Declining trees spell gloom for planet -- say Greenie nuts
Since global temperature changes over the last decade have been in tenths of a degree only, whatever is happening to trees is not the result of global warming. There IS no global temperature change to speak of. Besides, any ocean warming would INCREASE overall rainfall, which is good for trees -- and increased CO2 is good for them too.
The study below blames the decline in trees that they saw on drier weather overall -- but drier weather overall is a sign of global COOLING! Pesky! How come these so-called scientists know nothing of the most basic physics of evaporation or the chemistry of photosynthesis?
LESS rainfall and rising global temperatures are damaging one of the world's best guardians against climate change: trees. A global study, published in the journal Science, shows that the amount of carbon dioxide being soaked up by the world's forests in the past decade has declined, reversing a 20-year trend.
It diminishes hopes that global warming can be seriously slowed down by the mass planting of trees in carbon sinks. Although plants generally grow bigger as a result of absorbing carbon-enriched air, they need more water and nutrients to do so, and they have been getting less.
A fierce drought that dried out vast areas of the Amazon Basin in 2005 is seen as a key to the global decline in carbon sinks in the past decade, but Australia is not immune. "Australia is a significant contributor to the global pattern, and the findings are consistent to what we have seen here," said a senior CSIRO researcher and director of the Global Carbon Project, Dr Josep Canadell.
"There has been a measurable decline in the leaf area of plants this decade, though we don't have all the data for Australia yet. What we have seen is strongly consistent with projected patterns of climate change."
The Science study, Drought-induced Reduction in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 2000 through 2009, used data from a NASA satellite that orbits Earth every 15 days to build up a global map of changing leaf density and forest cover. It estimated net primary production, a measurement of how much CO2 is taken in by plants and stored as part of their biomass.
The study found that in some areas of the world, higher temperatures had driven more plant growth. But these gains have been cancelled out by drier conditions in rainforests, leading to the overall decline in total amount of CO2 the forests are soaking up.
The findings reinforce work being done at the Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences, which is researching how much carbon can be stored on a long-term basis in the landscape.
Scientists say that a sustained decline in the amount of carbon being stored in forests risks locking in a vicious cycle, in which trees absorb less carbon because the world is warmer and drier, while the rising carbon levels in the atmosphere continue to trap heat.
"There is no single silver bullet answer to this, but one of the partial solutions is the protection of old-growth forests, which store a lot of CO2, and the replanting of those that have been removed," said Professor Andy Pitman, the co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW. "This doesn't actually get to the heart of the problem though, which is rising CO2 emissions from human activity."
Rainfall patterns in Australia are expected to alter significantly over the next few decades as average temperatures increase, with more rain likely to fall in the north and north-west and less precipitation likely in southern Australia. This means that many of Australia's existing old-growth forests, which are located in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania, can be expected to become less efficient carbon sinks.
A sudden flash of honesty from a Warmist
Richard Alley, a glaciologist and climate researcher at Pennsylvania State University in Philadelphia, calls the findings a "nice advance". He notes, however, that it is only the beginning of trying to determine how glaciers might react to geoengineering.
"We don't really have an ice-sheet model that we trust," says Alley, noting that, in addition to global warming, glaciers react to local and regional changes in winds, ocean temperatures and ocean circulation. "In many ways," he says, "this large advance serves to show how far we have to go before climate modelling of geoengineering is really good enough that useful regional projections could be made to guide decision-makers."
Alan Robock, a geophysicist from Rutgers University in New Jersey, agrees, but says that one finding that does come through strongly is that geoengineering has only a relatively minor effect on sea-level rise. "Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases will have a much larger impact," he says.
Moore concurs. "Anything that isn't reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is like putting [on] a bandage rather than actually solving the problem," he says.
Global warmers, meet flat Earthers
The fact that global warming has been decisively exposed as a global hoax hasn't deterred the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram from running four Global Alarming articles over the past two weeks.
Floods, fires, melting ice, heat waves and rainstorms are all touted in one article as proof of runaway global warming rather than eons-old common occurrences.
Another story tells us how British Columbia adopted California's "landmark greenhouse gas reduction law" and created "more than 20,000 new [taxpayer-funded, bureaucrat-run, politically-connected] clean-tech jobs."
And two others mentioned how the Senate scrapped a bill to curb carbon emissions "responsible for global warming" because of "opposition from Republicans and coal-state Democrats," proving that global warming is all about politics, not science.
The Global Warming scam appears to be business as usual.
It's as though solar sunspot activity that causes the same global warming on Mars as it does on Earth doesn't exist. It's as though a meteorological phenomenon called "blocking events" related to the jet stream doesn't exist. It's as though the IPCC "Climategate" scandal of rigged data doesn't exist. It's as though doctored climatological numbers from UK and US universities don't exist. It's as though the flawed and deceptive climate figures from NOAA don't exist. It's as though countless faulty weather stations and malfunctioning weather satellites and manipulated computer modeling don't exist.
It's as though the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age never existed.
The Earth's climate is "too vast, too chaotic, and too unpredictable to rationally suggest that a little bit of carbon dioxide is driving the whole thing," retorts an article from the libertarian LewRockwell.com titled "Why It's Too Darn Hot" which was not published in the Star-Telegram.
Ordinary people know global warming is a phony excuse for turning the entire planet into a totalitarian socialist-corporatist third world slum for the benefit of the ruling classes and their suck-up toadies.
The Al Gores of the world are motivated by an insatiable greed for power, wealth, and ego gratification. If those obsessions can be gained from global warming they will advocate global warming; if they could be had by promoting flat earth hysteria they would ballyhoo flat earth.
Normal people don't have to be professional environmental scientists to smell a hoax, any more than they need to be professional rodent hunters to smell a rat.
All they need is common sense.
SOURCE (See the original for links)
The 2010 'Global Warming' Summer Apocalypse: A New Movie Blockbuster or The Usual Hollywood Flop?
A lot of work went into the post below from C3 Headlines so I am reproducing it in full below
As most observers of the world's climate/weather realized earlier this year, the 2010 summer was going to be a 'hot one' due to El Ni¤o conditions out in the Pacific. Sure enough, there were some hot temperatures that came to fruition this summer. Yet, despite the foreknowledge that it was to be a hot summer, this summer's warmth drove the media to become gloriously stupid, and of course, the famous Hollywood "climate scientists" to become all-a-flutter, with even a spectacular incident of mentalfailure - all for the purpose of turning the natural El Ni¤o into man-made global warming fiction.
As the leftist-liberal-progressive elites continue being unhinged from what is normal summer weather and El Ni¤o temperatures, they might want to put 2010 into context so as to avoid looking even dumber. To do so, they might compare the 2010 El Ni¤o summer temps with those of the last major El Ni¤o during the summer of 1998, in order to gain perspective.First, it's been really hot in some places and pretty damn cold in others this summer (winter for the Southern Hemisphere), none of which has anything to do with CO2. As for hot, Washington D.C. has had a hot 12-month period ending in July, as the graph on the left depicts. It's the same for the north-east region of the U.S., as shown on the right graph. But look carefully at that chart on the right, despite a hot last 12-months, the trend since the '98 El Ni¤o is at a minus 3.4 degrees per century rate for the north-east region. (click on each image to enlarge)
How about the Atlantic coastal south-east region, below the Washington D.C. area? Well the feared global warming didn't seem to really impact that area over the last 12-months, as it continues a cooling trend since the 1998 El Ni¤o summer (see left chart below). What about the last 12 months for the entire continental U.S.? Actually, as the below chart on the right reveals, U.S. temperatures over the last twelve months have cooled, and has now pushed the country's cooling trend down to a minus 8.5 degrees per century rate. (click on each image to enlarge)
As the above evidence clearly points out, the U.S. has had some urban areas and larger regions warming over the recent past, but overall, the nation's temperatures are down since the last major El Ni¤o. Most certainly, the nation's cooling runs totally counter to what the media and celebrities are always telling us. It's a sad fact that the U.S. elites are either completely ignorant of the real facts or are purposefully misleading the public - it has to be one or the other (okay....there's a third explanation....leftist/liberal "elites" tend to be fairly stupid and gullible - "hey there Mr/Ms Elite Moonbat, how are your Bernie Madoff investments doing?").
Now, how do global temperatures over the last 12 years compared to the U.S. temperature experience? Below is a chart with all 12-month period global temperatures ending in July. As we did above, we are comparing temperatures from the last major El Ni¤o to the one we've experienced in 2010.
On close examination, the chart shows that since 1998 there has not been a single period when global temperatures exceeded the 12-month period ending in July 1998, with one exception: 2010. For all the hysterics about CO2-induced global warming, not a single period bested 1998 until another large El Ni¤o arrived on the scene.
With that said, note that the 2010 absolute increase over the 1998 period was a "staggering," "mind-boggling," an "unprecedented" +0.03 degrees (three one-hundredths of a single degree). This is the "gigantic," "immense" global warming increase that goads Hollywood celebrities into continuously making fools of themselves, and incites hysterical journalists to write idiotic the-world-is-going-to-end articles about summer severe weather events. (click on image to enlarge)
To further put global temperatures in their context, we've marked on the chart the temperature level (15 degrees Fahrenheit higher) that various climate experts and their models predict temperatures will be at 2100.
Look carefully. If massive CO2 emissions caused only +0.03 increase over 12 years, is it really possible they are going to cause a 15 degree jump by 2100? I don't think so....based on a simple average increase experienced over the last 12 years, the temperatures by 2100 would be +0.23 degree higher at best; or, extending a simple linear trend from the past 12 years produces a +1.1 degree warming for the world by 2100.
Whether it's a 0.23 or a 1.1 degree Fahrenheit increase, this is not the climate catastrophe that elites keep predicting will happen but never does.
Here's the moral of this summer's "global warming" story: when elites claim the planet is dying, or facing a climate Armageddon because of a hot weather incident or a severe summer storm, it always pays to stop and ponder what has been said. Temperatures are always going up and down due to natural cycles and any current event always needs to be put into context of what reality is, not what the elites claim.
Reflected Sunlight Shines On IPCC Deceptions And Gross Inadequacies
By Dr. Tim Ball
Moonlight is not light generated by the moon, but reflected sunlight. First astronauts on the moon were amazed by the brightness of Earth when it appeared over the lunar horizon. What they saw was Earthlight, which is also reflected sunlight. It's sunlight that does little to heat the Earth because it goes directly back out to space. The amount reflected varies with changes to the surface and atmosphere. These changes are significant yet poorly measured or understood and pushed aside by the fanatic focus on CO2.
Global warming due to humans is based on the hypothesis that our addition of CO2 has changed the balance of energy entering and leaving the Earth's atmosphere. There are a multitude of factors that can change this balance, many ignored or underplayed by climate science. They get away with this because the public is unaware.
It begins with measures of the amount of energy entering the Earth's atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only consider changes in the irradiance portion of incoming solar energy (insolation). They claim that up to 1950 it explained over 50 percent of temperature variation then CO2 became 90 percent of the cause of change.
Part of the reason for downplaying irradiance is the low percentage of change in modern records. The earliest record from outside the atmosphere from a manned observatory was Skylab (1973 - 1979). Skylab showed a change of 0.14% in the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). An average over time shows a variation of 0.1% for an 11 - year sunspot cycle. This seems like a very small number and therefore of little consequence. The difficulty is by varying TSI by 6% in a computer model you can `explain' all temperature change for the entire history of the Earth.
There is also no agreement about the TSI at the top of the Atmosphere (TOA). As Raschke explained, "Solar radiation is the prime source for all processes within our climate system. Its total amount, the total solar irradiance (TSI) reaching the top-of-atmosphere (TOA), and its variability are now quite accurately known on the basis of multiple satellite measurements and extremely careful calibration activities (Fr”hlich and Lean, 2004).". "Computations, therefore, should be relatively easy."
However, he shows there is no agreement. He compared 20 models and their input values for TOA. (Figure 1) He concludes, "It can be speculated that such different meridional profiles of the solar radiative forcing at TOA should also have impact on the computed atmospheric circulation pattern, in particular when simulations over periods of several decades to several centuries are performed. Therefore, related projects within the World Climate Research Program should take appropriate steps to avoid systematic discrepancies as shown above and to estimate their possible impact on the resulting climate and circulation changes." IPCC are projecting climate change for the next 50 years or more.
So we have problems with the amount of incoming energy, but there are more problems with what happens to the energy once it enters the atmosphere.
One of these is change in albedo. Some believe it's more important than CO2 in affecting balance. "The most interesting thing here is that the albedo forcings, in watts/sq meter seem to be fairly large. Larger than that of all manmade greenhouse gases combined."
When sunlight strikes a surface the color, texture and angle of the light (known as the angle of incidence) determines how much is reflected or absorbed. The difference between them, as a percentage, is called the albedo from the root Latin word albus for white. With a pure white shiny surface 100 percent of the light is reflected so the albedo is 100. On a matte black surface 100 percent is absorbed and the albedo is zero (Figure 2). A solar collector needs to absorb as much solar energy as possible so is matte black and set at right angles to the solar rays.
The moon's albedo is 7, which means 93 units of 100 are absorbed and 7 units reflected. Earth's albedo is 30 on average for the entire globe. The amount varies from a high of 75 to 95 percent for fresh snow down to 8 or 9 percent for coniferous forest. Seasonal variation in snow and ice cover is important as it affects global energy and therefore the weather from year to year. However, the major factor is variability in the type and amount of cloud cover. Thick cloud varies from 60 to 90 and thin cloud from 30 to 50. This variability explains most of the change in albedo shown in Figure 3. The right side scale shows changes in energy with a range of about 9 watts per square meter. Compare this with the 2.5 watts per square meter change estimated to be due to human activities.
IPCC reject irradiance as a cause of temperature change since 1950, but they also reject variations in sun/earth relationships, known as the Milankovitch Effect and the relationship between sunspots and temperature hypothesized by the Svensmark Cosmic Theory. The latter shows a relationship between changes in solar magnetism evidenced by sunspots. As the magnetism varies it determines the amount of galactic cosmic radiation reaching the Earth, which creates low cloud. As low cloud varies albedo varies.
The Earthshine project of the California Institute of Technology that produced Figure 3 concluded in 2004. "Earth's average albedo is not constant from one year to the next; it also changes over decadal timescales. The computer models currently used to study the climate system do not show such large decadal-scale variability of the albedo." Sadly, there are many factors affecting climate change that the IPCC ignore or underplay to achieve the political result that human CO2 is the sole cause.
They only acknowledge "cloud albedo effect" (Figure 4), but correctly admit their level of scientific understanding (LOSU) is low. It is low or medium low for seven of nine items. Low means 2 out of 10 confidence level, medium - low is less than 4 out of 10. They incorrectly claim a high LOSU for CO2, or 8 out of 10, but that is politically necessary.
So they ignore many variables and admit they know little about the ones they study. It is a total abrogation of scientific and social responsibility to let these results form the basis for draconian and destructive energy and environmental policies. They shouldn't have won a Nobel Peace Prize. They couldn't have won a Science Prize.
SOURCE (See the original for links and graphics)
Biofuels and tax expenditures
One of the claims that the renewable energy groups continue to make, as their tax credits approach the chopping block, is that the U.S. is still unfairly subsidizing fossil-fuel energy sources. This is being used to justify the extension of the renewable energy tax credits, as renewable sources cannot compete on price with oil. (Of course, to a large extent they don't need to compete on price because their use is mandated by law.)
See here, and here.
A few things:
(1) Many of the groups arguing against the ethanol tax cuts are also in favor of eliminating tax subsidies to oil companies. (Two wrongs don't make a right)
(2) Both blogs disingenuously references studies that have calculated global fossil fuel subsidies, presumably so they can drop the large $500 billion number. This number is useless - the U.S. doesn't control foreign energy tax policy, and using foreign tax policies as a justification for further subsidizing domestic renewable energy is dubious.
(3) The ethanol industry ignores the fact that the world receives a miniscule amount of energy from renewable sources compared to fossil fuels. If the subsidy amounts were equal, the renewable industry would come out far ahead on subsidies per unit of energy basis.
Furthermore, some of the tax expenditures received by oil companies exist to prevent double taxation. If these weren't in place, these companies would be paying taxes twice, on income earned abroad taxed by the U.S. government. It is also worth noting that these dual capacity tax credits are general tax provisions that do not apply to just the fossil fuel industry - repealing these laws would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. (Note: I have seen this claim disputed by certain groups, insisting that these oil companies are not paying income tax abroad, see here. The specific amount of subsidies the oil industry receives isn't really important to the point I'm making.)
The renewable fuel industry doesn't benefit from many of these because biofuel production facilities are located in the United States (which the biofuel industry doesn't hesitate to remind us).
According to a report by the National Taxpayers Union, future subsidies for renewable energy sources will be much larger than subsidies received by the oil and gas industry. This (I believe this assumes that most tax credits will remain in place) is because of mandated usage of biofuels is expected to increase.
The numbers above, from a report compiled by the Joint Tax Committee, calculate an average of $12.5 billion in subsidies for the renewable industry, and $0.9 billion for oil and gas. Even if the amounts are much closer, the renewable industry comes out way ahead on a per unit basis.
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 blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here