This story is being spread around the Internet:
Can the cherry blossom tell us anything about climate change?
Yes, says Dr. Yasuyuki Aono of the Osaka Prefecture University. Since the mid-1990s, Aono and his colleague Yukio Omoto have been unearthing records of cherry blossom festivals in the former capital of Kyoto and nearby towns going back to the 9th century. Using the dates of the festival given in the records, and an equation that calculated the temperature in March of a given year based on when the cherry blossoms flowered, Aono was able to estimate March temperatures in the Kyoto area for the past 1200 years, a full thousand years farther back than most temperature data is available for.
The findings would not please climate change deniers: Aono found that recent flowering days are earlier than any in the past 1200 years.
Here is the abstract of Aono’s most recent paper, which says the exact opposite.
[His work even includes yet another finding of that pesky Medieval Warming Period, which was only a localized "North Atlantic" phenomenon, according to the Warmists. Pity Japan is in the Pacific!]
We investigated documents and diaries from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries to supplement the phenological data series of the flowering of Japanese cherry (Prunus jamasakura) in Kyoto, Japan, to improve and fill gaps in temperature estimates based on previously reported phenological data. We then reconstructed a nearly continuous series of March mean temperatures based on 224 years of cherry flowering data, including 51 years of previously unused data, to clarify springtime climate changes. We also attempted to estimate cherry full-flowering dates from phenological records of other deciduous species, adding further data for 6 years in the tenth and eleventh centuries by using the flowering phenology of Japanese wisteria (Wisteria floribunda). The reconstructed tenth century March mean temperatures were around 7°C, indicating warmer conditions than at present. Temperatures then fell until the 1180s, recovered gradually until the 1310s, and then declined again in the mid-fourteenth century.
Even worse is the fact that Aono blames recent warming in the cities on the Urban Heat Island effect.
Not a hint of truth being presented by the MSM.
SOURCE (See the original for links)
Some odd physics in the global warming theory
We have all been subjected to one of the most elaborate con jobs in the history of science by the IPCC and their supporters.
It all began with the only indisputable fact about our climate: that all of our energy comes to us from the sun by means of radiation.
Somebody had the brilliant idea that if all other manifestations of energy were marginalized or suppressed and everything about the climate was due to radiation, then it would be much easier to manipulate our entire energy system to claim that it was controlled by the minor atmospheric gas that can absorb radiation, carbon dioxide, provided you can get rid of the major gas, water vapour, which is about 650 times the concentration of carbon dioxide.
It is amazing how they have got away with it. The idea that water vapour is a mere "feedback" to carbon dioxide has been accepted without a murmur and all forms of energy flow except radiation are ignored. So most of us who wish to dispute the outrageous consequences of this deception spend our energies worrying about carbon dioxide and global temperature instead of the real issues that affect the climate.
They tell us that the earth would be much colder if it were not for the "greenhouse" gases but they do not mention what it might be like if we had no atmosphere at all. Yet there is an obvious way of finding out. Our satellite, the moon, is approximately the same distance from the sun as we are, so it gets the same input of the sun's radiation per unit area as ourselves, but it has almost no atmosphere.
Since it has no energy input at night, and if it were insulated you would expect the moon to cool to absolute zero at night.
The mean night temperature of the moon is -147ºC. with a minimum temperature of -233ºC with craters as low as -249ºC; not far off absolute zero. The reason it is not colder than this is that the moon does not have an insulated surface, so there is some residual hear from daytime which warms it at night.
By day the average temperature on the moon is 107ºC with a maximum of 123ºC. So there is a mean difference between day and night of 254ºC .
Mean day and night temperatures on earth seem not to be available, so we must assume rough figures of 25ºC by day and -10ºC by night (average of 15ºC)
So why is it that there is so much difference (254 ºC) between day and night on the moon, and only 35ºC on the earth?
The answer has to be that the earth has an atmosphere, and that it must play the major role in the earth's climate, cooling the earth by day and warming it by night.
The IPCC have cleverly concealed this major role by its emphasis on radiation. They have also done it by using models which cover up the important difference between day and night, together with a whole array of other absurd assumptions.
Any schoolboy will know that there are four means of transfer of energy: conduction, convection, latent hest and radiation. The first three are all but ignored by the IPCC
But not quite completely. The two "Global Energy Budgets" by Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) and Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl (2009), the diagrams from which were attached to Newsletter No 264, mention two items that cool the earth (on average), "Latent Heat"and "Thermals" and they give values of 78 to 90 W/sqm for Latent Heat and 15 to 19 W/msq for the "Thermals" Each of these quantities are admitted to be highly uncertain; indeed the "Thermals" are obtained by difference between other quantities.
It is immediately obvious that these two effects. including their uncertainties and possible "trends" are overwhelmingly more important than the claimed 0.9W/msq supposed to have resulted from the increases in human induced greenhouse gases since the year 1700
The heat absorbed (cooling) by evaporation of water varies with temperature (104kJ/kg at 25ºC, 209kJ/kg at 60ºC) and it happens manly during the day, but its return as liquid water or snow is probably not much different between day and night, so its cooling effect is mainly by day
"Thermals" refer to the cooling of the earth's surface by convection in the atmosphere. The surface that is heated by the sun transfers heat by conduction and since the hot air is lighter it rises and is replaced by more. The system generates winds and even hurricanes and tornados with different patterns which form the basis for weather forecasting. As the air mixes with upper layers the atmosphere cools with height which peters out at the tropopause. The heated air radiates its energy, half upwards and half back down.
This happens only when the sun shines, By night, when there is no input from the sun, the surface cools by radiation, but the atmosphere that has been warmed by day transfers some heat back to the surface. It is more effective with wind intensity, so there is a cooler surface on still nights.
This mechanism operates in exactly the same way in a greenhouse. The only difference is that the amount of air available in a greenhouse is much smaller, so it is able to maintain a higher temperature inside than outside. The fact that the air in the greenhouse cools the sun-heated ground by day is not generally appreciated, nor the fact that it keeps the ground warm at night
These mechanisms, which cool the earth and even out night and day temperatures, are little understood and there is very inaccurate knowledge of the actual quantities of heat transferred by either mechanism or how they vary in time and place.. Both of them are certainly affected by human activity but there are no attempts being made to find out their extent. Every activity we have with water affects its evaporation. Every activity affects the degree of convection. These are the true "anthropogenic" effects on the climate. The amounts are certainly far greater than the miserable 0.9W/msq which is claimed to have resulted from emissions of carbon dioxide since the year 1700.
More evidence of a much warmer past
By studying fossilized seashells from 3.5 million years ago, scientists from the University of California in Los Angeles have constructed an ancient climate record for Ellesmere Island.
Their research shows that, during this period, temperatures were considerably higher in the High Arctic than today. Three to four million years ago, temperatures from May to September were 11 to 16 C warmer there than the present-day average temperatures of −1.6 to 1.3 C.
From studying fossil seashells and plants gathered around Ellesmere Island’s Strathcona Fiord, scientists determined that the average growing-season temperature on Ellesmere Island reached about 11 C.
Shells collected from Beaver Pond in Strathcona Fiord provided the materials scientists looked at for this recent study.
Named for the numerous branches discovered with beaver teeth marks, which have lasted for millions of years, Beaver Pond contains many plant and animal specimens which are well-preserved within a peat layer encased in ice.
By measuring the oxygen in a combination of fossilized shells and plant samples, it was possible to determine the temperature at which the specimens originally formed, said Aradhna Tripati, from ULCA’s department of earth and space sciences, in an April 7 news release.
The original of the article above included some speculation about how CO2 might cause something similar but that is just a diversion. It is not about the findings above
Rush to Use Crops as Fuel Raises Food Prices and Hunger Fears
There is not much new in the article below but the fact that it comes from the NYT is interesting. Are biofuels now yet another dead fad?
Farmers in Thailand face a surging demand for cassava, a fairly new crop for biofuel production. The starchy cassava root has long been an important ingredient in everything from tapioca pudding and ice cream to paper and animal feed.
But last year, 98 percent of cassava chips exported from Thailand, the world's largest cassava exporter, went to just one place and almost all for one purpose: to China to make biofuel. Driven by new demand, Thai exports of cassava chips have increased nearly fourfold since 2008, and the price of cassava has roughly doubled.
Each year, an ever larger portion of the world's crops - cassava and corn, sugar and palm oil - is being diverted for biofuels as developed countries pass laws mandating greater use of nonfossil fuels and as emerging powerhouses like China seek new sources of energy to keep their cars and industries running. Cassava is a relatively new entrant in the biofuel stream.
But with food prices rising sharply in recent months, many experts are calling on countries to scale back their headlong rush into green fuel development, arguing that the combination of ambitious biofuel targets and mediocre harvests of some crucial crops is contributing to high prices, hunger and political instability.
This year, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that its index of food prices was the highest in its more than 20 years of existence. Prices rose 15 percent from October to January alone, potentially "throwing an additional 44 million people in low- and middle-income countries into poverty," the World Bank said.
Soaring food prices have caused riots or contributed to political turmoil in a host of poor countries in recent months, including Algeria, Egypt and Bangladesh, where palm oil, a common biofuel ingredient, provides crucial nutrition to a desperately poor populace. During the second half of 2010, the price of corn rose steeply - 73 percent in the United States - an increase that the United Nations World Food Program attributed in part to the greater use of American corn for bioethanol.
"The fact that cassava is being used for biofuel in China, rapeseed is being used in Europe, and sugar cane elsewhere is definitely creating a shift in demand curves," said Timothy D. Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University who studies the topic. "Biofuels are contributing to higher prices and tighter markets."
In the United States, Congress has mandated that biofuel use must reach 36 billion gallons annually by 2022. The European Union stipulates that 10 percent of transportation fuel must come from renewable sources like biofuel or wind power by 2020. Countries like China, India, Indonesia and Thailand have adopted biofuel targets as well.....
Climate Morons Discuss Mounting Primary Challenges And Collecting Scalps
By William Teach
Apparently, Grist writer David Roberts (who's going for the Commander Ricker look) missed the memo on the "new tone": Nothing will change until greens mount some primary challenges and collect some scalps
So, 350.org and 1Sky are uniting. Interesting news! I was particularly struck by this bit from Bill McKibben and Betsy Taylor's post:
We have learned over time that you can't win simply by explaining the crisis to political leaders; they may intellectually understand that they're facing the end of the world, but what they really fear is the end of their political careers. We need to build a movement that can reward and punish politicians. Since we'll never have the money to match the fossil-fuel front groups, we're going to need a different currency: bodies, creativity, passion.
Got that? They have to build a movement based on.....all things not-science! It's almost like the climate change hoax is a....political movement or something. David goes on to write
I agree -- a thousand times over! -- about the dire need for the climate hawk movement to focus on political power. Facts and science are inert unless they're backed by a constituency that has the power and willingness to reward its political allies and punish politicians who cross it. Right now greens aren't doing that. Nobody in D.C., with the possible exception of coastal liberal pols like Barbara Boxer, has any reason at all to fear the wrath of green groups. In fact, green group wrath -- expressed in grumpy TV adds, PR releases, and internet petitions -- generally serves as a badge of pride in districts to the right of, say, Bernie Sanders'. It makes a pol look "moderate."
So, putting up rational, adult, scientific information that substantiates their belief that mankind is mostly or solely responsible for global warming is old and busted....well, really, hasn't been tried. The Warmists immediately jumped to the conclusion that Man is bad, we must put in vast personal and economic controls, and tax everything. But, David does disagree with the notion about them not having enough money
The problem is that greens have been playing the top-down game badly. And it's not from lack of money -- depending on how you tally it up, they spent between $200 million and $300 million just in the last year or so on the climate-bill battle. That's more than enough money to do some damage, if it's spent well.
So, they've spent between $200 and $300 million in the last year or so, and accomplished nothing? In fact, they've accomplished turning even more people off from their cult. And these are the people that want to be in charge of tax policy and controlling people? They can't even accomplish their own goals with massive amounts of money.
And, think what they could have done with that money to help the environment instead of policy advocacy and agitation. How many species they could have protected. But, again, the anthropogenic global warming movement is not about protecting the planet, saving nature, it's about power and control.
Environment? What environment? Federal inaction at Mt. Morgan is brewing a toxic disaster
A mine tailings dam about to fail is a REAL environmental problem but is not "sexy" enough to attract the attention of the grand people of Australia's Green/Left government, apparently -- but it could be a disaster for a lot of people.
Well we do not have a problem as long as the 7,000 mega litres of water held back by the tailings wall does not break. In total there is 11,500 mega litres in the Mount Morgan Mine pit laced with cadmium and other heavy metals which would flow into the Dee River, then into the Don River, into the Dawson River and down into the city of Rockhampton's water supply on the Fitzroy. To understand the scale Lake Burley Griffin holds 33,000 mega litres.
They say that the cyanide that was used in processing is now inert but it is the acid rock drainage (ARD) that is the real problem. The water has a ph between 2.8 to 3.5. Understandably those downstream are a little anxious as the water is pouring through the tailings wall.
Because of the wet weather it would have been a good idea if the water course leading into the mine could be properly diverted around it.
The Government management could be described as a kiss it better job on a train crash. The State Environment Minister, Kate Jones, is almost pathological in her defence of bats. Maybe we could tell her that bats go to the river on the weekend. The locals are scratching their heads as to whether Kate has even visited the site. If she did it was low key.
Stirling Hinchcliffe, the Mines Minister, said how I dare impugn Kate's portfolio. Good-o. Well Stirling, apt name for a minister responsible for a mine which extracted 247,000kg of gold, 360,000 tonnes of copper and also 40,000kg of silver, what are you going to do apart from saying in a "yes minister" like form, nothing to see here, move on please.
When a ship the Shen Neng 1, ran onto a reef near Gladstone creating approximately one kilometre of damage, an aerial circus of everyone including Kevin Rudd, Bob Brown, Peter Garrett and Anna Bligh flew back and forth over the site crying tears of blood all over the cabin of the plane. It was a shame the planes with pollies instead of flying east to sea did not fly north west to Mt Morgan.
Later, cyclone Yasi knocked out, on a conservative estimate, 20,000 sq km of reef virtually shutting down sections of the much maligned fishing industry. An act of nature, sure, but there were no tears for the fisherman, apparently.
I do not recollect if we had spent all of Mr Garrett's, sorry your, $2.5 billion at that stage on ceiling insulation. If we had kept back $120 million of that we could have treated the water, emptied the pit, filled it in and covered it up.
Now, instead of a solution we are catching the water in dams that spills out and pumping it back in so it can spill back out again. Let me assure you that the little boy who stuck his finger in the dyke to save Holland had far more effect than the remedial work at Mt Morgan Mine. They have constructed a treatment works for 650 mega litres a year. Pathetic when compared to the enormity of the task at hand.
The locals down stream say they are looking up the hill to one of the greatest potential environmental disasters in Australia. The Dee River is already the most polluted in Queensland. The wealth of the mine was critical in the formation of BP and on a benevolent note, the Walter and Eliza Hall Trust. Unfortunately, it is becoming Australia's version of the former gold mines of Montanna and the environmental disaster they have bequeathed on the Bitter Root River. The Zortman-Landusky Mine was one of the first in the USA to attempt large scale cyanide heap leach extraction of low grade gold ores, unfortunately the water got out.
Where it really, counts the Labor party have deserted the environment. If the Labor Party, Mr Hinchliffe, Mr Garret or Ms Jones, who champions cleaning up our rivers, don't want to do it for the farmers or the people of Rockhampton, then possibly they may want to do it for the bats or the Barrier Reef. But wherever their motivation is, they should please do something more.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, 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