GREENLAND AND THE LYING GREENIE EVANGELISTS AT "SCIENCE" MAGAZINE

In introducing Chen et al.'s new study, Science magazine (where it was published) says "satellite measurements of gravity variations show that the Greenland Ice Sheet now is disappearing at the rate of about 240 cubic kilometers per year," stating as factual what is really only suggested by the authors' analysis, and that only tenuously. But why take our word for it? Simply consider what the three researchers themselves have to say about the subject.

Forming the basis for the ice sheet mass balance assessment of Chen et al. were data returned from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission, which was launched in March of 2002 and has since been providing measurements of earth's gravity field at roughly monthly intervals. These data, however, which covered the period April 2002 to November 2005 in the Chen et al. study, had to be significantly "massaged" before they were usable.

First came what the scientists call the "GRACE dealiasing process," which was designed to remove atmospheric and oceanic contributions from the gravity signals and that requires an entire User Handbook to describe its particulars. Then came corrections for post-glacial rebound or PGR, which is the rebounding of earth's crust and mantle from the depressing effects of the crushing weights of past glacial ice loads. With respect to the complexities of this procedure, Chen et al. state that "because PGR effects are present within the same geographical regions as current deglaciation, a PGR model [our italics] is required to separate the effects."

Expanding on this complication and its potential resolution, the three University of Texas at Austin scientists note that "different PGR models may show large discrepancies in modeling the Greenland surface deformation effect," but because "average PGR effects over all of Greenland are estimated [again by models] to be small," they neglect them altogether, not only over the bulk of Greenland, but also over vast regions of the ocean surrounding Greenland.

A third problem is the limited spatial resolution of GRACE gravity fields, which shortcoming the researchers attempt to overcome by using "numerical simulations [our italics] to assign [our italics] mass changes to regions suggested by remote sensing or other observations." But in spite of this dubious attempt at improvement, they still find that the "limited spatial resolution of GRACE estimates causes a large portion of variance to be spread into the surrounding oceans, even though the actual source location is likely on the continent."

A fourth nagging problem, in the words of the researchers, is that "PGR effects from nearby regions such as Hudson Bay may contribute to variations over Greenland." In fact, they admit that "many [our italics] error sources may affect our GRACE estimates, which include the remaining GRACE measurement error (after spatial smoothing), uncertainty in the background geophysical models used in GRACE, and unquantified [our italics] other leakage effects." And for even more errors associated with GRACE assessments of ice sheet mass balance, see our review of the study of Velicogna and Wahr (2006).

So just how questionable might the GRACE results possibly be? In a comparative study of the ice sheet mass balance over Svalbard, Chen et al. note that the technique they employ yields a mass wastage of about 75 km3/year, but that absolute gravity measurements indicate a melting rate of about 50 km3/year, and that surface deformation data suggest an ice loss rate of about 25 km3/year. If one or the other of these results is correct, the GRACE approach employed by Chen et al. could be anywhere from 50% to 200% too high.

Even more telling is Chen et al.'s open acknowledgement that "another study (Zwally et al., 2005) based on 10 years of radar altimetry data during the period 1992 to 2002 suggests a small mass gain [our italics] for Greenland," which is even opposite in sign to their estimate. In light of these many observations, all of which come from Chen et al.'s own paper, we find no need to say anything more. Most rational people should be able to draw their own conclusions about the matter.

Source





New England greenhouse con game

Eight states have joined together to try to pressure Kansas regulators to block a three-unit, 2,100 MW coal-fired power plant planned by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. at its Holcomb station. The attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin wrote the Kansas Department of Health and Environment asking the regulators to require Sunflower to develop the project with integrated gasification combined cycle technology. R.I. Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch told Providence Business News, "This is, plain and simple, an issue directly related to global warming. Rhode island is on the front lines in combating this real and increasingly dangerous threat to the sustainability of our plant."

Sunflower is a rural electric generation and transmission cooperative serving distribution co-ops in eastern Kansas. With a straight face, Lynch announced that he is again asking R.I. Gov. Donald Carcieri to reconsider his decision to pull out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program. But neither Massachusetts nor Rhode Island are participating.

In a related irony, Maine-based advocacy group Environment Northeast released a report this week that finds that carbon dioxide emissions in New England and eastern Canada have increased since 2001, despite a joint pledge by New England governors and eastern Canada premiers five years ago to reduce CO2 emissions 10% below 1990 levels by 2020. The report projects carbon dioxide emissions in the region will be 50% above 1990 levels by 2020. One of the purposes of the report is to put pressure on incoming Democratic Gov.-elect Deval Patrick, who will be inaugurated Jan. 4., to join the regional greenhouse initiative.

Source





Climate ideology control

America's vital traditions of free speech, association and debate are under assault. Al Gore bristles at anyone who raises inconvenient truths about climate alarmism. Greenpeace calls us "climate criminals." Grist magazine wants "Nuremberg-style war crimes trials" for climate disaster skeptics, probably followed by hangings, since burning at the stake would release greenhouse gases.

Climate catastrophist Ross Gelbspan told a Washington, D.C., audience: "Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what those scientists say."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, shamefully treated physician-scientist-author Michael Crichton like a child molester during a congressional hearing, for suggesting climate change theories be reviewed by double-blind studies and evidentiary standards akin to what the Food and Drug Administration uses for new medicine. And Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia have issued a "gag order" against ExxonMobil. "Its message: Start toeing the senators' line on climate change, or else," said the Wall Street Journal.

Earth-centered-universe dogmas have been replaced by a far more intolerant Church of Gaia catechism of cataclysm. We have entered an era of climate McCarthyism and eco-Inquisitions, whose goal appears to be slashing energy use and economic growth, by making activists, politicians and bureaucrats the final arbiters of every energy and economic decision.

Yes, Earth's climate is changing -- again, though far less than it has repeatedly throughout our planet's history. Yes, people influence our weather and climate -- to some degree. But few scientists have joined astronomer James Hansen in saying humans have replaced the sun and other natural forces as the primary cause, Climate Armageddon is nigh and drastic action must be taken immediately.

Cataclysm theorists point to computer models. But models are not evidence. Neither are headlines, hype or Hollywood special effects -- nor incessant claims that every storm, drought, heat wave or cold snap is due to fossil fuels. Moreover, even perfect compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would do virtually nothing to stop hypothetical human-induced climate change. And the true costs of Draconian emission controls would be astronomical.

Carbon taxes, carbon caps and greenhouse gas targets and timetables would send energy prices even higher, raise the cost of every consumer product and service, reduce profits, impair productivity, stifle innovation -- and drive jobs overseas, to countries where energy is still available and priced lower. Simply put, no juice -- no jobs.

In the coming decade, say energy analysts, Colorado alone will need 5,000 megawatts of new electrical generation; Texas, more than 25,000; the United States, hundreds of thousands. Most will have to come from fossil fuels. Will policymakers enable or prevent us from meeting these needs? If 13,000 wind turbines (on 105,000 California acres) are needed to generate the annual electrical output of one 500-megawatt gas-fired power plant, how many turbines on how many once-scenic acres will it take to produce 50,000 megawatts? How many birds and bats will they kill?

If we emphasize intermittent, unreliable wind and solar, will brownouts and outages become routine for offices, factories, schools and operating rooms? If utilities have to sequester CO2 at $40-50 a ton, will they follow Britain's lead, and tell parents who can no longer afford to heat their homes adequately they can just send their children to bed with hats, mittens, sox -- and bags of rice warmed in microwaves? What will bureaucrats tell families of elderly folks who die in summer heat waves, because they can't afford air conditioning -- or AC has been banned as "polluting and unnecessary"?

To reduce electricity demand, will alarmists tell kids they can't have computers or Sony PlayStations? Will they try to ban plasma televisions, which use 5 times more electricity than conventional TVs? How much will California really preserve our environment by locating new power plants in Montana, Idaho, Utah and the Dakotas -- and sending the electricity to Los Angeles via 2,000-mile-long transmission lines -- so legislators can claim to have reduced carbon emissions within the Golden State?

How many Third World families will die from lung and intestinal diseases, because agitators, politicians and bureaucrats continue to pressure banks and companies not to build power plants in poor countries? Will Senate Inquisitors -- and fearmongering green organizations -- now run their offices solely on wind and solar power?

These are just a few of the inconvenient questions and truths that alarmists want muzzled. Raising them -- through open, robust, civil debate -- is the essence of social responsibility, good citizenship and sound science. Even at the risk of being browbeaten by congressional neo-McCarthyites, we must speak out, to prevent enactment of economically and ethically ruinous state and federal laws.

We do not face a looming climate chaos. We have time to respond rationally and responsibly, evaluate competing claims, demand real science and evidence, devise sensible laws and policies, and develop new energy generation technologies that will meet growing U.S. and global demand for abundant, reliable, affordable electricity -- while gradually improving efficiency, reducing pollution, and protecting the health and economic vitality of families, companies and communities. Our energy generation and pollution control technologies changed dramatically between 1900 and 2000. We can do it again -- if we have faith in our creative genius, technological innovation, and ability to engage in robust but civil debate over complex energy, climate, economic and environmental issues.

Source





Antarctica: Inconvenient elephant seals

The scare du jour on global warming is a massive inundation of our coast caused by rapid loss of ice from Antarctica. It's a core point in Al Gore's science fiction movie, and it continues to be thumped by doomsayers around the world, in the echo chamber of the alarmist media. It's also a bunch of hooey. If you could take the boredom, you could have read hundreds of news stories on this since An Inconvenient Truth debuted on May 25. But you'll find very little mention of a paper that appeared a mere six weeks later, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, which should have stopped the whole show cold. The work is by Brenda Hall from the University of Maine and several co-authors.

First, Gore's science fiction. Due to the warming of the surrounding ocean, big ice-shelves begin to crack off and float away. Because that ice is floating, it doesn't raise sea level a bit. But then the ice cracks all the way back to where it is grounded on the ocean floor. That stuff isn't floating and the ocean rises dramatically, some twenty feet in a hundred years. Much of Manhattan, the movie suggests, is under water, along with just about every other coastal city.

Now, the truth. The notion that this is going to happen soon has just been fatally harpooned by giant Elephant Seals (Mirounga leonine). They generally hang out a long distance form Antarctica. Most of their breeding rookeries are a good 2,000 miles away on islands in the open ocean, where they feed. Most of the Antarctic coast is hemmed by huge ice shelves that prevent them from finding food.

But that wasn't always the case. According to Hall's paper, a large area of the Antarctic coast was ice-free between 1,100 and 2,300 years ago. Elephant seals established multiple rookeries on the continent. Temperatures had to be much warmer than they are today, for at least 1,200 years, and yet there was no disintegration of the large ice shelves. Hall et al. then noted another similar period, almost twice as long, from 4,000 to 6,000 years ago.

The warm millennium ended as the world's temperature descended from what scientists call the "Medieval Warm Period" into the "Little Ice Age." Antarctica has yet to fully recover from this last period, as temperatures averaged across the continent actually showed a net cooling in the last three decades.

Hall studied ancient Antarctic beaches, which could only contain relics of large numbers of elephant seals if there were open water. Others have examined extinct penguin rookeries and found that those happily footed birds tended to be absent when the seals were present. That's because penguins feed along the edges of sea-ice, so if there isn't any, there aren't any birds.

Of course this also means, even as temperatures warm to degrees seen for more than half of the last six millennia, that penguins will be displaced from their current rookeries. The horror of natural climate variability! Cute little penguins driven from their homes by cruel Mother Nature!!

Hall et al. give a quantitative perspective on today's climate. Current thinking is that the Antarctic ice shelves become susceptible to rapid breakup when the January (Summer) temperature averages about -1.5 degrees Celsius But the seals only thrive, according to the paper, "when the mean January temperature exceeds 0 [degrees] C, usually by considerable margins." So Hall and her colleagues conclude that "January temperatures...surpassed the -1.5 [degrees] C threshold during two long periods at ~1,000-2,300 and 4,000-6,000 years b.p. [before present]."

George Denton, one of Hall's University of Maine colleagues and coauthors, summed it up in the school's U Maine Today Magazine: "Through her discovery of elephant seal remains over a widespread area where they do not exist today, she [Hall] shows evidence not only that a warming occurred, but that the Ross Ice Shelf survived that event. It's important because it speaks to the staying capacity of the ice shelf in the face of global warming."

Stories about an imminent collapse of Antarctic ice shelves can go back to the science fiction shelves, where they belonged all along. For that matter, so can this whole apocalyptic myth. If Antarctic ice remained stable for thousands of years with temperatures considerably warmer than they are today, how in the world are we going to provoke a catastrophe? Among other things, we will still have to be powering our society on fossil fuels in the year 4,100.

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 generally 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 Pages are here or here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

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