the Sydney Morning Herald
which starts by saying, “Global warming may have given Australia its wettest September in more than 100 years, but “extreme dry years” lie ahead, the
Bureau of Meteorology says.”
This seems to me to be in contradiction of the facts as reported by weatherzone.com.au who say,
“After their coldest winter in 13 years Sydney residents have just experienced their coldest September in five years..”
I have heard the BoM on TV news saying in effect, “September 2010 rain was an anomaly – we are really still in a dry spell and headed for dryer times”.
That seems to be the drift of their recent “Special Climate Statement 22″ – I am
suspicious of their Fig 3 in SCS22 and would like to see data back to pre 1900.
Time will tell if the BoM is right to say – “extreme dry years” lie ahead – but IMHO some sections of the BoM are stunningly incompetent and only mass
sackings and a re-focus on their observing network would make the BoM relevant to Australian needs. (Warwick Hughes)
A few days ago I have received the following letter via e-mail (translated and adapted in English from the original in Italian):
Dear friends,
It is with great sadness that I am forwarding the attached letter – press release by the staff at the Research Unit for Applied Meteorology and
Climatology in Agriculture (in Italian: CRA-CMA), the direct descendant of the first Italian National Weather Station inaugurated in 1876 and headquartered at
the Collegio Romano from 1879 (in an area previously occupied by the Meteorological Observatory built in 1782 by Abbot Giuseppe Calandrelli (the first to apply gravitational theory to cometary atmospheres)). I hope that those who have taken this decision will go back on it, at
least reconsider this meteorological site, by declaring its historical importance for Italian meteorology. That would mean leaving untouched its Library,
Historical Archives and the Museum of Ancient Meteorological and Seismographic Instruments, as well as the historic Calandrelli Observatory. The Library is at
present unique in Italy, after the closure, in the 1990s, of the Air Force Weather Service Library.
Calandrelli Observatory
The accompanying “press release” says the threatened closure is due to forced savings at the CRA, even if those same savings are pretty much doubtful
(premises are free of rent, and the Italian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has pledged to pay all CRA-CMA costs).
More details about CRA-CMA from the “press release”: the library, known as “Central Italian Meteorological Library”, boasts more than 40,000 rare and
valuable Italian and foreign texts of meteorology and geophysics, some dating back to the 1500s; the area has played host to famous scientists who have made the
history of meteorology (Galileo Galilei, Father Angelo Secchi, Enrico Fermi). There is
also a collection of highly-valued rare and prestigious historical seismographic and meteorological instruments.
CRA-CMA still manages a network of weather stations located throughout the country. The historical archive of weather data is of unique importance (with six
million data points for each observed weather variable) and is one of the few in the world with multi-centennial meteorological and climate data series. “Such
data are key for the undertaking of climate studies aimed at land use, agrometeorology, renewable energy sources and energy saving. “To this day,
CRA-CMA’s Rome Meteorological Observatory’s unbroken series of centuries of weather reporting remains of paramount importance for the study of climate
changes in the city“.
Q: You take care of more than a century of continuous weather observations, recorded year after year in the “bulletins”. What can you tell us about
climate change? Are we really going towards a catastrophe?
A: Actually, regarding the “global warming” issues, our data tell us that the temperature in Rome has increased 0.8C during a hundred years, i.e.
less than a degree. That’s very little really. Historically Earth has seen long cold and warm periods (we are talking about years and sometimes centuries).
Over the past twenty years, for example, we have experienced a warmer period and it is therefore quite normal that temperatures have slightly increased. This
does not mean that temperatures will go up forever. Indeed, it is very likely that in a few years they will start going down again. Unfortunately a kind of
excessive alarmism bases itself on the application of mathematical models to meteorological data, without including a proper analysis of the past. About
rainfall, however, the last century has certainly seen a decrease. In Rome, it rains now far less than in the past and this better be considered before
embarking into exaggerated alarms, for example, about future floods of the river Tiber. With rains like we get nowadays, and the protections built on
Garibaldi’s inspiration, you can be sure that the Tiber in Rome will not overflow again.
An interesting article among the scientific literature that has come out of CRA-CMA:
The analysis of air temperature data covering a period of 12 years (1964-1975) in a meteorological station network situated in the low Tiber Valley,
shows clearly the effect of the heat urban island due to the city of Rome. This effect occurs with different intensity according to the seasons and to minimum
and maximum temperatures.
And lest anybody thinks Exxon and the Koch brothers have been busy taking over a meteorological station in Rome:
there is lack of clarity in how these terms are defined. In today’s post, I offer the following short definitions:
Global Warming is an increase in the global annual average heat content measured in Joules.
Climate Change is any multi-decadal or longer alteration in one or more physical,
chemical and/or biological components of the climate system.
The figure below (from NRC, 2005) schematically illustrates the Earth’s
climate system
Thus climate change includes, for example, changes in fauna and flora, snow cover, etc which persists for decades and longer. Climate variability can then be
defined as changes which occur on shorter time periods.
Global warming involves the accumulation of heat in Joules within these components of the climate system, which is predominently the oceans, as shown in
Table 1 in Levitis et al 2001. The current use of the global
average annual surface temperature trend to diagnose global warming involves only the two dimensional land, cryosphere and ocean surface.
“Unlike temperature at some specific depth in the ocean or height in the atmosphere, where there is a time lag in the response to radiative forcing, no
time lags are associated with heat changes, since the actual amount of heat present at any time is accounted for. Moreover, because the surface temperature is a
massless two-dimensional global field while heat content involves mass, the use of surface temperature as a monitor of climate change is not accurate for
evaluating heat storage changes. “
My recommendation is that the next IPCC assessment adopt these definitions for global warming and climate change. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Britain is still committed to developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology as part of its efforts to reduce carbon emissions, Britain's energy and
climate change minister said on Monday.
CCS may cut the contribution of coal- and gas-fired power plants to global warming by trapping and burying the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, but it is as yet
untested on a commercial scale.
"With a new coal-powered plant opening in China every week, our ability to develop carbon capture and storage on a commercial scale makes business
sense," said Chris Huhne at a carbon conference in London. (Reuters)
A planned study of possible new wilderness protections for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has sparked a furor in Alaska, where energy companies have
long dreamed of tapping oil reserves beneath its vast coastal plain home to herds of migrating animals.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service effort announced this week is part of a sweeping review of a land-management plan for what is the second-largest national
wildlife refuge in the United States.
The agency stresses that its work is just starting and that a formal draft is not expected until next year.
But the oil industry and its political allies regard it as a prelude to an attempt to keep the refuge off-limits to energy production for good by formally
declaring its remote coastal tundra as wilderness.
"Alaska will not allow the federal government to lock up more land without a fight," Governor Sean Parnell said this week. (Reuters)
Europe has yielded to Canadian pressure by delaying possible green trade barriers to Canada's highly polluting oil sands, but only for one year, a leaked
document shows.
Canada has repeatedly warned that draft EU standards to promote greener fuels will harm the market for its oil sands -- tar-like oil that is trapped in sediment
and forms the world's second-largest proven crude reserves after Saudi Arabia.
A recent draft of the European Union's "fuel quality directive" calculates greenhouse gas emissions from myriad transport fuels, from hydrogen to
diesel, but says oil sands will only be evaluated some time before December 31, 2011 -- a year later than plans made as recently as June.
All other fuels will be dealt with by the end of this year, with the aim of guiding industry on which fuels are best suited to the EU's goal of cutting carbon
emissions to one fifth below 1990 levels over the next decade.
The European Union and Canada are in the middle of free trade talks, and the issue of tar sands has become hot.
Relations are already strained after the EU banned imports of seal products last July on animal welfare grounds, a move Canada is challenging at the World Trade
Organization. (Reuters)
Environmental groups have launched a new effort, the Safe Climate Campaign, to radically transform the American automobile and fight climate change. Nathan
Wilcox, global warming director at Environment America, states: “Americans want cars that go farther on a gallon of gas. They want our country to use less
oil. [Read More] (Steve Goreham, ET)
By Steve Milloy
The Gazette (Cedar Rapids, IA), October 3, 2010
It’s terrific that Sen. Chuck Grassley wants to help out Iowa’s wind industry, but does he have to sell out the rest of the state in the process?
Last week, Sen. Grassley co-sponsored a bill (S.3813) to establish a national renewable electricity standard (RES), legislation that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
has indicated he would try to make the consolation prize in this Congress’ final lame duck-clash over global warming regulation.
Despite his co-sponsorship, Sen. Grassley is rightly wary of Sen. Reid’s gambit and told the media that unless more than a handful of Republicans also sign
on to the bill, “I’m not going to be a part of one or two Republicans, get 60 votes, so they can have a partisan victory.”
What is RES and why should Sen. Grassley not go down the RES road at all?
An RES would require that electric utilities generate a set percentage of their power from so-called “renewable” power sources, like solar and wind, by a
certain date. The disastrous-for-House-Democrats Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed in June 2009, for example, would require that utilities generate 20
percent of their power from renewables by the year 2020. S. 3813 would reduce the Waxman-Markey standard to 15 percent.
But even a 15 percent RES would be quite the monumental challenge given that solar and wind power provide less than 2 percent of current electricity
generation and require massive subsidies to do so. According to the Department of Energy, solar and wind are each subsidized at a rate 55 times that of coal, 97
times that of natural gas and 15 times that of nuclear power.
Solar panels and windmills aside, it’s only the taxpayer wallet that makes these forms of energy “renewable.”
But even cost is not the main reason for rejecting the arbitrary targets and deadlines of a national RES.
Imagine a utility that generates 100 percent of the electricity it sells by burning coal or natural gas. Impose the S. 3813 RES standard on that utility and,
all of a sudden, only a maximum of 85 percent of its electricity can be generated by fossil fuels. In other words, the utility’s use of fossil fuels has been
capped — the result would be skyrocketing energy prices.
Since the passage of the Waxman-Markey bill, Americans have been up in arms against cap-and-trade. As Sen. Grassley recently observed “If we pass cap and
trade we’d export all of our jobs, manufacturing jobs to China.”
But the same reasons for opposing cap-and-trade can and ought to be applied to RES, which ought to be labeled as calling cap-and-subsidize.
Under cap-and-trade, electric utilities would be compensated for higher generation costs by charging consumers more for electricity and by selling billions
of dollars of carbon credits, which they received for free courtesy of taxpayers. Under RES, electric utilities would be similarly compensated for higher
generation costs, courtesy of over-charged consumers and untold billions in taxpayer subsidies.
So the difference between RES and cap-and-trade is merely a change in form, not a change in substance of an economy-killing consumer/taxpayer rip-off.
None of this is to dissuade Sen. Grassley from trying to help Iowa’s wind industry, which is the second largest in the U.S. – but that path forward is
much different than a job- and economy-killing cap on fossil fuel use.
The first step forward for wind entrepreneurs is to push for tax and regulatory policies that will restart economic growth. A growing economy requires more
energy, thus enlarging the opportunities for renewable technologies. Next consumers who value renewable electricity should be allowed — not forced — to
purchase it at whatever price the market will bear.
The renewables industry should also be encouraged to look for niches where its technologies are competitive with conventional energy technologies. Finally,
like all other business enterprises, the renewable energy businesses should look for efficiencies that make its products more cost competitive.
Many in the renewable energy sector have gotten lazy and have decided that hiring lobbyists is easier than innovating and competing. Sen. Grassley should
work to help the latter and to discourage the former.
A £200billion plan to switch to green energy could cost households an average of £769 a year, it was claimed today.
Industry regulator, Ofgem, said a massive construction plan is needed to build new wind farms, power stations, including nuclear, and a modern national grid.
The first stage, a £32billion plan to build new pipelines and pylon networks, has been given the go-ahead.
Ofgem said this element will cost households a relatively modest sum of an average of £6 a year.
However, industry analysts said the full £200billion cost would put up the average annual bill of £1,194 by £769 a year - or 68 per cent - to £2,000. (Daily
Mail)
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, aka Obamacare, turned six months old on September 23. Hardly anybody celebrated the occasion, and it
isn’t hard to figure out why. Last spring President Obama promised Democrats that supporting the new entitlement would turn out to be a political winner. But,
like a lot of Obama promises, this one’s turned out to be a bunch of baloney.
Obamacare is less popular than it was on the day it was born, and it wasn’t popular then, either. Practically the only Democrats who mention the law in
campaign ads are those who brag about voting against it. Large numbers of Americans, including a majority of independents, would like to see the law repealed.
No wonder the pro-repeal GOP maintains an edge in the congressional generic ballot. As much as the public continues to distrust Republicans, it understands that
the first step in undoing this harmful law is giving John Boehner the speaker’s gavel.
The case against Obamacare is simple. The requirement to buy health insurance is constitutionally dubious. The law lards taxes, rules, and fees onto an already
over-regulated health insurance market. Its accounting is filled with gimmicks and tricks and relies on rosy assumptions about how many people will sign up for
the government-subsidized insurance “exchange.” Those subsidies may be much more expensive than anticipated, because companies probably will find it cheaper
to pay a fine than pay for their employees’ health care. (Matthew Continetti, Weekly Standard)
As a writer, it’s useful to remember that if you’re going to be err, there’s not much of a point in doing so on a small scale. If you type “peek”
when you mean “peak,” as I did last week, you’ll probably amuse your readers, but they’ll still understand your larger point. No, sometimes it’s
better to simply ignore the very point you’re writing about. That way you can write whatever you like, without having to tie it in to reality. Consider a
recent offering from Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank.
On September 12, he rose to defend the honor of famed economist John Maynard Keynes from attacks by some Republicans, who purportedly “portray him as some
sort of Marxist revolutionary.”
Milbank writes that conservatives have “managed to turn the Keynesian notion of economic ‘stimulus’ into such a dirty word that President Obama and his
aides are afraid to let it escape their lips.” Ah, so, the main reason the stimulus is unpopular is because right wingers are talking it down? We must have an
excellent public relations firm. Too bad the GOP didn’t use that firm to help it win elections in 2006 or 2008.
Back in reality, the reason Obama administration officials are running away from the stimulus because it’s fallen so far short of its promises. (Rich Tucker,
Townhall)
With more and more medicines or their ingredients sourced from foreign countries, informed patients should be concerned about drug regulation abroad.
Do you trust the medicines you buy? Until recently, few in America or Europe even thought about it, but several fatal incidents caused by bad drugs have changed
many minds. A recent Pew poll shows that 54 percent of Americans distrust drugs made in India and 70 percent distrust drugs from China. With more and more
medicines or their ingredients sourced from countries with inconsistent regulatory environments and significant levels of corruption, better-informed patients
around the world are asking themselves how much they trust foreign drugs. This should be of concern to any exporting drug producer.
So what are the problems?
A counterfeit drug has been described as the perfect murder weapon as it is very difficult to detect. Essentially a fake is a product pretending to be something
it isn’t—a labeling fraud. By some estimates, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people are killed a year from fake drugs, especially in the poorest parts of
Asia and much of Africa. Most pills do not kill as poisons, they simply do not treat the conditions and diseases they were taken to control or cure. Entities
from Interpol to the World Health Organization to large pharmaceutical companies are fighting this menace. Inadequate criminal legislation means that
intellectual property law sometimes offers the only remedy to such potentially lethal activities.
A counterfeit drug has been described as the perfect murder weapon as it is very difficult to detect.
A less well-known but perhaps more pernicious problem exists with substandard medicines, which are legal, often made by politically connected local companies,
but do not work properly. A patient who falls victim (or his survivors, if he succumbs) may be offered no recourse, even if someone suspects something. Finding
somebody to blame is notoriously difficult. (Roger Bate, American Magazine)
NEW YORK - Despite warnings about the risk, Americans have not reduced the salt in their diets in 50 years, Harvard School of Public Health researchers
conclude. (Reuters Health)
And yet people still keep living longer, healthier lives. Interesting that they should measure excretion, which is what people do with
unneeded sodium...
Neil Young’s song “The Needle and the Damage Done” was written about heroin addiction, but it might as well have applied to the liberal crusade against
science. Young sings: “I've seen the needle/and the damage done.” But unlike heroin, this damage seldom impacts the individual making the choice. It hurts
some of our most vulnerable – children.
For several years, while some liberals have pushed for health care reform, lefty wackos have been leading the charge against one of the foundations of our
successful health care system – vaccines. One of the far left’s leading lights – Robert Kennedy Jr. – has spent years going after a supposed link
between vaccines and autism.
Back in 2005, Kennedy was all over the news with his lunacy. On July 1, 2005, he wrote in the Boston Globe that an additive in vaccines was the problem.
“Mounting evidence suggests that Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative in children's vaccines, may be responsible for the exponential growth of autism,
attention deficit disorder, speech delays, and other childhood neurological disorders now epidemic in the United States.”
Kennedy wrote a June 16, 2005, Rolling Stone article “arguing that most studies of the issue are flawed and that public health officials are conspiring with
drug makers to cover up the damage caused by thimerosal,” according to The New York Times. He received positive coverage from numerous media outlets,
including ABC, CBS and the front page of The New York Times.
Only, that idea has been thoroughly discredited. WebMD reported on Sept. 13, 2010, that a new CDC study says there is no link between thimerosal and autism.
“Exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines in infancy or in the womb is not associated with an increased risk for developing autism, according to a new study
from the CDC,” wrote WebMD.
But don’t just take their word for it. How about the courts. The Washington Post reported Feb. 13, 2009, that “a special federal court ruled yesterday that
vaccines do not cause autism and that thousands of families with autistic children are not entitled to compensation.” (Dan Gainor, Townhall)
A researcher who has found strong evidence that autism is caused by mercury poisoning has been refused access to data that could point to emissions from
coal-fired power stations.
The director of the Swinburne Autism Bio-Research Initiative, David Austin, said the data on autism incidence by postcode could quickly answer the question of
whether mercury emissions from power stations are implicated in babies and infants developing the disorder. (SMH)
These fools seeking clusters are either woefully inadequate for the research they claim to be doing or willfully deceptive. No data is
uniformly distributed so there are always "clusters" by pure chance but they tell us nothing about exposure or potential confounding factors. Less
desirable residential regions can be a marker of socioeconomics but are not necessarily so.
Think about it for a moment. If mercury deposition from coal combustion was significantly causal then the 19th and first half 20th Century
English Midlands should have been literally awash in cases of autism, or "Childhood Schizophrenia" as it was previously known. Heck, people warmed
their homes and cooked with coal fires in the home, how could their exposures possibly have been less than that of people in the exhaust deposition plume from
Australian power stations? If coal-sourced mercury was a significant problem then there would certainly have been mass incidence of ASDs with coal burning in
the home and yet there is no suggestion that was ever the case.
Some people think we’re shaped primarily by genes. Others believe that the environment we grow up in is most important. But now evidence is mounting that a
third factor is also critical: our uterine environment before we’re even born.
Researchers are finding indications that obesity, diabetes and mental illness among adults are all related in part to what happened in the womb decades earlier.
One of the first careful studies in this field found that birth weight (a proxy for nutrition in the womb) helped predict whether an adult would suffer from
heart disease half a century later. Scrawny babies were much more likely to suffer heart problems in middle age.
That study, published in 1989, provoked skepticism at first. But now an array of research confirms that the fetal period is a crucial stage of development that
affects physiology decades later.
Perhaps the most striking finding is that a stressful uterine environment may be a mechanism that allows poverty to replicate itself generation after
generation. Pregnant women in low-income areas tend to be more exposed to anxiety, depression, chemicals and toxins from car exhaust to pesticides, and
they’re more likely to drink or smoke and less likely to take vitamin supplements, eat healthy food and get meticulous pre-natal care. (Kistof, NYT)
Yes, illness and physical stressors certainly affect fetal development, which is one of the reasons fully one-third of pregnancies fail
before 20 weeks. Unfortunately this will stir up loons of all descriptions who wish to blame modernity in its various guises, from agriculture to industry,
international trade to pharmaceuticals and health care (plus a few who believe the government is spraying them with chemicals, watching them from black
helicopters and secretly colluding with space aliens).
Moms-to-be should note that people have been getting healthier and children growing into taller adults with longer life expectancies through the last century
and more because they are supported by modernity, not in spite of it. Don't let people frighten you with nonsense and negativism -- it's bad for your
baby.
One of the shows I enjoy watching on the Science Channel is “How It’s Made.” All manner of things we use to enhance our lives start out as raw
materials and the process of manufacture is a miracle of transformation.
Virtually all forms of manufacturing require some chemical element, often several. Given the indispensability of chemicals in society and commerce, does it
strike anyone as odd that, if you were born after 1960, there’s a high likelihood that you grew up being told that “chemicals” are bad?
In 1962 Rachel Carson kicked off this bizarre notion with her bestselling book, “Silent Spring” and environmental groups have maintained a steady drumbeat
of scare campaigns to drive home the message that chemicals are dangerous. However, it is rarely noted that most of the claims she made in her iconic book have
long since been disproved by science.
One branch of science is called toxicology. Among its most honored truths, attributed to Paracelsus (1493-1541) is that “All things are poison and nothing is
without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison.” This has been shortened to the statement that “The dose makes the poison.” The truth of this is
obvious to most people and perhaps best illustrated vaccines. By introducing a minute element of a disease into our bodies, our immune systems can build
resistance to it.
But problems arise when an ill-informed media latches on to the latest junk science craze and splashes misleading stories across newspapers and TV. Missing from
virtually all of these stories are key facts – that a bunch of laboratory rats have been exposed to some chemical in doses far higher than would normally
occur, for instance, or in ways that would never happen in real life, and then calling it a threat. But humans are not rats and this kind of sloppy science and
extrapolation comes with serious issues of data interpretation.
This is one way in which the Environmental Protection Agency’s long war on chemicals is perpetuated. Much of the EPA’s abuse of power comes in the form of
chemical action plans, which involve little oversight, even less transparency and little-to-no public accountability. However their power to over-regulate,
remove valuable products from the market, and hobble commerce is almost unparalleled. (Alan Caruba, CFP)
NEW YORK - Thin men may be more likely to attempt suicide than those who are overweight, according to a new study that confirms a puzzling link between body
weight and suicide risk.
The first investigation to find a link between body mass index (BMI) and suicide risk was conducted in the U.S. in 1966, and studies since then have been
largely consistent in showing that as body weight climbs, suicides decline.
Most of that research has focused on men, but the same pattern has been seen among women. (Reuters Health)
The world's oceans are teeming with far greater diversity of life than was previously thought, according to the first Census of Marine Life which has been 10
years in the making. (TDT)
British woodland has returned to the levels of the 1750s, with tree cover having more than doubled since the end of the First World War, a United Nations
report has shown. (TDT)
The Queensland Government is proposing to create a new category of restricted land use called “Strategic Cropping Land”, which is reserved for
“cropping” and closed to almost every other type of land development. This would create No-Go zones covering as much as 4% of Queensland, representing an
area more than twice the size of Holland and including many areas likely to contain the mineral and energy resources for tomorrow.
This proposal will affect every landowner and every rural industry in some way, almost all negatively, but its most immediate effect will be on landowners and
coal explorers.
THE Gillard government will resist moves by European countries, and pressure from the Greens, to introduce international environmental trade sanctions.
Trade Minister Craig Emerson argued today that moves from European countries to impose trade sanctions on countries that did not put a price on carbon were
protectionism.
“We won't cop governments cloaking protectionism in this sort of green cloak of respectability, where it's just old protectionism,” Dr Emerson told the Sky
News Australian Agenda program.
The move potentially puts the government at odds with the Australian Greens, which wants environmental and labour standards inserted into trade deals.
Dr Emerson said Labor would not be dictated to by the Greens on trade policy. (Sid Maher, The Australian)
This week, National Journal hosted an energy, environment, and economic policy
summit on the Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). Participants included Sens. Mark Begich (D-AK) and Sam Brownback (R-KS); Dr. Robert Simon, the Majority
Staff Director of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; David Friedman, the Research Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists; and Phil
Sharp, the President of Resources for the Future.
RES proponents acknowledged that the nation’s current double digit unemployment makes near term adoption of RES politically impossible, but they also
outlined a long-term strategy: 1) personal relationships and deals with other Senators; 2) national security messaging; and 3) putting a figurative gun to the
nation’s head in the form of the EPA. Continue
reading... (The Foundry)
UPDATE. Oh dear. The eco-Brits suddenly don’t want anybody looking at their murder video, so they’ve made it private. Luckily, Comrade Morshu had already nabbed a copy:
UPDATE II. James Delingpole, among the earliest to post on this debacle, is fascinated by green reaction to diminished
eco-fears:
Kyoto is dead. Copenhagen was a flop. Cancun is going to make a mockery of all those green dreams about global carbon emissions legislation. And how do
the environmentalists respond?
By force of argument?
By presenting new evidence which supports their cause?
Nope.
By threatening to blow up anyone who disagrees with them.
It’s all they’ve got left. Interestingly, 10:10 – the organisation responsible – was founded by Franny Armstrong, director of enviro-panic film The
Age of Stupid. How stupid is it to launch a campaign that has
to be abandoned within 24 hours? The clip itself was directed by cloying Brit romance specialist Richard Curtis, who doesn’t exactly seem an obvious choice to advocate reduced consumption:
Curtis lives in Notting Hill and has a country house in Walberswick, Suffolk … with script editor and broadcaster Emma Freud. They have four children;
daughter Scarlett Rachel Anne, and three sons, James, Charlie and Spike. They have another country retreat in Henley, Oxfordshire.
UPDATE III. Naturally, 10:10 is partially taxpayer-funded. And the Guardian
– previous backers of another successful campaign – is their
media partner. Beautifully, the Guardian‘s initial report
now carries this update:
Please note that 10:10 took down the original video and the version above is a copy uploaded elsewhere on YouTube.
The Guardian is media partner to a group that is ashamed of its own work. They’re a nice fit.
Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.
With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue
back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis - writer of Blackadder,
Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but
unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.
As a result of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website. We won’t be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in
circulation on the internet …
At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the
mark. Oh well, we live and learn.
No video has ever provided such a revealing and shocking peek into the mindset of the Global Warming alarmists …
If someone set out to intentionally discredit the Global Warming movement, they couldn’t have made a video more devastating than this one. It’s as if
the eco-fascists have an irrepressible urge to expose their unconscious fantasies to those whom they seek to dominate — like a serial killer who sends
taunting letters to the media.
it’s good to discover that Richard Curtis, long-time purveyor of smug, self-satisfied tripe, has produced this ad for something called the 10:10
campaign. Watch it and see if you don’t feel like starting your own oil company or burning anything you can just because you can ...
UPDATE VIII. Grand understatement from Vicki Woods:
I’m not sure having Richard Curtis doing your ads is a good idea.
The charities that backed a Richard Curtis film for the 10:10 environmental campaign said today that they were “absolutely appalled” when they saw the
director’s four-minute short, which was withdrawn from
circulation amid a storm of protest …
A statement from the Guardian, a backer of 10:10, which exclusively showcased No Pressure, said: “The film may have been somewhat tasteless, but it was
an imaginative attempt to challenge public apathy over climate change.”
These people can’t see past their own loathing. Daniel
Hannan:
I have Green friends who are generous and idealistic, and most of their supporters are actuated by a sincere concern about the future. Almost all of us,
after all, want clean air and water; almost all of us like the idea of pandas mating ineptly for years to come; and almost all of us want a diversity of energy
supply. But, just occasionally, as during the Brent Spar fiasco, we see that some green campaigners are, like the abolitionist in Amistad, more interested in
bashing people they dislike than in advancing the cause they notionally represent. Ah, hatred: where would Lefties be
without it?
Have you ever heard a fervent climate change denier share their non-scientifically-based opinions on TV (or worse, in real life) and thought, “It would
be so much easier to tackle global climate change if these naysayers were blown up like BP’s oil well”? …
Blowing up people should be kept an imaginary fantasy …
When it comes to galvanising support for the fight against climate change, many methods have been tried, from switching out the lights in London skyscrapers
to handing out free low-energy bulbs. Until now though, no one had thought of detonating two schoolchildren in front of their blood-smeared classmates.
A short film scripted by leading British comedy screenwriter Richard Curtis on behalf of the 10:10 environmental campaign has achieved the dubious distinction
of becoming one of the more short-lived propaganda tools designed to help save humanity after it was withdrawn following complaints about its graphic scenes of
exploding climate change refuseniks.
The four-minute video was taken down from the 10:10 website this weekend and plans to distribute it to cinemas were ripped up after members of the public and
key backers of the campaign, including the charity ActionAid, said they were "appalled" by its portrayal of zealous greenhouse gas activists using a
red button to blow up reluctant supporters, such as the actress Gillian Anderson and former footballer David Ginola. (Independent)
We have had “An Inconvenient Truth”, “The Day After Tomorrow”, “Acid Test” “The Age of Stupid”, all propaganda films pushing the central
tenets of the Global Warming movement and produced by professional film-makers.
We have had scary adverts for children, warning of the planet’s imminent collapse unless we “mend our ways” and that means your parents,
kids.
We now have a new low in media presentations, a film that was available on You Tube, until it was pulled today, within a few hours of the exposure it
received when the Guardian highlighted it as part of their support for the 10:10 climate change campaign.
I suspect they were quite surprised by the reactions even from AGW supporters.
This delightful film series has the title “No Pressure” and is written by Richard Curtis, a highly
successful writer with a long list of comedy successes to his name. It comes from the Franny Armstrong stable, famous for the dreadful “Age of Stupid” film,
showing a world destroyed by its inhabitants. This nice little example is no comedy, although it producers think it is highly entertaining. The title of the Guardian article in which the film is linked, is entitled: “There
will be blood”. Read the rest of
this entry » (SPPI)
In partnership with Sony and O2 - blowing up dissenting kids!
WUWT reader Richard Sharpe here has provided a list of 10:10
partners below. Send at least one or two of them a short complaint (No pressure to do so – really!
Let them know how appalling their involvement is and ask them how they feel to be supporting an organization that depicts the blowing up of children and
defends it as humour. BOYCOTT as well if you can.
These organisations have to relearn what it is to be civil and tolerant of other opinions. It gets down to the human right to dissent.
They have to pledge to take steps to include and promote dissenting views in future discussions. It’s the only way back to being civilised
(see clip below).
Apologies are not enough. They can and should take action. In the end, everyone would win.
When people believe they have ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE, with no test in reality, this is how they behave.
Every judgement in science stands on the edge of error, and is personal.
Hopefully other blogs, especially those who can really make a difference, can join in as well. We are only asking for a voice in the discussion,
that’s all. (No Tricks Zone)
Why did the Charities Commission let the European wing of Rajendra Pachauri's empire get away with such poor accounting, asks Christopher Booker. (TDT)
Three years ago, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was co-winner with Al Gore of the Nobel Peace for his global
warming alarmism.
If governments won’t fire him when the IPCC meets at the Korean seaside resort of Busan next week, he should fall on his sword. For the good of the
battered reputation of climate-change science. For the good of the planet.
Next weekend, as delegates from 194 countries gather in South Korea for a crucial meeting of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, their
big talking point will be whether the IPCC’s chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri should resign – as a recent report from the world’s leading scientific
academies seemed strongly to hint he should.
The delegates face a dilemma. If they sack him, it would be a serious blow to the reputation of the panel, which has been central to the global warming scare
since its founding in 1988. If he stays, it could severely damage the authority of its next major report, due in four years’ time.
Although it is encouraging that the Royal Society now acknowledges that
climate science may not be as settled as it previously implied, the Society’s new report still stands as an embarrassment to science because it fails to offer
justifications based on science (and policy analysis) for a number of its (politically correct) statements.
This report is an addition to the literature on this subject. However, the report perpetuates the significant misconception that global warming and
climate change are synonymous. They are NOT.
Their text
“Climate forcing (also known as radiative forcing) [is the] imbalance in the Earth’s energy budget resulting from, for example, changes in the energy
received from the Sun, changes in the amounts or characteristics of greenhouse gases and particles, or changes in the nature of the Earth’s surface”
and
“Climate sensitivity…is the amount of climate change (as measured by the change in globally-averaged surface temperature) for a given amount of climate
forcing.”
is not scientifically accurate. Radiative forcing is just a subset of a diversity of climate forcings. Climate sensitivity is much more than
can be diagnosed by a change in the globally-averaged surface temperature.
The Royal Society has ignored this broader view. For example, the US National Research Council report
“Despite all these advantages, the traditional global mean TOA radiative forcing concept has some important limitations, which have come increasingly to
light over the past decade. The concept is inadequate for some forcing agents, such as absorbing aerosols and land-use changes, that may have regional climate
impacts much greater than would be predicted from TOA radiative forcing. Also, it diagnoses only one measure of climate change – global mean surface
temperature response – while offering little information on regional climate change or precipitation. These limitations can be addressed by expanding the
radiative forcing concept and through the introduction of additional forcing metrics. In particular, the concept needs to be extended to account for (1) the
vertical structure of radiative forcing, (2) regional variability in radiative forcing, and (3) nonradiative forcing……”
“Climate is conventionally defined as the long-term statistics of the weather (e.g., temperature, cloudiness, precipitation). This definition emphasizes
the atmospheric and physical components of the climate system. These physical processes within the atmosphere are affected by ocean circulation, the
reflectivity of the Earth.s surface, the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and vegetation patterns, among other factors. Improved understanding of how the
atmosphere interacts with the oceans, the cryosphere (ice-covered regions of the world), and the terrestrial and marine biospheres has led scientists to expand
the definition of climate to encompass the oceanic and terrestrial spheres as well as chemical components of the atmosphere (Figure 1-1). This expanded definition promotes an Earth system approach to studying how
and why climate changes.”
and
“Global radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), as used in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is relatively
easy to compute in climate models and has straightforward policy applications. However, it has important limitations when applied to radiative forcing agents
not conventionally considered as such (e.g., aerosols, land-use change) or when used to measure climatic implications other than global mean temperature (e.g.,
regional precipitation). To address these limitations, the concept of radiative forcing needs to be expanded; that expansion is a major theme of this report.”
This perspective was not included adequately in the 2007 IPCC report nor in the Royal Society report.
A short summary of this broader perspective is in our paper
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski,
E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol.
90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union
where we wrote
“In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, other first-order human climate forcings are important to understanding the future behavior of Earth’s climate.
These forcings are spatially heterogeneous and include the effect of aerosols on clouds and associated precipitation [e.g., Rosenfeld et al., 2008], the
influence of aerosol deposition (e.g., black carbon (soot) [Flanner et al. 2007] and reactive nitrogen [Galloway et al., 2004]), and the role of changes in
land use/land cover [e.g., Takata et al., 2009]. Among their effects is their role in altering atmospheric and ocean circulation features away from what
they would be in the natural climate system [NRC, 2005]. As with CO2, the lengths of time that they affect the climate are estimated to be on multidecadal
time scales and longer.”
The Royal Society is making progress, but it still has more work to do in order to properly report on the current understanding of the role of humans
and natural processes within the climate system. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
The convergence in the coming year of three cyclical conditions affecting ocean temperatures and weather is likely to create unprecedented challenges for states
that depend on water from the Colorado River, a new UCLA study suggests.
"If I were concocting a recipe for a perfect drought, this would be it," said Glen MacDonald, co-author of the study and director of UCLA's Institute
of the Environment and Sustainability.
Along with a former graduate student, MacDonald has found that the combination of La Niña with two less commonly known ocean conditions — the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation — tends to result in drought in the upper reaches of the Colorado River. The ocean conditions have been
known to diminish precipitation in the Southwest but, examined separately, have proven to be poor indicators of drought conditions in the upper reaches of the
river.
"It's the combination that's key," said lead author Abbie Tingstad, who conducted the research as a graduate student in geography at UCLA. She is now
an associate physical scientist at the RAND Corp.
The convergence of these patterns in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans may well drive water levels in the Lake Mead reservoir below a critical threshold and could
potentially result in reduced water allocations for Arizona and Nevada, the researchers say. (UCLA)
Politicizing of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and governments directed it to proving that only human CO2 was
causing climate change. This ensured almost no advance in climate science in 20 years. It is said, inaccurately, that the science is settled. It is accurate to
say the IPCC and governments settled the science. (Tim ball, CFP)
An analysis of geological records that preserve details of the last known period of global warming has revealed 'startling' results which suggest current
targets for limiting climate change are unsafe. (University of Exeter)
That there is absolutely no "safe" level of carbon constraint is perfectly true -- people will suffer and die with any level of
energy rationing no matter how it is imposed and that is what "carbon constraint" really means, restricting energy use. No "climate target"
is safe for humanity and a flat out "no regrets" policy is the only path with upside, that it has no known downside is a major bonus. All
"climate policies" will impose harm but there is no guarantee (or real reason to expect) any benefit so they are the least desirable option for any
but uncaring fear profiteers and rank misanthropists. And really, who cares what is good for them?
What does it take to save a species in the 21st century? The specter of climate change, with predicted losses to biodiversity as high as 35 percent, has some
scientists and managers considering taking their conservation strategies on the road. (Arizona State University)
'Techno-hippy' and lifelong green Stewart Brand says a shift to nuclear power and GM food is needed to prevent global warming (Damian Carrington, The
Observer)
Granted, both nuclear power and biotech crop enhancements have a place in meeting the needs of modern society but gorebull warbling is no
justification for anything at all.
RSS AMSU have
released their global temperature data for September 2010. The global anomaly was at +0.525 °C which is the lowest anomaly in 2010 so far - but it was enough
to keep September 2010 the warmest September on the RSS record; it's followed by +0.494 °C in September 1998.
Ed Caryl,
author of One Of Our Hemispehere Is Missing and A Light In Siberia, brings us his latest essay. If history is an indicator, then
today’s simultaneously declining PDO and AMO, in combination with a solar quiet period, mean that a “rapidly cooling situation” may be in the works, or we
could even be “headed for a new ice age”.
Sunspots and Temperature by Ed Caryl
Sunspots have been tracked systematically since 1700. Temperature has been
recorded in Central England since 1659. We can compare these two records and measure the relationship. Both
are plotted below.
Fig. 1: Sunspot activity and temperature
First, note that the trend lines for both temperature and sunspot number are parallel. Annual sunspots have been increasing since
the Maunder Minimum at about 10 spots per century. Temperature has been increasing at about 0.4°C per century.
Below, the irradiance data is plotted against the temperature data seen in Fig. 1 above. The irradiance is in watts per square
meter. Notice that the since the Maunder Minimum, the irradiance as increased by almost 3 watts/m2, on the same order as the supposed recent CO2
warming.
Fig. 2: Temperature and Solar Irradiance.
Figure 3 follows, and is a scatter diagram of solar irradiance and temperature. Note that it also shows a trend of 1 degree from
minimum irradiance to maximum. That also corresponds to 0.4 degrees per century.
Fig. 3: Temperature versus Irradiance
Another thing to notice is that warming takes place immediately as sunspots and irradiance increase, but cooling seems to be delayed
by a few years. This is likely due to the oceans’ “flywheel” effect on land temperatures, as has been noted by Juraj Vanovcan here.
The oceans take a long time to react to solar influence.
What does this say about the future?
The land temperature at the end of the Maunder Minimum was still falling after 50 years of no sunspots and minimum irradiance.
During the Dalton Minimum from 1800 to 1835, it took almost 20 years for the Central England
temperature to react by cooling. Other cooling events, in 1740 and 1880, have happened faster. The reaction time depends on timing with ocean cycles.
The Dalton Minimum took place during a high point in the PDO,
but the PDO was falling in 1880. At this time, 2010, PDO has fallen, and AMO is starting to fall. With the solar
cycle staying low, we may be in for a rapidly cooling situation.
What is the current irradiance? It is 2 Watts/square meter below the minimum shown by Judith Lean, above. Hopefully there is a
2-Watts/square meter offset error in her 2000 reconstruction, or we are headed for a new ice age.
What about CO2? According to the U. K. Met Office, the rise in the Central England temperature record after 1974, “has been adjusted to allow for urban warming”. They don’t reveal what those adjustments were, so that portion
of the record should be taken with a grain of salt, especially the last 10 years. No other evidence of anthropogenic temperature rise can be seen. (No Tricks
Zone)
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2, 2010 — Scientists have identified a way that the United States could immediately save the energy equivalent of about 350 million
barrels of oil a year — without spending a penny or putting a ding in the quality of life: Just stop wasting food. Their study, reported in ACS' semi-monthly
journal Environmental Science & Technology, found that it takes the equivalent of about 1.4 billion barrels of oil to produce, package, prepare, preserve
and distribute a year's worth of food in the United States.
Michael Webber and Amanda Cuéllar note that food contains energy and requires energy to produce, process, and transport. Estimates indicate that between 8 and
16 percent of energy consumption in the United States went toward food production in 2007. Despite this large energy investment, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture estimates that people in the U.S. waste about 27 percent of their food. The scientists realized that the waste might represent a largely
unrecognized opportunity to conserve energy and help control global warming. (ACS)
Efficiency is good but gorebull warbling? There's no motivation in utter nonsense.
If you want to focus on a single metric that tells you how fast an economy is decarbonizing (that is, reducing its ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to GDP)
then you should focus on changes in the proportion of energy consumption from carbon neutral sources. For any nation to hit emissions reductions targets,
and the world to hit low stabilization targets the simple mathematics indicate that annual
decarbonization rates will have to exceed 5% in most national economies.
The UK has suffered a second fall in renewable energy production this year, raising concern about the more than £1bn support
the industry receives each year from taxpayers.
The drop in electricity generated from wind, hydro and other clean sources in the first half of 2010 could also be a setback to the coalition government's
promise that the UK could help lead a "third industrial revolution"
and create a low-carbon economy.
With a sharp drop in output from nuclear power stations as well, greenhouse gas emissions from each unit of electricity generated will inevitably have risen, at
a time when the UK has pledged to cut such pollution, and is pressing other countries to do the same.
The renewable energy figures are likely to prompt
criticism of the government's energy policies from all sides. Supporters want ministers to increase funding for green industry so more wind farms are built,
reducing the risk of seasonal set backs; critics will say the government should instead increase support for energy efficiency, nuclear power or cleaner forms
of burning fossil fuels.
The changes in the UK energy mix suggest that the economy has become more carbon intensive as gas has increased at the expense of nuclear power:
The latest energy statistics for the second quarter of 2010 show total energy production in the UK was 9.2% lower than the same period last year, while final
energy consumption was 1.8% higher. Among the different fuels, output from oil and coal fell, while only gas increased its output, by 7.1%. It was a similar
picture for electricity alone: coal power stayed steady at about 23% of electricity supplied, nuclear output fell by 23% to 15.8%, and gas production rose by
more than 10% to over half of all electricity.
Renault has unveiled a range of production ready or near-production ready electric vehicles at the Paris motor show.
It is aiming to have a full range of EVs on sale to the public within the next two years.
The first car to market will be the Fluence Z.E., powered by a 94bhp electric motor, which will cost from around £22,500 ($35,500) minus the battery, which
Renault will lease to customers from around £68 ($107) per month. (UK Auto Blog)
$35,000 for your "car" and $100/month to lease the "fuel tank"...
“China’s control of a key minerals market has US military thinkers and policy makers worried about access to materials that are essential for
21st-century technology like smartphones – and smart bombs,” the Wall Street Journal reports. Plus stealth fighter jets, digital cameras, computer hard
drives – and wind turbine magnets, solar panels, hybrid and electric car batteries, compact fluorescent light bulbs, catalytic converters, and more.
China’s dominance in mining and processing 17 “rare earth” metals “has raised alarms in Washington,” says the Journal. These unique metallic elements
have powerful magnetic properties that make them sine qua non for high-tech, miniaturized and renewable energy equipment.
China currently produces fully 97% of the world’s rare-earth oxides, the raw materials that can be refined into metals and blended into specialty alloys for
defense, commercial and power-generation components. However, the Middle Kingdom has slashed its rare-earth oxide and metal exports.
Beijing claims to be motivated by environmental concerns – reflecting the fact that rare earths are present in very low concentrations, mountains of rock must
be mined, crushed and processed to get usable metals, and every step in the process requires oil, gasoline or coal-based electricity. A more likely reason is
that the Chinese want to manufacture the finished goods, thereby creating countless “green” factory jobs, paid for with US and EU taxpayer subsidies,
channeled through GE, Siemens, Vestas and other “socially responsible” companies that then install the systems across Europe and the USA.
So here we are, long beholden to foreign powers for petroleum – and newly dependent on foreign powers for “green” energy. National security issues (direct
defense needs and indirect dependency issues) once again rise to the fore, and the Defense Department, Government Accountability Office, House Science and
Technology Committee and others are busily issuing reports, holding hearings and expressing consternation. Congressman Bart Gordon (D-TN) worries that the
United States is being “held hostage.”
As well he should. However, the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves – or more precisely in our militant environmentalists. (Paul Driessen, Townhall)
One of the most curious facts about energy is that economies continue to use more of it even as they use it more efficiently. This strikes us as strange
because it has become an article of faith that making cars, buildings, and factories more energy efficient is the key to cheaply and quickly reducing energy
consumption, and thus pollution.
But energy experts have never seen this as particularly mysterious. As energy historian Vaclav Smil notes, “Historical evidence shows unequivocally that
secular advances in energy efficiency have not led to any declines of aggregate energy consumption.” A group of economists beginning in the 1980s went
further, suggesting that increasing the productivity of energy would increase economic growth and energy consumption.
Efficiency advocates dismiss the evidence of rebound of energy use pointing to direct behavioral changes at the household or business level that are
easiest to measure. But the most significant energy rebounds are indirect — in the production of energy, raw materials, and consumer goods — not in
the “end use” consumer products.
Below, a leading energy economist, Harry Saunders, explains why energy efficiency does not decrease energy consumption in the way we conventionally
understand it. In the process, Saunders clarifies the controversy over his recent co-authored study for the Journal of Physics, which reviews 300 years
of lighting history to predict the impact of new solid-state lighting technologies (e.g. LEDs).
Against the widespread belief that new lighting technology will reduce energy consumption, Saunders and his colleagues found that they will likely
increase it — greatly expanding the global use of lighting in the process, especially in developing countries. Saunders clarifies some important
questions, and explains the basics of “the rebound effect.”
With the new study, rebound has firmly moved from the theoretical to the empirical, and the implications of it must now be dealt with by all of us who were
counting on efficiency to be an easy way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Here is Saunders’s latest thinking: [Read more
→] (MasterResource)
Oil firm Chevron has received government consent to drill an exploration well to evaluate a controversial prospect off Shetland. The deep-water Lagavulin
prospect is 160 miles north of the islands. (MercoPress)
China is pouring another $7bn (£4.4bn) into Brazil's oil industry, reigniting fears of a global "land grab" of natural resources.
State-owned Sinopec clinched the deal with Spain's Repsol yesterday to buy 40 per cent of its Brazilian business, giving China's largest oil company access to
Repsol Brasil's estimated reserves of 1.2 billion barrels of oil and gas. The whopping price tag for Repsol Brasil – which values the company at nearly twice
previous estimates – is a sign of China's willingness to pay whatever it takes to lock in its future energy supplies and avoid social unrest. It will give the
company enough cash to develop all its current oil projects, including two fields in the Santos Basin. (Independent)
China’s Sinopec group, the country’s second-largest oil and gas producer, will invest 7.1 billion US dollars in Repsol-YPF’s Brazilian unit as the
Spanish oil company raises funds to develop offshore projects. (MercoPress)
Attacks on coal-mining and use would trample on hopes, progress, living standards and lives
Are these people crazy? Are they so disconnected from reality that they don’t understand how vital coal is to jobs, living standards, civil rights progress
and life itself?
How else can anyone react to a new environmentalist campaign to erect black crosses at coal mines and coal-fired power plants, to symbolize their opposition
to this vital energy source? The Black Cross Alliance (BCA) is little more than another sordid campaign against affordable energy, especially hydrocarbons. Its
policies are misguided at best, harmful and even lethal at worst. Read
the rest of this entry » (SPPI)
A new report by the Energy Policy Institute, in collaboration with the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, titled “Economic and Employment Impacts of Small Modular Nuclear
Reactors,” investigates how four separate scenarios of small modular reactor (SMR) construction could affect the U.S. economy. Growing interest and
discussion surrounding the potential commercialization of small nuclear rectors, both in the U.S. and abroad, makes the study timely and relevant.
The study investigates potential impacts of SMR manufacturing, construction, and operation on the U.S. economy. Researchers relied on organizational model
data contributions from industry members, demonstrating their integral role in new nuclear technology advancement. As the study’s input–output analysis
reveals, both the direct and indirect economic impacts are potentially quite robust. Findings taken directly from the study project that: Continue reading... (The Foundry)
President Obama promised that workers could keep their health insurance, but McDonald's hourly employees may lose their "mini-med" plans unless
the... View Enlarged Image
Health Care: A big employer mulls dropping health insurance coverage due to ObamaCare's mandates. The claim that if you like your plan you can keep it was a
lie, and the effort to destroy private insurance is working.
The 30,000 or so hourly workers at McDonald's undoubtedly like the health care plan their employer provides and would like to keep it. For $14 a week, a worker
gets a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000; $32 a week gets you coverage up to $10,000.
They get minimum coverage at a minimum price, but most younger workers are healthy and for that reason, they constitute a high percentage of the uninsured. What
McDonald's Corp. offers is not a one-size-fits-all nanny-state special that forces young males to pay for mammograms.
President Obama promised that under ObamaCare these workers could keep these plans, but McDonald's has told federal regulators in a memo that it would be
"economically prohibitive" for its insurance carrier to continue to cover its hourly workers unless it receives a waiver to the ObamaCare requirement
that 80% of premiums for such "mini-med" plans be spent on medical care.
Other large employers who offer such plans could find themselves in the same dilemma — companies like Home Depot, CVS, Staples and Blockbuster. The net result
for many would be going from minimal coverage that fits their current needs to no coverage at all — at least until 2014, when ObamaCare is in full swing.
(IBD)
No, seriously. First Lady Michelle Obama is asking nurses to promote ObamaCare to their patients.
With hundreds of thousands of medical errors occurring each year — a problem that ObamaCare does nothing to address — this is exactly what I want my nurse
thinking about as she’s inserting a needle into my arm. (Cato at liberty)
LONDON (Reuters) - British scientists have found the first direct evidence that attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a genetic disorder and say
their research could eventually lead to better treatments for the condition.
Researchers who scanned the gene maps of more than 1,400 children found that those with ADHD were more likely than others to have small chunks of their DNA
duplicated or missing.
Anita Thapar, a professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at Cardiff University who led the study, said the research should help dispel the myths that ADHD
is caused by bad parenting or poor diets that are too high in sugar. (Reuters)
A child nutrition bill that was a centerpiece of Michelle Obama's healthful eating campaign stalled in the House on Wednesday after anti-hunger groups and
more than 100 Democrats protested the use of food stamp dollars to pay for it.
The bill, which passed unanimously in the Senate this summer, would have mandated strict nutrition standards for all food sold in schools and boosted spending
on school meals and other nutrition programs by $4.5 billion over 10 years -- the first increase since 1973. The legislation must be reauthorized every five
years. In 2009, Congress passed a one-year extension.
Anti-hunger advocates denounced the bill, which was to be funded in part by $2 billion in cuts to the federal food stamp program, or SNAP. The reduction,
according to the Washington-based Food Research and Action Center, would have cut $59 from a typical family of four's monthly food budget. Calling such cuts
egregious, 106 Democrats wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in protest.
"That additional amount of food stamps is absolutely fundamental to children and families' well-being," said Jim Weil, FRAC's president. "The
people who belittle that are ignoring at their peril what is happening to the 41 million poorest people in the country." (Washington Post)
The OECD published a major study last week entitled “Fit not fat: Obesity and the economics of prevention.” The study comes
with a heaping side order of data, all of it focused on what the report repeatedly calls the “epidemic” of obesity in rich countries. Most of the data
relies on the “body mass index” or BMI, which is your weight divided by the square of your height. If you’re not so good at calculating squares, there’s
now a handy, downloadable BMI-calculator iPhone app on the website of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
As this space has emphasized before, BMI is an arbitrary and controversial measure. It assumes you have an “average body composition” and the exact
cutoffs chosen to determine when someone is overweight are very much in dispute. Still, for what they’re worth, the data show a big increase in BMIs in the
last several decades. One good thing about the study is that it’s economically literate, so it attributes much of this increase to the substantial decline in
the relative price of food over the last few decades. Any earlier civilization would have seen cheaper food as a godsend, but we are now so rich we worry about
it.
South Australian Coroner Mark Johns concluded that parents sleeping with their babies put them at great risk as he was conducting an inquest into the deaths of
five babies in 2007 and 2008. The youngest was aged just three weeks and the oldest 10 months. While the cause of death remained undetermined in four of the
cases, the infants were all sharing a bed or were sleeping with an adult when they died. Mr Johns said, “The message to be drawn from these five tragic deaths
is that the risk of sudden, unexplained death in infancy is greatly increased where a child sleeps in the same bed with one or more parents or other adults,
whether the mechanism of death is asphyxia due to overlaying, bedding or otherwise.”
One of the deaths was seven week old Hannah Francis who died of suffocation as her father lay on the couch with her on his chest. The father had fallen asleep
and when he woke up around 3 AM he found his baby suffocated, lying between a pillow and the back of the couch. Naomi Kade, a 10 month old was asphyxiated by
her sleeping grandmother’s arm on her nose and mouth. Of the other babies who died similarly Jaia Nelson was three months old when she died, James Cleland
four months and Diesel Phelan three months old.
According to South Australian SIDS and Kids state manager Colin Cameron, they have been trying to stop co-sleeping for two decades now. He said, “We recommend
that parents do not co-sleep at all…Infants are very vulnerable in those first 12 months.” (Medical News)
This weekend's time-shift will again plunge millions of Australians into temporary sleep debt, which experts warn can trigger a jump in workplace accidents
and heart attacks.
Clocks will be turned forward an hour in the eastern states, excluding Queensland, and in South Australia at 2am on Sunday to start daylight saving for the
2010-11 summer.
While it delivers an extra hour of daylight during waking hours and reduces energy use, Associate Professor Greg Murray said the change also posed some
short-term risks and challenges.
"Initially there is an acute sleep deprivation of one hour," Dr Murray, from Melbourne's Swinburne University of Technology, said today.
"On top of the chronic sleep deprivation that many people suffer, this additional loss of sleep appears to cause decreased alertness, concentration and
mental performance."
Dr Murray, who studies the role of circadian rhythms in mood disorders, said it could take days and weeks for a person's sleep-wake rhythm to adjust fully to
daylight saving. (AAP)
Increased accidents, yes, maybe even other adverse health events but it does not save energy. Daylight saving can conserve whale oil and
candles if they are your lighting source but it most assuredly does not save on net energy use.
What keeps the environmental activism industry in business? Fear. (Part IV of the Washington Examiner/PJM special report on the environmental movement.)
(Charlie Martin, PJM)
What does the future hold for the environmental activism movement? Look to California. (Part V of the Washington Examiner/PJM special report on the
environmental movement.) (Charlie Martin, PJM)
The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Belkin reported this week that "anger against incumbent Democrats echoes across the rural Midwest." Belkin cited a
WSJ/NBC poll from last month showing that Midwesterners and rural Americans are even more likely than other voters to disapprove of President Obama and to think
the country is on the wrong track.
"There's little doubt that the Midwest is the Democrat's toughest region this year," Democratic pollster Tom Jensen concedes. "If the election
was today, the party would almost certainly lose the governorships it holds in Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania," plus a host of
Midwest Senate seats.
But why? One underreported reason is the belief, widespread among Farm Belt residents, that Obama administration environmental regulators are gunning for them.
Farmers, ranchers, and foresters "are increasingly frustrated and bewildered by vague, overreaching, and unnecessarily burdensome EPA regulations," a
U.S. senator charged last week. They "are facing at least a dozen new regulatory requirements, each of which will add to their costs, making it harder for
them to compete.… [M]ost if not all of these regulations rely on dubious rationales." (American Spectator)
Canada’s boreal forest stretches from British Columbia to Newfoundland, covering 2.2 million square miles, an area nearly 60 percent the size of the United
States. Much of that forest is intact, making it — along with Russia’s northern forest and portions of the Amazon — one of three great tracts of forest on
the globe. In recent years, however, industrial activity, including Alberta’s massive
tar sands mines, has been nibbling away at the Canadian boreal forest. In an effort to preserve it, nine environmental groups and 21 forest products companies
have signed the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, which calls for a suspension of logging on 70 million acres of boreal forest and the introduction of improved
logging practices on an additional 106 million acres. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Steven Kallick, director of the Pew Environment Group’s
International Boreal Conservation Campaign, which brokered the accord, explains that it is part of a much larger effort to fully protect 50 percent of
Canada’s boreal forest from industrial development. (Steven E. Kallick, e360)
In a speech in Gothenburg, spiked’s editor called for a rebellion against the ethics of environmentalism.
spiked’s editor Brendan O’Neill was invited to the Gothenburg Book Fair on 24 September to speak about the ‘human footprint’. An edited version of his
speech is published below. (Brendan O’Neill, spiked)
The roots of our current problems of climate change and resource depletion go back 6,000 years to the arrival of farming
The introduction of sheep in British brought to an end the more sustainable hunter-gatherer way of life. Photograph: Christopher Thomond
As an archaeologist my work is rooted in the past. As an inhabitant of the 21st century, I try to be "green". As an academic I am keen to re-awaken
interest in the ancient hunter-gatherer population who lived in Britain before the arrival of farming 6,000 years ago. In my recent research, I found that all
three come together and, what is more, they help me to show that archaeology has relevance – it is not just old stones and bones.
There is a growing realisation that life, as we live it, is not sustainable. We devote books, magazines, courses and thinktanks to the problem. But the existing
analysis is shallow; it focuses on the present and on the status quo. For this reason, there is no quick fix for us today; to talk about climate change,
renewable energy or staycations is merely to scratch the surface of something much deeper. (Caroline Wickham-Jones, Guardian)
Public comment is sought on the development of the next USGCRP National Climate Assessment.
JunkScience.com visitors are encouraged to submit comments as requested by the FR notice.
The reason for doing this is to ensure that climate realists' views are adequately represented in the NCA and any ignoring of those views is done at the
USGCRP's legal/political peril.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454, aka the
Waxman-Markey climate bill) and the American Power Act (aka Kerry-Lieberman climate bill) both
contained explicit provisions to create not just a U.S.-side cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide (CO2) but also a single, transatlantic emissions
trading scheme.
The problem is that even if cap-and-trade is dead in the U.S. Senate, its advocates remain committed and have options for international action. The more this
can be understood, the more the electorate can reject U.S.-side help for a futile, costly international scheme to regulate CO2 in the name of
“stabilizing” climate.
A clear warning that supranational cap and trade was planned beyond the EU’s borders came in a speech last May by the European Commission official Jos Delbeke, Deputy
Director General DG Environment. He told an audience in Berlin that:
“We are confident that we now have a solid system from which we can link up to similar schemes elsewhere in the world. The EU’s goal is indeed a
global carbon market.…
The EU ETS and the future U.S. cap-and-trade system – integrated into a transatlantic carbon market – can be the twin engines driving the
OECD-wide carbon market. The progress on domestic legislation in the U.S. is an essential step in this regard and we are encouraged by
Congressional timetables for getting draft legislation to a floor vote in the coming months.”
I recently spoke to Adam C. T. Matthews, the Secretary General of an organisation called GLOBE International
– an environmental policy talking shop for parliamentarians, who told me that this this is something “which Europe was desperate for”. They think that the
carbon market could be in serious trouble without it.
Those drafting cap and trade legislation in the United States haven’t let their European counterparts down. In Waxman-Markey there is explicit provision to
link with other cap and trade schemes. The conditions are set out in Section 728. International Emission Allowances:
“The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may by rule designate an international climate change program as a qualifying
international program if—
(1) the program is run by a national or supranational foreign government, and imposes a mandatory absolute tonnage limit on greenhouse gas emissions from
1 or more foreign countries, or from 1 or more economic sectors in such a country or countries; and
(2) the program is at least as stringent as the program established by this title, including provisions to ensure at least comparable monitoring,
compliance, enforcement, quality of offsets, and restrictions on the use of offsets.”
For approved programmes – and the intention is clearly that the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), at least, would qualify – emissions
allowances from abroad are interchangeable with those granted in the US. Section 722. Prohibition of Excess Emissions makes that clear: [Read more →] (MasterResource)
Cap-and-trade is dead because the public finally caught on that it is a stealth energy tax, a big reason being that it makes coal - the most economic
electricity fuel in many markets - uncompetitive.
That's exactly what a Clean Energy Standard (CES) would do. "Clean" essentially means "anything but coal.” Instead of pricing the carbon
emissions from coal, as a cap-and-trade program does, a CES simply prohibits coal from competing with other energy sources for a specified portion of the
nation’s electricity market.
Yes, I know, coal with carbon capture and storage qualifies as “clean,” but carbon capture is unlikely to be commercially viable any time soon. Thus, a CES
would effectively ban some – perhaps most – investment in new coal capacity. Just like cap-and-tax, a CES would demoralize the coal industry and scare off
potential investors.
I haven’t seen Sen. Graham’s specific proposal. From the descriptions, however, a CES is very much like the Renewable Fuel Standard (ethanol mandate) and
the Bingaman-Brownback Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). In each case, politicians tell industry what to produce and how much. All such schemes bear an
eerie resemblance to the production quota featured in Soviet five-year plans.
Sen. Graham is correct about one thing – a CES is more internally consistent than an RES. If your goal is to build a low- or zero-carbon energy system, then
it makes no sense to leave nuclear energy out of the quota. Indeed, nuclear power probably has a lower carbon footprint than wind and solar have, because
nuclear does not need to be backed up by coal- or gas-fired generation when the wind doesn’t blow and the Sun doesn’t shine.
Although Graham’s proposal would do much mischief if enacted, I am happy to see it drain political support from its more prominent cousin, the
Bingaman-Brownback RES. My advice to both sides is, “Let’s you and him fight!” (Marlo Lewis, National Journal)
The UK today has made it official. With the release of its revised guide to
climate change by the Royal Society, the nation’s preeminent scientific organization, the UK now formally joins the ranks of the denier nations. The
science on climate change is no longer certain, the Society now says.
Climate change: a summary of the science was commissioned in May after
a revolt by 43 Fellows of the Royal Society, who felt that the society had been acting more as hot-headed advocates than cool-headed scientists. Its previous
president, Lord May, had particularly rankled Royal Society scientists by claiming, without having canvassed his membership, that “The debate on climate
change is over” and that “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”
The debate is now officially not over, the society says. “The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the
regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty,” it explains, appearing to chide scientists who have tried to make scary predictions about the future that
had no basis in science: “There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.”
Moreover, the Royal Society now states that so little is known about how different today’s climate is from the past that “some uncertainties are unlikely
ever to be significantly reduced.”
Thursday, 30 September 2010 07:34 Dr. Benny Peiser
LONDON, 30 September - The Global Warming Policy Foundation has welcomed the Royal Society's decision to revise and tone down its position on climate change.
Its new climate guide is an improvement on their more alarmist 2007 pamphlet which caused an internal rebellion by more than 40 fellows of the Society and
triggered a review and subsequent revisions.
The former publication gave the misleading impression that the 'science is settled' - the new guide accepts that important questions remain open and
uncertainties unresolved. "The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10
years," said Dr Benny Peiser, the Director of the GWPF.
Climate change continues to be a subject of intense public and political debate. Because of the level of interest in the topic the Royal Society has produced
a new guide to the science of climate change. The guide summarises the current scientific evidence on climate change and its drivers, highlighting the areas
where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain.
The document was prepared by a working group chaired by Professor John Pethica, Vice President of the Royal Society and was approved by the Royal Society
Council.
The Velvet Revolution sparked by the ClimateGate needed almost one year to propagate from East Anglia to the top U.K. scientific institution in London which is
just 100 miles away; you may estimate how many years it will take for the signal to get to the Brussels or the U.S. ;-)
After a rebellion by 43 members, a new document (PDF) was born.
It describes the future climate as follows:
... Some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced. ...
... The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. ...
... There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales. ...
... It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future. ...
... There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our
understanding. ...
And so on. So go back to the blackboard, Sirs. While I am convinced that the new guide still includes lots of bogus claims that are on steroids written by
people who are on sedatives, it is an undeniable progress.
The new document was authored by a whole working group but the key statements about the uncertainty were recommended by two fellows who are close to Lord Blaby
and his GWPF. One of them was Anthony Kelly.
Great Britain’s most prominent scientific body significantly
softened its position on global warming after 43 of its members complained that the previous position did not take into account dissenting evidence.
Although the Royal Society’s climate change guide still asserts that greenhouse gas gases resulting from human activity contributes to warming, it does so more prudently:
There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different timescales from decades to many millions of years;
human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change. It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth
will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made.
Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or
larger than those projected.
Mr Vítězslav Kremlík,
the climate skeptic and blogger at klimaskeptik.cz, was invited to the proceedings of the Czech segment of the IPCC meant to prepare a unified Czech stance for
the upcoming 32nd plenary session of the IPCC in
South Korea (October 11th-14th in Busan).
It turned out that the Czech IPCC folks, usually considered to be generic fearmongers (it may be our fault: we sometimes demonize all IPCC members and create
the impression that all of them are hardcore power-thirsty lunatics just like Pachauri), are just compatible with the skeptical viewpoint. All the participants
agreed that
Rajendra Pachauri has to resign or be resigned
The reforms recommended by the IAC panel should be implemented right now, for the fifth report - rather than in 5 years or so
The nominations from May 2010 should be canceled; new nominations respecting the IAC recommendations should replace them
Politicians' interventions to the scientific work should be minimized as much as possible
The fifth report (AR5) shouldn't be another variation of the old theme; instead, it should represent an audit of the climatology studied by 2010: it
should check the graphs, re-evaluate the scores quantifying the uncertainty of the findings, and separate previous claims to correct ones, exaggerated ones,
and completely wrong ones
Mr Kremlík had a feeling that he was attending a party of fellow skeptics and was puzzled where the sudden skepticism came from.
Prof Garth Paltridge released Climate Caper a year
ago. As a working atmospheric physicist, his description of the fall of modern science is as insightful as his descriptions of the physics of the climate.
One of the messages that struck me was his point that it used to be seen as imperative for scientists to not be too specialized; to work
in different specialties.
He points out thatthe mandate to publish or perish has far reaching consequences. To sum up his argument: the survival of a research
scientist now depends on their ability to produce multiple papers; this rewards people who dilute their work, focus on trivial non-problems, and in
short–tackle anything but difficult issues and deep revolutions.
Because of the need for multiple publications, no institution today would employ a scientist who was trained in another area–the new researcher would
require too much uptime before their publications began to roll. So universities aim to find PhD grads who are an exact fit for the program.
(…aiming to find an exact fit, ensures) narrow-mindedness of scientific outlook, mediocrity in research, and a
scientific literature that is so vast and overladen with minute of the unimportant, that most of it is never read by anyone. Which is quite a change from
the middle of the last century, when it was drilled into the aspiring scientist that the very worst thing to do was “to spend ones life repeatings ones
PhD.” Change of field, and indeed complete change of discipline, was regarded then as one of the essential mechanisms for maintaining the quality of
scientific research.
Just last year experts at the International Energy Agency proposed a target for China's carbon emissions to peak in 2020 before declining if the world were
to be saved from devastating climate change. Too late now.
Figures from energy firm BP showed earlier this year that Chinese emissions will steamroll through the Paris-based IEA's 2020 peak target next year, nearly a
decade early, with no sign of slowing down.
China, which hosts U.N. climate talks next week for the first time, is promoting what it calls ambitious plans to boost energy efficiency and curb emissions.
But its supercharged growth means even with rapid efficiency gains it cancels out other global efforts to combat climate change.
China already emits a quarter of the world's CO2, the main gas contributing to global warming, making it the world's top emitter ahead of the United States. Its
emissions have more than doubled since 2000. (Reuters)
Gary Padgett, writing to a tropical storm list-serv I am on, provides an interesting factoid, which I reproduce here with his permission (emphasis added):
We’re now at the first of October, and there’ve been no Category 3 or higher hurricanes (IH) to make landfall in the U. S. so far this season. The chances
of a U. S. landfalling IH decrease significantly after 1 October. Over the past half-century, the only IHs to make landfall in the U. S. after 1 October were
Hilda (1964), Opal (1995), and Wilma (2005). Hilda and Opal were already named tropical storms on the map as September ended—the only case forming in the
month of October was Wilma.
If an IH does not make landfall in the U. S. during the remainder of this season, this will make five consecutive seasons without an IH landfall in the U. S.
The last such instance of this (based upon the current HURDAT file) was 1910 – 1914. However, that being said, some caveats are in order.
(1) The current Saffir/Simpson classification of historical U. S. hurricanes was made by Hebert and Taylor in 1975. The parameter used to classify most of these
was central pressure (CP), based on the older nominal CP ranges associated with each category. Nowadays, the S/S classification is based strictly upon the MSW
at landfall.
(2) There are several cases, especially in the late 1930s, 1940s, and early 1950s, for which the assigned S/S category does not match the Best Track winds, so
when they are eventually re-analyzed, the landfalling category could be adjusted up or down.
(3) Hurricanes Gustav and Ike of 2008 both made their U. S. landfall with an estimated MSW of 95 kts, and with CPs of 957 and 952 mb, respectively. Had these
storms occurred in the early 20th century, they would have been classified as Category 3 hurricanes, and barring any reliable wind measurements (which would
have been unlikely) would have probably remained classified as such during the re-analysis. Similarly, though not within the past five years, Hurricanes Floyd
and Isabel, which made landfall with an estimated MSW of 90 kts and CP around 956 mb, would have been classified as Category 3 hurricanes based on the CP.
Even with the caveats, the US has had a remarkable streak of luck with respect to hurricanes -- or maybe, it's climate change! ;-) (Roger Pielke Jr.)
Abstract: Perlwitz etal (2009) used computer model suites to contend that the 2008 North American cooling was naturally induced as a result of the
continent’s sensitivity to widespread cooling of the tropical (La Nina) and northeastern Pacific sea surface temperatures. But they concluded from their
models that warming is likely to resume in coming years and that climate is unlikely to embark upon a prolonged period of cooling. We here show how their models
fail to recognize the multidecadal behavior of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Basin, which determines the frequency of El Ninos and La Ninas and
suggests that the cooling will likely continue for several decades. We show how this will be reinforced with multidecadal shift in the Atlantic.
Global warming may have given Australia its wettest September in more than 100 years, but "extreme dry years" lie ahead, the Bureau of
Meteorology (BOM) says.
BOM senior climatologist Blair Trewin said September saw an average of 49mm of rain nationwide, the highest since 41mm in 1906 and almost three times above the
long-term average of 17mm a year.
He said there was some evidence that increased levels of greenhouse gases contributed to the increased rainfall.
Prevailing westerly winds were shifting southward, bringing wetter conditions.
"September is normally the driest on record," Mr Trewin told journalists via teleconference on Thursday.
"We expect to see, with increased levels of greenhouse gases, a decline in rainfall in southwest WA and increased frequency of extreme dry years
like the one we've just had."
Mr Trewin said exceptional rainfall in northern and central Australia, normally dry at this time of year, pushed the average rainfall higher.
The record rainfalls arose partly from a strong seasonal La Nina (cooling) event in the region.
It was the wettest September on record in the NT and Queensland, and the third wettest in South Australia and Western Australia. (AAP) [em added]
Warming may be increasing rainfall and that will make it really dry...
The on-going claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming have been ramped up again lately because of the opportunities presented by the heat wave in
Russia and the floods in Pakistan, which are also being claimed as attributable to anthropogenic CO2. If the amount spent on global warming were to be diverted
to mitigating and preventing the worst effects of natural disasters, then the desperate plight of the people of Pakistan would be relieved more quickly. (SPPI)
Al gore sells out, some environmentalists are upset at the pale hue of President Obama’s green record and a new planet made of porridge has been
discovered. (Daily Bayonet)
Forests of genetically altered trees and other plants could sequester several billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year and so help ameliorate global
warming, according to estimates published in the October issue of BioScience.
The study, by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, outlines a variety of strategies for augmenting the
processes that plants use to sequester carbon dioxide from the air and convert it into long-lived forms of carbon, first in vegetation and ultimately in soil.
(R&D)
Despite average cash injections of $2bn annually over recent years and large untapped gas reserves, electricity capacity remains at about 40 watts per capita,
roughly enough to run one vacuum cleaner for every 25 inhabitants.
China manages 466 watts per person, Germany 1,468. South Africa, the continent’s economic powerhouse, generates 10 times as much electricity as Nigeria for a
population one-third the size.
Officials calculate that the
potential activity stymied by lack of electricity amounts to $130bn a year.
In the absence of a functioning grid, those who can afford it, spend about $13bn a year running the small generators whose rattle and sputter is the soundtrack
of urban life. The poorest 40 per cent have no access to electricity.
Banks estimate that spending on power drives up their costs by 20 per cent, helping push interest rates well beyond what small businesses can afford.
Potential investors are hardly filled with confidence when the lights go out at ministries or – terrifyingly – airports.
The article has two very powerful quotes:
As Babatunde Fashola, Lagos state governor, said of the [Nigerian business conference] audience: “For them, electricity has become as important as oxygen.”
And:
As if the audience needed reminding, the organisers added: “The cost of darkness is infinite.”
The White House would like nothing better than for Americans to forget their incompetent handling of the Gulf oil spill. And if a complicit national media had anything
to do with it, they would get their wish. Not once since the spill occurred, have any serious questions been leveled at
the White House about their bungled response to it.
Not once did a national reporter ask the president why he blocked permits to protect a fragile coastline. Not once did the president address why he
needlessly delayed skimmers and clean-up efforts. To this day Obama has never addressed that scientists have found vast amounts of oil still floating beneath
the water’s surface. The president has not addressed the inaction on his part that led to the crisis getting worse, or the BP “settlement” that may
include taxpayer dollars.
But above all, the president is not being appropriately pressed to end his reckless and economy-crushing drilling moratorium. One Democratic Senator is not
as accepting of the White House’s malfeasance. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) has placed a hold on President Obama’s OMB nominee, Jack Lew, until the White
House lifts the moratorium. Landrieu told POLITICO: Continue reading... (The Foundry)
HOUSTON — Five months after the BP oil spill, a federal moratorium still prohibits new deepwater drilling in the American waters of the Gulf of Mexico. And
under longstanding federal law, drilling is also banned near the coast of Florida.
Yet next year, a Spanish company will begin drilling new wells 50 miles from the Florida Keys — in Cuba’s sovereign waters.
Cuba currently produces little oil. But oil experts say the country might have reserves along its north coast as plentiful as that of the international oil
middleweights, Ecuador and Colombia — enough to bolster its faltering economy and cut its dependence on Venezuela for its energy needs. (NYT)
Energy companies are rushing to develop unconventional sources of oil and gas trapped in carbon-rich shales and sands throughout the western United States
and Canada. So far, government officials have shown little concern for the environmental consequences of this new fossil fuel development boom. (Keith
Schneider, e360)
Director James Cameron, centre, tours a reclaimed oil sands area with Syncrude spokeswoman Cheryl Robb, middle left. Postmedia News
The Avatar director proves to be willing to learn on his tour of the oil sands
Kudos to Hollywood über-director James Cameron for demonstrating this week that he’s not your average Tinsel Town eco
airhead. Mr. Cameron went to the Alberta oilsands pumped with environmental passion, but proved willing to learn something.
It was certainly a bit embarrassing to see Ed Stelmach rushing back from Ottawa for an audience with the director of Avatar and The Terminator,
but, as the Alberta Premier pointed out, whether we like it or not, figures such as Mr. Cameron have extraordinary clout.
The Canadian-born Mr. Cameron, who is way more scientifically savvy than most celebrity poseurs, toured both open pit and in situ developments, and spoke
with numerous members of the industry. He also visited Fort Chipewyan, a native settlement that activists say has been poisoned by the industry. Aboriginal
leaders had clearly hoped they might use Mr. Cameron for their main ancestral priority — fundraising — but he refused to be sucked into one aboriginal
leader’s parroted suggestion that the oilsands were a “curse.”
Department of Energy and Climate Change says lower wind speeds and rainfall led to 12% drop between April and June
The UK has suffered a second fall in renewable energy production this year, raising concern about the more than £1bn support the industry receives each year
from taxpayers.
The drop in electricity generated from wind, hydro and other clean sources in the first half of 2010 could also be a setback to the coalition government's
promise that the UK could help lead a "third industrial revolution" and create a low-carbon economy.
The DECC today said lower than expected wind speeds and rainfall led to a 12% fall in renewable electricity generated between April and June, compared to the
same period in 2009. This setback follows a smaller but still notable decline between January and March, again compared to last year.
With a sharp drop in output from nuclear power stations as well, greenhouse gas emissions from each unit of electricity generated will inevitably have risen, at
a time when the UK has pledged to cut such pollution, and is pressing other countries to do the same. (Guardian)
Policy changes and a lack of long-term outlooks within member states’ plans to tackle climate change has led a large majority of asset managers to
reconsider low carbon investments, according to an industry survey.
Research commissioned by the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) and conducted by law firm Norton Rose questioned a sample of 40 firms,
including Henderson Global Investors, Hermes and HG Capital.
The results revealed that 90% of investment managers were deterred from investing in low carbon projects by the lack of long-term policies and by retrospective
changes to EU member states' climate change guidelines. In addition, they considered them a ‘barrier to investments in renewable energy’. (CityWire)
No money to be made investing in worthless crap? Go figure...
A recent editorial from the Investors Chronicle posed this question about investment in green energy:
Thursday 2 September 2010 - Jonathan Eley, Editor, writes:
What are investors to make of green energy and other sustainable technologies? Instinctively, it should be a “big thing”. Carbon-based fuels are
inevitably going to get more expensive, and governments around the world have pledged to spend mind-boggling amounts of money developing green
technology and bribing us to adopt it. Yet despite this positive backdrop, picking winners at the company level has been frustratingly tricky - as
anyone who’s invested in the sector will know to their cost.
It is not surprising that investors should be both puzzled and worried, as a glance at some share performance charts for leading players in the wind power
industry shows:
The extent to which public companies involved in what has become known as the green energy revolution can attract the support of investors is, perhaps, one
of the more useful indicators of the state of play in the climate debate. However convincingly the IPCC may pontificate about the dangers of global warming and
the need to reduce Co2 emissions immediately, and whatever pious aspirations worthy politicians may mouth, this tells us whether rhetoric is
translating into action in the real world. Are investors willing to back what they are being told?
Without question, and for the foreseeable future, wind power is the only source of alternative energy that has progressed beyond the pipe dream stage, and
can be reasonably described as an industry. It’s been around for about twenty years, and during that time the trading environment in which it operates has
steadily improved. So why are there long faces among investors?
Nearly all the nations that are big players in the climate debate have free market economies. I say nearly all because China, which is certainly one of the
most influential, still does not exactly fit this template. Surely, if the prophesies of planetary destruction that have become the common currency of
environmentalism during the last decade are really taking hold worldwide, and becoming part of mainstream public policy, then this must be reflected in the
financial markets. Companies that can really make a difference to the level of anthropogenic Co2 emissions should be booming, and those who are
investing in this sector can reasonably expect to see a good return as the market grows. One does not have to look very far to find out why this is not
happening. (Harmless Sky)
Big losses at so-called 'green' equities funds this year are halting the proliferation of the once hot investment products in Asia and triggering a shift by
investors in some centers such as Japan into safer bond options.
Green equities funds -- a big draw over the past few years on heightened concerns on energy prices and the environment -- have been clobbered as stock market
volatility, economic pessimism and falling energy costs have driven investors away from the sector.
The poor performance comes as Asian governments are pumping vast amounts -- spending exceeded $39 billion in 2009, with China accounting for the bulk of that --
into renewable energy and other environment-related projects. It may mean that companies in the business will find it harder to attract new capital.
A third of the 20 worst-performing Japanese funds this year are green funds, with returns down a fifth or more for several of them, according to data from
Lipper Inc. By comparison, the broad TOPIX index has lost just 8.6 percent.
"Environment-related funds are in a period of stagnation," said Makoto Tsuchiya, a fund manager at Tokyo's STB Asset Management, an arm of Japan's
No.5 bank Sumitomo Trust and Banking. "For now, it's very difficult to attract money from investors." (Reuters)
LISBON — Senior financiers and the leaders of powerful energy companies on Thursday blamed subsidies to oil and natural gas companies for damaging the
ability of the clean-energy industry to recover from the economic slowdown and take advantage of growing power markets worldwide.
“No politician can stop subsidies to fossil fuels overnight, but I think governments could be leveling the playing field a great deal faster,” said John
Browne, a managing director at Riverstone, a private equity firm where he co-heads a large fund dedicated to renewable energy. Mr. Browne is also a former chief
executive of the British oil and natural gas company BP.
The renewable energy sector was one of the casualties of the financial crisis in Europe and the United States as lending dried up and governments cut support
measures as part of austerity programs to shore up their budgets. (NYT)
Western Australia (for scale, it's about 600 km from Perth to Kalgoorlie).
From The
Skeptics Handbook II
Prof Schellnhuber: Climate science would
not stand a chance in a public debate. Photo source: PIK
Fred Singer. Photo source: CFACT
Saving energy or stopping pollution is a good
thing. What’s the danger in acting now?
Views about the existence and causes
of global warming have changed little over the past year. A new Pew Research Center poll finds that 59% of adults say there is solid evidence that the earth’s
average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In October 2009, 57% said this.
Western Australia
(WA) covers 2.5 million square kilometers (1 million square miles, about a third as big as the USA). The average of all WA stations over one month last year was
adjusted up by as much as a gobsmacking 0.5 degrees due to a database “bug” – which contributed to August 2009 being the hottest August on
record?! That’s one heck of a bug!
See:
(Roy W. Spencer)
.gif)
