Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Katla could bury global warming

Huge Icelandic volcano set to erupt

The Icelandic Met office has indicated that a small earthquake has occurred at the Katla location and, although a single earthquake is not a precursor of an eminent eruption, it could be the first "sigh" of the awakening powerful giant.

Historically – as most readers will now know - Katla invariably erupts after the eruption of its close neighbour on the Eyjafjallajokull, which first erupted on 14 April 2010 and is ongoing. Magma channels beneath the two volcanoes are thought to be interconnected.

A Katla eruption would likely be about ten times as powerful as the Eyjafjallajokull eruption and could cause worldwide disruption while expelling huge volumes of volcanic ash into the stratosphere. This could circle the globe potentially for years, depending upon the magnitude of the eruption, causing climatic upset and serious economic loss.

We could even be looking at another year without a summer (certainly within the next two years), which could make our current economic problems relatively insignificant by comparison.

The only consolation – and it will be a poor one at that – is that such an event would drive into oblivion the ranks of the warmists who, even to this day are still pursuing their creed, tedious and entirely unconvincing though it is. The downside is that, having been looking for so long in the wrong direction, many politicians and even whole nations will be ill-equipped for a period of significant cooling.


At last! A defence of Warmism with some science in it

But the accusatory tone towards skeptics is there too, of course. The article is by Kerry Emanuel, director of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. So this would seem to be the best science that Warmism can do. Yet all he succeeds in doing is to show how shaky the whole edifice is.

His claim that temperatures have been rising for a long time is correct but it is not what the Warmists normally say. They trace it back only a few decades.

And he completely ignores or denies denies such well-established facts as the Roman and Medieval warm periods, both of which were clearly warmer than today. See HERE for temperature graphs from all over the world which display such periods.

He is actually quite good at setting out the many uncertainties underlying the model-based forecasts but still in the end holds the models up as "evidence", which they are not. Guesses are not evidence. And one of the crucial guesses involved -- cloud feedback -- is on all the evidence so far the reverse of the truth.

No wonder he adds the footnote: Clarification: An earlier version of this op-ed bore the headline "Climate changes are proven fact," which did not reflect the view of the author.

Quite pathetic. Dick Lindzen thinks so too. In old-fashioned terms, Prof. Emanuel has sold his soul to the Devil. Going along with the current scientific orthodoxy no doubt has many rewards for him.

OUTSIDE SCIENTIFIC forums, contemporary discussions of the phenomenon of global warming are now so heated that one wonders whether they are contributing to the phenomenon itself.

With all the interest in alleged misdeeds of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hacked email exchanges among climate scientists, it is easy to lose track of the compelling strands of scientific evidence that have led almost all climate scientists to conclude that mankind is altering climate in potentially dangerous ways. Recent suggestions by gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker that the scientific community is split on this issue have unfortunately added fuel to this largely manufactured debate.

A few essential points are undisputed among climate scientists. First, the surface temperature of the Earth is roughly 60 F higher than it would otherwise be thanks to a few greenhouse gasses that collectively make up only about 3 percent of the mass of our atmosphere.

Second, the concentrations of the two most important long-lived greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane, have been increasing since the dawn of the industrial era; carbon dioxide alone has increased by about 40 percent. These increases have been brought about by fossil fuel combustion and changes in land use.

Third, in the absence of any feedbacks except for temperature itself, doubling carbon dioxide would increase the global average surface temperature by about 1.8 F. And fourth, global temperatures have been rising for roughly the past century and have so far increased by about 1.4 F. The rate of rise of surface temperature is consistent with predictions of human-caused global warming that date back to the 19th century and is larger than any natural change we have been able to discern for at least the past 1,000 years.

Disputes within climate science concern the nature and magnitude of feedback processes involving clouds and water vapor, uncertainties about the rate at which the oceans take up heat and carbon dioxide, the effects of air pollution, and the nature and importance of climate change effects such as rising sea level, increasing acidity of the ocean, and the incidence of weather hazards such as floods, droughts, storms, and heat waves. These uncertainties are reflected in divergent predictions of climate change made by computer models. For example, current models predict that a doubling of carbon dioxide should result in global mean temperature increases of anywhere from 2.5 to 7.5 F.

The uncertainties in the models, theory, and observations of climate change and associated risks and the sheer complexity of the problem provide many rounds of ammunition for the agenda-driven, be they apocalyptic or denialist. For the lawyerly, with the ability and will to cherry-pick the evidence, there is much ripe fruit to hurl in the increasingly heated climate wars of our generation.

But when the dust settles, what we are left with is the evidence. And, in spite of all its complexity and uncertainties, we should not lose track of the simple fact that theory, actual observations of the planet, and complex models - however imperfect each is in isolation - all point to ongoing, potentially dangerous human alteration of climate.

It is easy to be critical of the models that are used to make such predictions - and we are - but they represent our best efforts to objectively predict climate; everything else is mere opinion and speculation. That they are uncertain cuts both ways; things might not turn out as badly as the models now suggest, but with equal probability, they could turn out worse. Science cannot now and probably never will be able to do better than to assign probabilities to various outcomes of the uncontrolled experiment we are now performing, and the time lag between emissions and the response of the climate to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations forces us to make decisions sooner than we would like. We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come, nor does it do anyone any good to assassinate science, the messenger.

We have never before dealt with a problem that threatens not us, but our distant descendants. The philosophical, scientific, and political issues are unquestionably tough. We might begin by mustering the courage to confront the problem of climate change in an honest and open way. [You go first, Prof. Emanuel]


Overturning EPA’s endangerment finding is a Constitutional imperative

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is carrying out one of the biggest power grabs in American history. The agency has positioned itself to regulate fuel economy, set climate and energy policy for the nation, and amend the Clean Air Act—powers never delegated to it by Congress. It has done this by:

• Pulling its punches in the Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court case;

• Granting California a waiver to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles; and

• Declaring greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health and welfare, thus triggering a regulatory cascade through multiple provisions of the Clean Air Act, in a decision known as the “endangerment finding.”

To restore the constitutional separation of powers and democratic accountability, Congress must overturn EPA’s endangerment finding. S. J. Res. 26, a resolution of disapproval, introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), provides an appropriate vehicle to accomplish that. (Enacted in 1996, the CRA provides an expedited procedure for Congress to veto a final agency action before it takes effect.)

The resolution, which would nullify the endangerment finding’s legal force and effect, is a referendum not on climate science, but on who shall make climate and energy policy—the people’s elected representatives or politically unaccountable bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges. Overturning the endangerment finding is a constitutional imperative.

As Senators prepare to debate the resolution, they should ponder four questions:

1. When did Congress authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to license California and other states to adopt their own fuel economy standards within their borders?

2. When did Congress authorize EPA to act as a co-equal—or even senior—partner with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in setting fuel economy standards for the auto industry?

3. When did Congress authorize EPA to control greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources and to establish climate and energy policy for the nation?

4. Finally, when did Congress authorize EPA to “tailor”—that is, amend—the Clean Air Act (CAA) to avoid an administrative debacle of the agency’s own making?

The answers are never, never, never, and never. EPA is flouting federal law and the Constitution, which vests all lawmaking power in Congress.


Paul Ehrlich eat your heart out

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012 says new disciple. At least Ehrlich put his false prophecies about a decade in the future. This guy is giving himself only two years to look a fool.

The melting Siberian permafrost scare is actually an old one. Trouble is that Russian scientists say it is NOT melting. See HERE, for instance

A recent scientific theory called the "hydrate hypothesis" says that historical global warming cycles have been caused by a feedback loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as "hydrates") spur local global warming, leading to further melting of clathrates and bacterial growth.

In other words, like western Siberia, the 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate will gradually melt, and the released methane will speed the melting. The effect of even a couple of billion tons of methane being emitted into the atmosphere each year would be catastrophic.

The "hydrate hypothesis" (if validated) spells the rapid onset of runaway catastrophic global warming. In fact, you should remember this moment when you learned about this feedback loop-it is an existencial turning point in your life.

By the way, the "hydrate hypothesis" is a weeks old scientific theory, and is only now being discussed by global warming scientists. I suggest you Google the term.

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing the Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to when we will pass the tipping point and be helpless to stop the runaway Global Warming.

There are enormous quantities of methane trapped in permafrost and under the oceans in ice-like structures called clathrates. The methane in Arctic permafrost clathrates is estimated at 400 billion tons.

Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2, and the atmosphere currently contains about 3.5 billion tons of the gas.

The highest temperature increase from global warming is occurring in the arctic regions-an area rich in these unstable clathrates. Simulations from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that over half the permafrost will thaw by 2050, and as much as 90 percent by 2100.

Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. The west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70 billion tonnes of methane. Local atmospheric levels of methane on the Siberian shelf are now 25 times higher than global concentrations....

Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's remaining resources.

Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.


Green/Left lies never stop

“South Pole experiences warmest year on record in 2009″… NOT!

This is from the Antarctic Sun, a publication of the United States Antarctic Program and the National Science Foundation…
Highs and lows

South Pole experiences warmest year on record in 2009

The average temperature at the South Pole was a bone-chilling minus 47.9 degrees Celsius (minus 54.2 Fahrenheit) in 2009. It was also the warmest year on record since 1957, when temperature records began at South Pole.

Last year beat out the previous record in 2002 by one-tenth of a degree centigrade, according to Tim Markle, senior meteorologist at the South Pole Station…

Why do the Gorebots make this so easy?

Amundsen-Scot Station (90.0S, 0.0E AKA The South Pole)…

All you have to do, is to look up the data… GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, Station List Search: (90.0 S,0.0 E)… More often than not, these people are massaging the data to get the result they want; or just making things up.

The average annual temperature at the South Pole was warmer in 2002 than it was in 2009…

2002: -47.66 C -53.79 F

2009: -47.93 C -54.274 F

The coldest annual average annual temperature at the South Pole was recorded in 1983 (-50.84 F, -59.51 F)....

Here’s another kicker… Not only is the warmest year of record false, but the linear trend-line is negative…

And the Gorebots accuse us of cherry-picking!!!


Britain still on track to get more nuclear power

Fears that the UK's fight against climate change will be lost in the confusion of the Liberal-Conservative coalition were underlined yesterday when divisions between the two parties were exposed over nuclear power, renewable energy, airport expansion and offshore oil drilling.

It emerged that the new Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne – one of the most senior Lib Dems in the Cabinet – is to cede responsibility for civil nuclear energy policy to his Tory deputy, Charles Hendry, who will steer any legislation through Parliament. Mr Huhne is opposed to nuclear power on public spending grounds.

While the Lib Dems and Tories have agreed that there will be no state funding for a new generation of nuclear power stations, the industry's powerful lobby said it expected there would be no "slowing down" in the nuclear programme under Mr Hendry. The Lib Dems agreed to abstain on any Commons votes on nuclear power – meaning any legislation is likely to be passed.

Experts have expressed fears that although there would be no public funding for new power stations, there is a risk of state subsidy "by stealth" to achieve the 2017 target by which the private sector and civil servants want the stations to be operational. Hamish Lal, a partner specialising in nuclear contracts at lawyers Jones Day, said: "There was a concern in the industry that having a Liberal Democrat energy minister whose party is openly opposed to new nuclear would mean that the process was not driven sufficiently hard to meet the 2017 target. With Charles Hendry involved in the process I would not now expect any slowing down in the nuclear programme."



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


1 comment:

b. j. edwards said...

You wrote:

"No wonder he adds the footnote: Clarification: An earlier version of this op-ed bore the headline "Climate changes are proven fact," which did not reflect the view of the author."

Just a note that back here in the former Colonies, newspaper editors are the ones who actually provide the titles to guest articles, not the author of the articles, in this case Dr. Emanuel.