AN EARLY DEBUNKING OF THE GULF-STREAM PANIC

Insightful in view of the later results which also discredited the panic predictions:

Is the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation slowing down?

By Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA

The Atlantic Ocean circulation across the latitude of 25oN has been used as a benchmark for characterizing the mass and heat transport from tropics to the northern latitudes. The upper portion of this transport includes the Gulf Stream that is responsible for the moderate climate of Europe. A weakening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and of the Gulf Stream might have unpleasant consequences for European climate (1, 2).

Ganachaud and Wunsch (3) using hydrographic data collected during the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) investigated the heat and mass transport in world oceans including the transport across the Atlantic 25oN latitude. The conclusion 3 made in the year 2000 was that there was no statistically significant change in mass transports over the past 30 years.

In recent analysis (with added new 2004 measurement) Bryden et al. (4) concluded that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has slowed by about 30% between 1957 and 2004. This inspired the speculation that the anthropogenic increase of carbon dioxide may be responsible for the weakening of heat transport from the tropics and that such an effect has been now detected (5). Thus the pleasant climate of Europe may be in danger. Bryden et al. (4) were apparently not aware of the Ganachaud and Wunsch (3) results and so no comments on the discrepancy between the previous (3) and the current (4) results were required.

We wish to point out that the conclusion of a 30% decrease of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation does not follow from the presented data (4) and that it is based on an incorrect treatment of errors of the measurements.

The estimated rms error of the measurements in the upper transport layer according to Ganachaud 6 and Bryden et al.4 is about +/-6 Sverdrups (1Sv=10^6m^3s^-1). According to data presented by Bryden et al. (4) the 1957 transport in layer shallower than 1000m is 22.9 +/-6 Sv compared to the transport of 14.8 +/-6 Sv in 2004. Consequently the difference in the mass transport between 1957 and 2004 is 8.1 +/-12 Sv and not 8.1 +/-6 Sv as incorrectly stated by Bryden et al. (4). In other words, the mass transport was somewhere between 16.9 and 28.9 Sv in 1957 and between 8.8 and 20.8 Sv in 2004, which is consistent with no change at all. Thus the observed change is well within the uncertainty of the measurement and not "uncomfortably close" as stated by Bryden et al. (4). Although Bryden et al. (4) do not discuss explicitly the statistical significance of their results, an incorrect treatment of errors suggested that the results were statistically significant. The correct conclusion from the presented data (Bryden et al.4) is that no statistically significant change in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25oN between the years of 1957 and 2004 has been detected. This conclusion is in agreement with the earlier analysis of Ganachaud and Wunsch (3).

References

1. Schiermeier, Q. Gulf Stream probed for early warnings of system failure. Nature 427, 769 (2004).
2. Wunsch, C. Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns. Nature 428, 601 (2004).
3. Ganachaud, A. & Wunsch, C. Improved estimates of global ocean circulatiom, heat transport and mixing from hydrographic data. Nature 408, 453-457 (2000).
4. Bryden, H., Longworth, H. & Cunningham, S. Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25oN. Nature 438, 655-657(2005).
5. Quadfasel, D. Atlantic Ocean trends. Nature 438, doi:10.1038/438565a (2005).
6. Ganachaud, A. Error Budget of Inverse Box Models: The North Atlantic. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 20, 1641-1655 (2003).

(Paper written December 9, 2005 but not accepted for publication in "Nature", the journal which published the erroneous Bryden paper)







No, we don't need a Manhattan Project for energy

"We need an all-out effort, a Manhattan Project, a man to the moon, to become less dependent on fossil fuel and the Middle East." So said Representative Chris Shays (R., CT) following a trip that included stops in Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. Few would dispute the benefits of reducing America's reliance on energy produced in a politically volatile region. Democratic strategist James Carville reports that his polling currently identifies energy independence as voters' number-one national security concern, surpassing even the war on terrorism.

Congressman Shays's proposed strategy for achieving that objective, however, is more debatable. Successful though they were, the massive, government-directed initiatives of the past are inappropriate models for bringing about energy independence. The Manhattan and Apollo programs were essentially vast engineering projects. They focused on specific, predetermined goals, namely, the production of an atomic bomb and a lunar landing. Scientists had already pointed the way by, respectively, splitting the atom and launching vehicles into space. The project chiefs were not charged with the more complex objectives of defeating the Axis powers or achieving broad technological superiority over the Soviet Union.

At present, no one can name a potential scientific breakthrough that would single-handedly end U.S. energy dependence on fossil fuels and the Middle East. It is not even clear that a wholesale shift toward domestic, renewable sources is a realistic hope. If significant strides are to be made, however, the solution will probably involve a combination of approaches, such as nuclear power, solar energy, biofuels, conservation, and amelioration of the environmental problems associated with certain domestic fuels.

Scientific advances on any of these paths could accelerate progress toward greater energy independence. A centrally managed program along the lines of the Manhattan Project, however, is not the mechanism most likely to capitalize on scientists' creative interaction. The top-down approach runs the risk of concentrating research in some ultimately unproductive area.

As a nation that has built a vibrant economy through market-driven innovation, the United States should not underestimate its diverse network of profit-seeking research organizations. Even if the major oil companies truly are implacable foes of alternative fuels, as conspiracy theorists contend, America has plenty of entrepreneurs with no vested interest in preserving the status quo. The failure thus far of market-driven efforts to produce a silver bullet for energy independence does not necessarily prove that the profit motive is unequal to the task. Perhaps it merely underscores how formidable the challenge is.

Let us imagine, though, that it is possible to make a persuasive case for market failure in the quest for greater energy independence. That is, economic studies might show that private research organizations, perceiving that they cannot capture enough of the society-wide benefits to recoup their investment, are devoting too few resources to the effort. That would give the government a valid reason for intervening. It would not, however, justify creating a centralized research behemoth in the style of the Manhattan Project. A better strategy would be to harness the power of many smaller, more nimble organizations.

The government's reflexive response to that suggestion will be an approach just one step removed from a Manhattan Project. Reluctant to relinquish control, Congress will allocate a massive research budget and begin awarding grants. Unfortunately, taxpayers can count on billions being wasted in the process. Politically connected corporations will greet the launch of the grand patriotic effort with stepped-up lobbying. They will endeavor to steer the funding priorities toward their own business priorities. The big companies will persuade Congress to define their existing research initiatives as part of the battle for energy independence, no matter how tangentially related. Many of the dollars funneled into the project will have little prospect of furthering the mission.

A more cost-effective course would be to pay for results, rather than for activity. Congress could establish large monetary rewards for inventing specific, commercially viable methods of displacing imported oil. Separate bounties would be offered for breakthroughs in technologies such as wind power, geothermal, and oil shale. In exchange for the rich bounties, discoverers of non-subsidy-dependent approaches would surrender the rights to the public domain.

This sort of spur to technological progress was employed successfully in the eighteenth century by the British Parliament, which established a 20,000 pound award for a method of determining longitude within half a degree. More recently, the magazine Business 2.0 asked a group of venture capitalists and "serial entrepreneurs" to name business ideas they would like to develop. Their answers included a longer-lasting cellphone battery and an in-dash computer that projects data onto a car's windshield. The financiers offered inventors a total of $100 million worth of encouragement. In creating monetary spurs for innovation, Congress could consult with disinterested scientific experts to identify the most valuable technological milestones. Realistically, it would be impossible to depoliticize the process entirely. Corporations would be unable, however, to load the specs with lucrative make-work projects.

Summing up, the fact that the Manhattan and Apollo Projects accomplished their missions does not automatically make them worthy of emulation for present purposes. If something beyond the ordinary profit motive is required to bring forth the means for greater energy independence, the government should follow two principles:

* Encourage scientific exploration on multiple fronts, rather than put a thumb on the scale for any single technology.

* Spend the taxpayers' money on outputs, rather than inputs.

Source






Taking land or just borrowing it with interest?

In November, citizens in twelve states will be voting on a variety of property rights initiatives that would limit eminent domain. Several of the initiatives would also require state and local governments to compensate property owners for "regulatory takings." A regulatory taking occurs when agencies impose restrictions on the ability of property owners to use their land in ways that were legal at the time they bought their property. Under those initiatives governments would be required to compensate property owners when they enact zoning regulations that reduce the value of their land. These campaigns were inspired by the Supreme Court's disastrous ruling last year in Kelo v. City of New London. In that case a Connecticut city was allowed to use eminent domain to seize the homes of some residents and then turn around and give the land to private developers.

Naturally, people who think they know best how other people should use their property are up in arms over the initiatives. The Washington Post characterizes property rights advocates as "trying to harness anger over the [Kelo] ruling in an effort to pass state initiatives in the West and federal legislation that could unravel a long-standing fabric of state and local land-use regulations. Among other things, the rules control growth, limit sprawl, ensure open space and protect the environment." Unmentioned by the Post is that the rules do all those good things without paying people who own the affected farms, ranches, forests and homes a dime for the lost value of their land.

Property rights campaigners were heartened in 2004 when 61 percent of the voters supported the Proposition 37 voter initiative in Oregon that rolled back that state's famously restrictive system of land use regulations. Environmentalist opponents of property rights initiatives haul out the argument that the initiatives will cost taxpayers billions of dollars if they pass. However, it turns out that state and local agencies are only willing to commandeer someone's property if they don't have to talk taxpayers into paying for the restrictions they want to impose. For example, in Oregon after Proposition 37, state and local land use bureaucrats say that they have backed down and waived zoning restrictions rather than ask the state's taxpayers to shell out $5.6 billion to maintain them.

The puzzle at the heart of the environmentalists' reluctance to compensate landowners for zoning restrictions comes into focus when you consider their attitudes toward conservation easements. A conservation easement is a voluntary legal arrangement in which a landowner agrees to protect the conservation values of a piece of land by permanently limiting its present and future uses. Landowners then donate the easement to qualified conservation organizations that make sure the land is managed in line with the restrictions established by the easement. For this land owners get substantial federal and state income tax breaks. How does this work?

The value of the charitable donation is the difference between the fair market value of the property before and after the easement is donated. Note that the initiatives opposed by environmentalists would similarly compensate landowners for the difference between the fair market value of the land before and after zoning restrictions are imposed. In August, President Bush signed legislation that permits conservation easements donated in 2006 and 2007 to be deducted at the rate of 50 percent of the donor's adjusted gross income per year; any unused portion can be carried forward for an additional fifteen years. Without bothering to go through the calculations here, one tax advisor notes that the combination of federal income and estate tax benefits can equal or exceed the cost of the easement itself, up to as much 146 percent of the cost of easement. In other words, voluntary land restrictions are compensated-sometimes very well compensated-through the tax code.

The contradiction in the debate over compensating landowners is that environmentalists don't want to pay landowners who are ordered to "preserve" their land for the public's benefit, but they have no problem "giving away" billions in tax breaks to people who voluntarily restrict the use of their land. What's the difference? Surely part of the difference is that the cost to taxpayers for voluntary restrictions is hidden. Taxpayers don't see that granting these conservation tax breaks means that they are likely to have to pay higher taxes to cover the costs all of the other wonderful programs and projects that governments spend money on. As the experience in Oregon shows, land use bureaucrats and environmentalists don't think taxpayers will pony up when they are asked directly to pay for conservation zoning restrictions that are imposed on landowners against the owners' will.

Ultimately, if we compensate voluntary land use restrictions, then we should especially pay for imposing involuntary land use restrictions. That is just plain simple justice.

Source




British conservatives argue for "urban sprawl"

Though they are not calling it that, of course

Fewer small flats and more bungalows and houses with gardens should be built to make it easier for elderly people to avoid going into care, the Conservatives said yesterday. David Cameron, the party leader, told an Age Concern conference that houses should be designed to be suitable for every stage of life. "We must think in a new way about housing design and urban planning. Housing in Britain never seems to be built with a whole lifetime in mind," he said.

New homes tend to be either small flats, which are not suitable when people have children, or tall houses, which aren't suitable when people become old and less mobile. Although only a quarter of people say they want to live in flats, more than half of all new properties are flats. "We're sqeezing more and more housing into smaller and smaller spaces. This means less room for elderly parents. We're disrupting the generational relationship. "We need to change the planning rules so that we get fewer small flats and more homes with gardens. Fewer homes designed for young single people, and more designed for life - universal design," Mr Cameron said.

The new homes, also called lifetime homes, would be designed to ensure that people never had the need to move. Rather than being tall and thin with winding staircases, which are bad for elderly people, they would be flatter and wider, and even bungalows. They would tend to be more spacious to cope with wheelchairs, with gardens for the family stage of life.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundationhas proposed 16 detailed requirements, many of which are already legal stipulations for public buildings, which must be fulfilled before a house can be categorised as a "lifetime home". These adaptations would ensure that old people could carry on living in the house.

Michael Gove, the Tories' housing spokesman, said: "Thought has to be given so that people aren't trapped in one or two rooms in multi-storey houses. It means more bungalow living, as opposed to less flexible vertical houses."

A spokeswoman for Age Concern said that as the number of elderly people grew, it would be increasingly important that their needs were incorporated into the designs. "The problem is that not enough homes are built to last a lifetime. Many people find living in their home more difficult as they grow older and often have to make the difficult decision to move on, for example to a retirement flat. The concept of a lifetime home addresses the changing needs of people as they age and is a very welcome one."

Far from costing money, the foundation suggests that it would save taxpayers 5.5 billion pounds over 60 years in reducing the need for adaptations to existing houses and moving people to care homes. However, it would mean houses occupying larger plots of land, compared with thinking that encourages high-density housing. Mr Gove insisted that the Conservatives would protect the green belt around cities, but that more greenfield land would be used. "The future lies in allowing communities to expand outwards not just upwards. We recognise that if we are to meet future housing need, you will have some currently undeveloped land which will have to be developed," he said.

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************