Tuesday, June 24, 2008

A skeptical response to a Greenie challenge

The "National Resources Defense Council", a Greenie organization, has challenged skeptical scientists to 'let NRDC's real climate experts take them on'. Below is a response to the challenge from Richard Courtney, DipPhil, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant. The response was posted on the NRDC blog


You say: "And perhaps some scientists are coming out against the idea that humankind has warmed the planet and continues to spew increasing pollutants into our atmosphere. If so, they are awful quiet about their challenge. Perhaps they should post their arguments here and let NRDC's real climate experts take them on."

Well, I am an Expert Peer Reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); i.e. I am one of the often touted "thousands of UN Climate Scientists". I and thousands of others speak, publish and sign petitions in attempt to get the media to tell the truth of man made global climate change. And in response to your invitation I post that truth below.

The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) - notably carbon dioxide - in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW), and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW). I think a clear distinction needs to be made between

(a) the science of AGW, and

(b) the perception of AGW - and the use of AGW - by non-scientists.

The science

The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.

1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.

2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.

3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940

4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940, and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.

5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent. The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.

The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science.: i.e. Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data, and the opposite of the hypothesis' predictions is observed in the empirical data.

But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc..). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis.

Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are.


Green driving

British humorist and motoring writer Jeremy Clarkson tells us how

It's no good. I can't sit here any more pretending that there's nothing wrong. Because there is. A man came to my house yesterday to fix the computer and he had a worried look on his face. He lives 20 miles away. The fuel tank in his little van was perilously close to empty and he simply didn't have enough money to fill it up again.

In the past I only ever stopped for fuel when the yellow light had been on for a month and the engine was starting to cough. Yesterday I stopped at a garage simply because its petrol was 4p cheaper than usual. That's a œ2.80 difference per tankful. Which works out at œ300 a year. That's 55 free packets of cigarettes.

Except of course these calculations are meaningless because oil, as I write, is $139 a barrel and no one thinks it's going to stop there. Not with Mr Patel on the economic warpath and Johnny Chinaman part-exchanging his rickshaw for a shiny new Toyota. They say it'll be $150 a barrel by the end of summer.

Global warming was never going to get people out of their big cars because we could see it was all a load of left-wing tosh. But when petrol is œ3 a litre - and anyone old enough to remember 1973 would not discount that as a possibility - you'd have to be a bit bonkers to drive around like your hair's on fire in a car that does only eight miles to the gallon.

Oh it's all very well now. You may be a footballer or a Sir Alan. You may see expensive petrol as a jolly good way of getting the poor and the weak off the roads. Soon, though, you will be hit too.

Think about it. When you have to have a fist fight with an old lady over the last loaf of bread in the shop, and your electricity bill looks as though it's been written in liras, you are going to find yourself in the same boat as my computer man: with a nice car on the drive and no wherewithal to make it go.

Of course there are lots of things you can do to lessen the impact of spiralling fuel bills - all of which are dreary.

Weight is one issue. If you remove that rolled-up old carpet from your boot, you'll be surprised at the impact it'll have on your bills. You could go further and remove your spare wheel and jack too. Maybe you could even go on that diet you've been promising yourself.

Then there's all the equipment. If you use a lot of electrical stuff while driving, the alternator will need to work harder, which means more fuel. Even Terry Wogan needs a bit of petrol. Your heated rear window needs an alarming amount. And air-conditioning? Turn that off and your fuel consumption will improve by as much as 12%.

Making sure that your tyres are inflated properly will save another 5%, and you know the roof bars? If you can manage without, there's another 3% saving right there. At this rate you are well on your way to turning your Range Rover Sport Nutter Bastard into something with the thirst of a newborn wren.

By far the biggest savings will come if you change the way you drive, though. Take the Audi A8 diesel as an example. Officially it will do 30.1mpg. Realistically it'll be nearer 25. With a bit of care, however, you can do 40. Maybe more.

Audi says that its big V8 oil-burner can go 580 miles between trips to the pumps but I managed to get all the way from London to Edinburgh and then back again on a single tankful. That's a whopping 800 miles. It wasn't much fun, at a fairly constant 56mph, with no radio, no air-con and no sat nav. But the savings were massive.

Things I learnt? On a downhill stretch, ease up on the throttle pedal and work with gravity to build up speed. Similarly you can ease off the power and use momentum to get you up the next hill. A cruise control system will not do this. It is a sledgehammer when what you need is the scalpel sensitivity of your right foot.

Look far ahead. If you think you will have to slow down, start the process early. If you use the brakes you are simply wasting the fuel you used to reach a speed that was unnecessary.

Already I'm bored with this. The notion that you have to drive at 56mph, with sweaty armpits, stopping every five seconds to check your tyre pressures, just to save a pound fills me with horror and dread. It would be like being told to lose weight by your doctor - and sawing your arm off. Effective but annoying. Which is why, when it comes to the price of fuel, I want to have my cake and eat it too. And then I want second helpings.

This brings me to the Mercedes-Benz SL 350. Ordinarily I'd dismiss this, the baby of the range, and suggest you bought the mountainous twin-turbo 6 litre V12 version instead. But in these dark and difficult times, I thought I'd give the weedomatic version a chance.

The fact of the matter is this. Officially the V12 version will return 18.7mpg whereas the 350 will do 28.5. That is a colossal difference. And handy too. On my old SL 55, a quarter of a tank would not get me from London to my house in the Cotswolds. A quarter of a tank in the 350 gets me there and back.


Hansen's Anniversary Testimony

Post below excerpted from Icecap. See the original for links and more

On June 23, 1988 James Hansen, Astronomer by degree but climatologist by self appointment testified in front of congress. It was an orchestrated testimony coordinated by Senator Al Gore and a Senator from Colorado, Tim Wirth (now running Ted Turner's UN Foundation) who admitted they picked the day after calling the National Weather Service to ensure it was a hot day. He admitted proudly later they opened all the windows the night before, making air conditioning ineffective and making sure all involved including Hansen would be seen mopping their brow for maximum effect. Hansen testified "Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe, with a high degree of confidence, a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect."

See in the story below how hard Hansen has worked to try and make his prognostication verify by manipulating data. By his own comments to the UK Guardian "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime." Well the disinformation that comprises the GISS data then by his own words is a crime, and in his own words he "should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature".

Here is the plot of actual NASA global satellite monthly temperatures since June 1988. Note the anomaly in May 2008 was lower than in June 1988 by nearly 0.3C. Of course, we don't have June 2008 numbers yet. Please note I am not saying that cooling began in 1988. Satellites show clearly that since 1979 there was a moderate warming which peaked in 1998. A cooling has taken place the last 6 to 7 years. Global station and ocean data with all its warts shows the warming from the early 1900s to the 1930s, cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s then warming again peaking in 1998. I am just making an observation that it is ironic that 20 years after his first testimony about global warming, it is half a degree F oooler globally, not supporting the drastic measure he advocates. Also we can explain not only the trends but each spike or dip with some natural phenomena as we have shown in recent posts.

Today unlike in June 1988, temperatures will be near normal in DC with temperatures in the 70s and 80s with thunderstorms. The last two weeks have averaged 2 degrees below normal.

Don't Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom- Get the Facts on James Hansen and his lucrative climate scam

Post below excerpted from Marc Morano. See the original for links

NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fears.

Sampling of Key Information about NASA's James Hansen (for full articles, see below):

1) The oil money's paltry contribution pales in comparison to the well funded alarmist industry. (LINK)

2) Earth has COOLED since Hansen's Dire Climate Warning in 1988 (LINK)

3) Hansen's Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis challenged by UN Scientists and new peer-reviewed studies. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

4) Hansen who alleged Bush administration muzzled him -- did 1,400 on-the-job media interviews (LINK) http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070320-120435-3136r.htm

5) Media Ignores Skeptical NASA Scientist's Claims of Censorship (LINK)

6) Hansen Claims 1988 Hottest Day Testimony was result of being `lucky' - `We were just lucky' (LINK)

7) Senator Admits Hot Day and AC Failure during Hansen's 1988 Testimony was `Stagecraft' (LINK)

8) An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began. (LINK)

9) Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004 (LINK)

10) Media Darling Hansen Assailed by NASA Colleagues (LINK)

11) Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry (LINK)

12) Hansen conceded that use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change "may have been appropriate at one time" (LINK)

UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' - June 23, 2008: Excerpt: Veteran climate scientist James Hansen is marking the twentieth anniversary of his seminal speech to the US Congress on global warming by calling for oil company execs to be locked up for denying global warming.

UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming - June 23, 2008: Excerpt: Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientistú Speech to US Congress will also criticise lobbyistsú 'Revolutionary' policies needed to tackle crisis - James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer. Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable. Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading. [Note: See also July 2007 comprehensive report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

Reality Check: Challenge to Hansen's funding data claims. The oil money's paltry contribution pales in comparison to the well funded alarmist industry. See full funding report here: Excerpt: Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions. "In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," Carter wrote on June 18, 2007.

Earth has COOLED since Hansen's Dire Climate Warning in 1988 - According to Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo: See how global temperatures have declined according to NASA satellites since Hansen's first testimony in June of 1988. See temperature chart HERE. Excerpt: Here is the plot of actual NASA satellite monthly temperatures since June 1988. Note we are colder than in 1988. See larger image here His testimony will no doubt include reference to upcoming or ongoing dangerous rises in sea level and ignore the data. See larger image here He will also no doubt repeat his claim he is being muzzled. He confuses a muzzle with a megaphone as shown by this table of actual Hansen media references by year. What Muzzling? Chart documenting James Hansen's Massive Media Megaphone - By Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., professor in the environmental studies program at the University of Colorado. Excerpt: Hansen in the News: 1996-1997 - Must See chart HERE.

Hansen's Science Claims Continue to be Challenged - June 20, 2008 - Ivy League Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack Challenges `Consensus' View of CO2's role in Climate Change (Giegengack is from the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Bio Link & Peer-Reviewed Research Link: Excerpt: We know (or we surmise) from model reconstructions (e.g. Berner, Royer, Cerling, and many others) that the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere has been higher, indeed much higher, than it is now for most of Earth history, but the average surface temperature has varied over much smaller amplitude than the greenhouse-gas concentration. If the influence of growing concentrations of greenhouse gases can be isolated from all the other factors that control Earth-surface temperature, we might be able to measure the role of CO2 concentration as a forcing mechanism directly, but we are not there and we probably can't get there (the system is far too complex). If we could get there, we would learn that the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature is not linear. There have been times in Earth history when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 5, 10, even 15 TIMES the present concentration, and the climate of Earth still supported animals not unlike ourselves. Indeed, the average CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, if Berner, Royer, Cerling, etc. are to be believed (and they began this work before the history of composition of the atmosphere carried any political implication), has been about 5 times the present concentration. [.] One or another Pole has supported a "permanent" ice sheet only for 5-10% of Earth history. [.] The bottom line is: it ain't that simple. CO2 is a player, but not the primary, and maybe not even a major, player in controlling, or "forcing," Earth temperature. (LINK)

Washington Times: Scientist Hansen who alleged Bush administration muzzled him -- did 1,400 on-the-job media interviewshttp://washingtontimes.com/national/20070320-120435-3136r.htm - March 20, 2007: Excerpt: Hansen Claims NASA Muzzled Him - But - A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who argues global warming could be catastrophic, said NASA staffers denied his request to do a National Public Radio interview because they didn't want his message to get out. But Republicans told him the hundreds of other interviews he did belie his broad claim he was being silenced. "We have over 1,400 opportunities that you've availed yourself to, and yet you call it, you know, being stifled," said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican.

Media Ignores Skeptical NASA Scientist's Claims of Censorship. Skeptical Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, Formerly of NASA, Reveals Being Muzzled - June 3, 2008 See June 3, 2008 report: Media Double-Standard on Global Warming "Censorship" - (LINK): Excerpt: A NOTE ON NASA'S JAMES HANSEN BEING MUZZLED BY NASA - I see that we are once again having to hear how NASA's James Hansen was dissuaded from talking to the press on a few of the 1,400 media interviews he was involved in over the years. Well, I had the same pressure as a NASA employee during the Clinton-Gore years, because NASA management and the Clinton/Gore administration knew that I was skeptical that mankind's CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming. I was even told not to give my views during congressional testimony, and so I purposely dodged a question, under oath, when it arose. But I didn't complain about it like Hansen has. NASA is an executive branch agency and the President was, ultimately, my boss (and is, ultimately, Hansen's boss). So, because of the restrictions on what I could and couldn't do or say, I finally just resigned from NASA and went to work for the university here in Huntsville. There were no hard feelings, and I'm still active in a NASA satellite mission and fully supportive of its Earth observation programs. In stark contrast, Jim Hansen said whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to the press and congress during that time. He even campaigned for John Kerry, and received a $250,000 award from Theresa Heinz-Kerry's charitable foundation -- two events he maintains are unrelated. If I had done anything like this when I worked at NASA, I would have been crucified under the Hatch Act. Does anyone besides me see a double standard here? -Roy W. Spencer

Washington Post: Senator Inhofe: 'Alleged consensus over man-made climate fears continues to wane' - June 23, 2008. Excerpt: In an e-mailed statement, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the bill's failure was proof that Hansen's message had not caught on. "Hansen, Gore, and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it," Inhofe said. "It's back to the drawing board for Hansen and company as the alleged 'consensus' over man-made climate fears continues to wane and more and more scientists declare their dissent."

Hansen calls skeptics of man-made climate fears `Court Jesters' From August 20, 2007 EPW Report: Excerpt: NASA's James Hansen calls climate skeptics `court jesters' - In the face of this growing surge of scientific research and the increasing number of scientists speaking out, NASA scientist James Hansen wrote this past week that skeptics of a predicted climate catastrophe were engaging in "deceit" and were nothing more than "court jesters." "The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present," Hanson wrote on August 16, 2007. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK) [EPW Blog Note: It is ironic to have accusations of `deceit' coming from a man who conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize global warming "may have been appropriate at one time" to drive the public's attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist. (LINK) Also worth noting is Hansen's humorous allegation that he was muzzled by the current Administration despite the fact he did over 1400 on-the-job media interviews. (LINK) ] If the scientific case is so strong for predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming, why do its promoters like Hansen and his close ally Gore feel the need to resort to insults and intimidation when attempting to silence skeptics? [EPW Blog Note: Gore and Hansen are not alone - See: EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to `Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic - LINK ]

Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004 - EPW Report on Hansen - July 11, 2006. Excerpt: For example, Brokaw presents NASA's James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democrat Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz. Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist. Hansen also has acted as a consultant to Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming, on which Gore's movie is based. Hansen has actively promoted Gore and his movie, even appearing at a New York City Town Hall meeting with Gore and several Hollywood producers in May. Hansen also conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science (http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html ) that the use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change "may have been appropriate at one time" to drive the public's attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.

Carbon: the New Chemical Villain

According to the popular press, carbon has now joined toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, lead and cadmium on Peck's Bad Boy list. The phrase "carbon footprint" in the lexicon of lazy pseudo science writers and amateur climatologists provokes images of radioactive dirty shoes betraying our every move leaving deadly indelible impressions on the path to oblivion.

Why has the image of carbon been so distorted and demonized? Most of us even having a glancing familiarity with organic chemistry at one time knew that carbon is the building block of life on earth. From simple sugars to amino acids and DNA from industrial polymers to Q-tips, carbon is everywhere on earth, as it necessarily must be as carbon's structure invites nearly every other element to bond with it.

Astrobiologists searching for life beyond earth know that carbon is plentiful, showing up as carbon monoxide CO, methane CH4 and even carbon dioxide CO2 . Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), hydrogen carbon combos that we would associate with petroleum and mothballs, are the most abundant complex molecules in the universe according to Pascale Ehrenfreund of the University of Leiden. Carbon, found in the proximity of hydrogen, oxygen and water, means life is possible. But carbon must be found in very specific combinations and patterns with oxygen and hydrogen along with the occasional nitrogen, forming uniquely shaped amino acids, proteins and sugars, for life as we know it.

Radio telescopes search the universe for even a hint of a tell tale wavelength for these complex biological carbon compounds. But nothing. Silence. The universe seems to be devoid of any biological organic carbon footprint anywhere else. Which means no sign of life. If we are utterly alone, it conjures one of two emotional states: profound loneliness at the realization life on earth may have been a random occurrence or unrestrained joy in appreciating that we are in God's exclusive province.

Of course the dreaded carbon footprint here on earth is enviro-nihilist shorthand for despising one life form in particular. Humans. While we search the heavens in vain for any sign of intelligent life, the one right here, right now, is under steady assault. The carbon footprint doomsayers would also deny one of the greatest gifts of Western Civilization-continuous discovery and innovation in the science of carbon-from eradicating smallpox and alleviating pain to inventing synthetic nylon pantyhose, fast cars and microbrewed ales.

The zero carbon footprint movement has its roots in the zero population growth agenda of Margaret Sanger's radical eugenics of the 1920s cloaked in the respectability of Planned Parenthood. In the 1960's, Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" further opened the backdoor entrance for the anti-capitalists and pro-choice lobby. The most recent dramatic example of post-humanism self-loathing is the -sexual-enviro thesis published last month by Robert Engleman in "More--Population, Nature and What Women Want".

Engleman's agenda about voluntary means to restrain population growth by giving women absolute control over procreation is just a precursor for forced sterilization, unregulated abortion on demand and acceptance of government run misanthropy.

Moreover as Lawrence Solomon points out in "The Deniers" the misguided priorities of the zero carbon footprint fanatics have produced such perversions as creating a financial market for carbon credits through displacing tens of thousands of people in third world economies from their native forest homes to make room for biomass agriculture or millions dispossessed of their land flooded for hydroelectric dam reservoirs. Of course massive government subsidies to convert foodstuff cropland into ethanol fuel biomass has created a food price spiral and spot shortages, a self-fulfilling prophecy of the ZPG Mathusians.

Rather than a metaphor for plague and scourge, our carbon footprint should be a life-affirming exaltation with primordial hopes of reproduction and immortality. Carbon footprint as villain is temporal, transitory and self-absorbed-a nihilist and narcissist absurdity. Narcissus, you will recall, unable to return the affections of the nymph Echo, was consigned to forever seek the embrace of his own reflection and be captive to an illusion. So what becomes of the illusion of the zero carbon footprint? Where does the line of sight beyond a zero carbon footprint world lead? Well, to steal a reference from philosopher Antony Flew in his essay on death, quoting the apocalyptic words of Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Outside the visual field nothing is seen, not even darkness...the world in death does not change, but ceases." Indeed, the world without our human carbon footprint does not change, but ceases.


Some fun quotes

Question: What does global warming cause? Answer: Everything

Michael Schirber: "Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say."

Catherine Brahic: "The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. And this might actually be good news for the effects of climate change on global ocean currents in the short-term, say the study's researchers."

Barbara McMahon in Rome: "Climate change is bringing animals out of hibernation prematurely, making them lose weight and causing them stress, Italian scientists said yesterday."

Terra Daily: "Brown bears at one of Sweden's most popular safari parks, confused by an exceptionally mild winter, have finally gone into hibernation more than two months late despite unseasonally high temperatures, the park said on Tuesday."

Science Daily: "Global warming has had a surprising impact on the Great Lakes region of the U.S. - more snow."

Cosmos magazine: "A reduction in the volume of snow has been noted over the past 20 years, as well as a shortening of the period when snow falls, threatening the future of ski resorts below 1,800 metres and prompting the increased usage of snow cannons, machines turning water in snow which is then sprayed onto the pistes."

USA Today: "Shorter winters without wolves mean about 66% fewer elk deaths every April, which threatens starvation for scavengers. With wolves preying on elk, however, the drop in carrion is only about 11%, a much less dire situation."

USA Today: "Elsewhere, however, extreme weather changes have led to more snowfall in wet regions, which affects wolf and moose populations. On Lake Superior's Isle Royale, gray wolves now hunt in larger packs. As a result, they kill more moose, which was first shown in a 1999 study in Nature."

Thus the elk root for global warming, the moose oppose it and the wolves could not care less. They just eat whatever is available.

Sify News: "Establishing a link between climate change and mental health, the World Health Organisation has said extreme weather conditions like floods, droughts and natural calamities can lead to psychiatric illnesses."

Yes. It is called Global Warming Derangement Syndrome in which everything that happens in the world is linked to global warming.



For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


No comments: