Friday, May 29, 2015
Swedish glaciologist casts doubt on the claim that air bubbles found in ice cores represent the true level of CO2 at the time the ice was laid down
Below find a machine translation from the original Swedish. Note that it is already well-known that air bubbles in ice cores steadily degenerate over time. See here. I questioned the reliability of ice-core studies here on 25th
This diffusion leads to my hypothesis that the levels of carbon dioxide and methane that one gets from ice cores are systematically low. In the second part of the hypothesis assumed amount diffusively leakage depend on temperature due to precipitation should vary with temperature. The residence time of a gas bubble in the transition zone can be the average of several thousand years in the interior of Antarctica, where annual precipitation is very small. If precipitation decreases because of lower temperature also increases the residence time of the gas bubbles in the transition zone of increased diffusive loss of gas as a result, and vice versa. This is, in my hypothesis, the reason that carbon dioxide and methane curves have the same shape as the temperature curve from ice drill cores.
The question now is whether the scientific literature can give any guidance about my hypothesis. I have browsed the literature and found some interesting things. Apart from diffusion in the firn, which have been studied carefully, so the diffusion of the gas molecules in the ice are not attracted little interest until recent years. It has been considered that this diffusion is so slow that it can not affect the results.
But Ikeda Fukazawa et al. (2004) found the theoretical path through the so-called molecular dynamic simulation of diffusion in ice crystals of molecules of oxygen, nitrogen, methane and carbon dioxide occurs by a different mechanism than previously thought. This meant new values of diffusion coefficients that were several orders of magnitude larger than previously thought.
Ikeda Fukazawa et al. (2005) then developed a model for the diffusion of nitrogen and oxygen through klatratis (ie ice with gas bound as clathrates, no bubbles) which they used to study the loss of gas from the heap conditioned ice cores from Antarctica raised in a Japanese ice drill projects. They demonstrated that the ratio of nitrogen and oxygen in as little as three years changed because of the diffusion of klatratpartiklarna in the ice to the open air. They concluded that this result has important implications for the reconstruction of atmospheric composition using ice cores.
These unexpected results led to several new studies. Ahn et al. (2008) used a clever method to study the diffusion of carbon dioxide in the real klatratis from Antarctica, but from a coastal ice drill station with high annual rainfall. They were able to confirm that the diffusion of carbon dioxide in the ice were bigger than previously thought but still one or two orders of magnitude smaller than in firnen at a depth of nearly 300 meters. At greater depth at this site, about 940 m, estimated the other hand, the diffusion occurred as fast as in firnen. One must therefore where a significant leveling of carbon dioxide concentrations variations. But they also emphasized that their calculations only to the diffusion in the ice, while it is possible that diffusion can also take place in water-filled grain boundaries between the ice crystals.
Bereiter et al. (2009) also used the diffusion model according to Ikeda-Fukazawa et al. (2004) to study diffusionsförlust of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide from the stored up ice cores of klatratis from the interior of Antarctica, as Vostok. Their simulations line with the observed changes in oxygen-nitrogen ratio after 2, 4, 6 and 38 years. The carbon dioxide content also affected under the simulation but in this case diffused carbon dioxide is relatively slower than nitrogen and oxygen so that the effect was too high values of carbon dioxide concentration.
Bereiter et al. (2014) have simulated what this diffusion model has implications for the equalization of carbon dioxide concentrations variations in ice from the Antarctic interior. They concluded that the countervailing power of carbon dioxide variations in the oldest ice at a depth of 2700 m was 5% (in such an application is the driving force for diffusion very small and large diffusion distances).
The UN climate panel's latest scientific report (IPCC 2013), the aforementioned discussion in the scientific literature on diffusion effects in connection with ice cores is not treated. These discussed the articles that dealt diffusionsproblemen in connection with the ice cores (Ikeda Fukazawa et al. 2004, 2005: Ahn et al., 2008; Bereiter et al. 2009) are not included in the report (IPCC 2013) reference list.
The UN Climate Panel writes the following about ice drill cores (IPCC 2013 p. 391):
As a complement to the instrumental data provide air trapped in polar ice a direct measure of the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases, although this has leveled off due to the diffusion of firnen (Joos and Spahni, 2008; Köhler et al., 2011).
Only the influence of diffusion in the firn treated in Joos and Spahni (2008) and Kohler et al. (2011), any discussion of the diffusion of gases in the ice during firnlagret are not in these articles.
What does this mean for my hypothesis? First, it is important to keep in mind that the diffusion that my hypothesis relates occurs from gas bubbles at high pressure to open pores at atmospheric pressure, the diffusion distances through the ice are small, at least fractions of mm, and the time when the diffusion can be effectively is of the order of hundreds of years. The articles of the literature review shows significant diffusion of diffusion in many etc. after a few years. Secondly, it is important that the data available is both uncertain and incomplete so that something truly vital if the hypothesis can not be said.
It is important to understand both the similarity and the difference between diffusion through the ice from a klatratpartikel to the atmosphere and the diffusion from a pressurized gas bubble. Let us compare a klatratpartikel and a gas bubble with the same composition of the gas mixture. Diffusion of gas molecules from the particle or bubble will be determined by how much concentration is right on the boundary of the ice-free dissolved gas molecules.
In klatratpartikeln seems chemical forces on the gas molecules that are not in the gas bubble. These forces act more strongly to molecules of carbon dioxide than the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen. They reduce the concentration at the particle surface and therefore reduces the diffusion rate which means that diffusion of carbon dioxide at a disadvantage compared with oxygen and nitrogen in relation to when we have the gas bubble in place. Carbon I judge from the data in Bereiter et al. (2009) that this effect increases koldioxiddiffusionen approximately twenty times from the gas bubble compared to klatratpartikeln.
The effect of the loss of gas from klatratis by diffusion in the storage of ice cores is thus according to the analysis of Bereiter et al. (2009) that it would get to high carbon dioxide levels. But the diffusion of carbon dioxide from gas bubbles in the transition zone should go about twenty times faster than from klatratpartiklar so it is quite possible that you get the reverse effect of gas bubbles lose gas to the open pores in the transition zone where the bubbles and open pores are about each other. If so, we will systematically low values of the concentrations of both carbon dioxide and methane leads to the second part of my hypothesis also a good explanation as to why carbon dioxide and methane curves are so similar temperature curve, as I described in last Friday's blog post.
My conclusion is therefore that I have found in the literature rather strengthens my hypothesis than weaken it. It is now clear that one must expect that the diffusion of gas molecules in the ice have significant effects. But it is not some big rashes in either direction for my hypothesis as long as the understanding and the data that they discussed diffusionseffekterna is so uncertain and incomplete (eg no knowledge at all about the diffusion of water-filled grain boundaries in the ice).
Leaving the Church of Environmentalism
By Alan Caruba
In March 2009 while the Environmental Protection Agency was rushing to fulfill a presidential campaign pledge to document that carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other greenhouse gases endangered public health and the environment, a longtime employee, Alan Carlin, put out a 93-page report challenging the science being cited and the drift of the agency from its initial role to one captured by fanatical activists and alarmists, treating environmentalism more as a religion than based in science.
At the time Carlin was a 72-year-old analyst and economist who, as The New York Times put it, “had labored in obscurity in a little-known office at the Environmental Protection Agency since the Nixon administration.” His EPA career would span 38 years.
The website for his new book, “Environmentalism Gone Mad” says, “Dr. Alan Carlin is an economist and physical scientist with degrees from Caltech and MIT and publications in both economics and climate/energy, who became actively involved in the Sierra Club in the 1960s as an activist and Chapter Chairman. This led to a career as a manager and senior analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency.”
As he says in the preface “The purpose of this book is to explain why I changed from my lifelong support of the environmental movement to extreme skepticism concern their current primary objective of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.”
“Although I and the many other climate skeptics are now referred to as ‘deniers’ by the climate alarmists, that does not change the science—and there is no valid scientific basis for the alarmists’ catastrophic climate predictions—or justify their fantastically expensive and useless ‘solution.’”
Carlin went from being a dedicated environmentalist, based on its initial philosophy of conservation, to an observer of the movement that was taken over and distorted to advocate falsehoods about global warming and a transition from fossil-fuels to “clean energy” meaning wind, solar and bio-fuels. As an economist he understood how absurd it was to suggest rejecting fossil-fuels, the key element of modern industry and society.
“The climate alarmists,” says Carlin, “have now been making their apocalyptic predictions for almost thirty years and it is now possible to compare their predictions with actual physical observations.” Suffice to say all the predictions of a significantly higher temperature—the warming—have been wrong.
In fact, the Earth has been in a natural cooling cycle since 1998 and shows no indication of warming
Predictions about the North and South Poles melting, a major rise in ocean levels, increased hurricanes and other climate events have been wrong along with countless other climate-related apocalyptic predictions.
Having observed how the EPA has functioned for more than three decades, Carlin warns that its current “environmental policy has been hijacked by radicals intent on imposing their ideology by government fiat on the rest of us whether we like it or not…If environmental policy is based on government fiat or ‘green’ policy prescriptions the results have been and are very likely to continue to be disastrous.”
At 625 pages, Carlin’s book takes the reader from his early days as a Sierra Club activist and chapter leader to being an EPA outcast, denounced for telling the truth about the false claims of global warming, climate change, and what is now being called extreme weather.
As an economist, Carlin is particularly upset that “the Obama Administration’s climate/energy policy is wasting very large sums on non-solutions to minor or non-problems.” The book has come along as President Obama has been flogging “climate change” as the greatest threat to the nation and the world.
“It has been long recognized that weather is chaotic," says Carlin. While we operate within the four seasons, the weather that occurs can only be predicted in the most general terms. Suggesting that humans actually have any effect on the weather is absurd.
That is why the predictions made by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and all the others based on computer models are, by definition, worthless. Computer models cannot predict anything about the vast chaotic global climate system. Even today, meteorologists are mystified by the actions of clouds which can form and disappear in minutes.
It’s useful to keep in mind that climate is measured in centuries, while the weather is reported as what is occurring today and forecast, at best, for no more than a week. Weather records are maintained for purposes of comparison and within the larger context of determining the Earth’s climate cycles. Like those in the past, the present cooling cycle is based on a comparable one of the Sun that is producing lower levels of radiation. You don’t need a Ph.D. in meteorology to understand this.
Carlin does not hesitate to excoriate the blather put forth by the alarmists; particularly their claims that the weather is affected in any significant fashion by human activity and development in particular. “There is simply no evidence thus far that the normal activities of man have or will result in catastrophic outcomes for either man or nature.”
The actions the alarmists call for do nothing to enhance and benefit our lives. They drive up the cost of energy and food. They ignore how dependent modern life is on the use of fossil fuels.
“Despite all the lavish funding by liberal foundations and the federal government on their global warming doctrine-inspired programs, the radical environmental movement has long since gone so far beyond rationality that it is counter-productive in achieving its own ends.”
So long as it remains heavily funded and backed by the federal government, we must, like Carlin, speak out against environmental extremism. We must elect new people to govern in a more realistic, science-based fashion. We must urge our current legislators to rein in the rogue Environmental Protection Agency.
Up to 99% of Everest's glaciers could be gone by 2100
And pigs might become airborne -- it's just modelling nonsense
Glaciers in the Everest region of the Himalayas could be almost completely eradicated by 2100 due to greenhouse gas emissions, scientists have warned.
Models show that a decrease of 99 per cent by the end of the century is likely if emissions continue to rise, and even 70 per cent is possible if emissions are reduced.
The study paints a grim picture of the impact of climate change on the world's highest peak.
The research was carried out by scientists from Nepal, the Netherlands and France.
They studied weather patterns in the atmosphere and then created a model of conditions on Everest to determine the future impact of rising temperatures on its glaciers.
'The worst-case scenario shows a 99 per cent loss in glacial mass... but even if we start to slow down emissions somewhat, we may still see a 70 per cent reduction,' said Dr Joseph Shea of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, who led the study.
Increased temperatures will not only increase the rates of snow and ice melt, but can also result in a change of precipitation from snow to rain at critical elevations, where glaciers are concentrated.
Together, these act to reduce glacier growth and increase melting in the area.
Glaciers in High Mountain Asia, a region that includes the Himalayas, contain the largest volume of ice outside the polar regions.
The team studied glaciers in the Dudh Kosi basin in the Nepal Himalaya, which is home to some of the world's highest mountain peaks, including Mt Everest, and to over 154 square miles (400 square km) of glacier area.
'Apart from the significance of the region, glaciers in the Dudh Kosi basin contribute meltwater to the Kosi River, and glacier changes will affect river flows downstream,' said Dr Shea.
Dr Shea was part of a team that published a major study last year using satellite imagery to show how Nepal's glaciers had already shrunk by nearly a quarter between 1977 and 2010.
But the latest study, published Wednesday in international scientific journal The Cryosphere, shows the region getting much worse by 2100.
'Once we had tested our model and got the weather patterns right, we increased temperatures according to different emission scenarios for a look at future scenarios,' Dr Shea said.
He said melting glaciers could form deep lakes which could burst and flood mountain communities living downstream.
Dr Shea said shrinking glaciers could also affect water supplies in the Everest region, with lower volumes of snowmelt flowing into the Dudh Kosi river, which provides water for Nepalis downstream.
'The decline during the pre-monsoon period will probably have an impact on any future hydropower projects because there won't be enough rainwater to meet power needs.'
Glacial loss in Nepal raises concerns over future access to water resources, particularly in regions where groundwater is limited and monsoon rains are erratic.
The Sustainability Project
By Rich Kozlovich
On May 23rd the Shanghai Daily ran an article titled, “UN chief sees biodiversity key tosustainable development, ending poverty”.
The article starts out stating that, “UN Secretary-General Ban Ki- moon on Friday called on everyone to recommit to global action to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss, for people and for our planet, saying that biodiversity is essential to sustainable development and eradicating poverty.” The article goes on to quote the Secretary-General saying, “Protecting ecosystems and ensuring access to ecosystem services by poor and vulnerable groups are essential to eradicating extreme poverty and hunger."
And how does Ban think this is going to be accomplished? The article states, “Ban said reducing deforestation and land degradation and enhancing carbon stocks in forests, dry lands, (Is he advocating the building of dams becuase the environmental movement is against that?) range lands and crop lands generate significant benefits and are cost-effective ways to mitigate climate change.” He continues saying, “any sustainable development framework must provide conditions for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for more equitable sharing of benefits”.
Souza Dias claims, "Biodiversity underpins all those ecosystem functions and benefits essential to human well-being, not only in terms of our economies, but also for our health, food security, prevention of natural hazards, and our cultural roots”. He also states that, “biodiversity sustainably can provide solutions to a range of challenges to sustainability and human well-being, including poverty eradication, food security, sustainable production and consumption, water security, disaster risk reduction and climate change.”
For those who don’t follow this stuff you will read these comments and it may sound rational. But what happens when we take them one at a time, analyze them and then ask what they're really saying and what these statements mean?
First of all sustainable development is indefinable, or unendingly re-definable according the the green whim of the moment, which is common in all things the left promotes, especially when it comes to the green movement. The word sustainable means to be able to do something over and over again. What exactly is it that’s not being done over and over again they wish to restore or prevent from disappearing? What exactly is the current generation destroying for future generations? They never tell us what isn’t being done over and over again, since they only declare things are unsustainable without any evidence to support these hysterical speculations. What is it they actually want? Remember when they claimed using traditional energy souces was unsustainable? Which of course meant modern agriculture was unsustainable. All of that turned out to be blatantly false. As for biological sustainability - its even less definable and borders on neo-pagan nature worshipping mysticism.
Are we to assume no species of animal or plant can be allowed to go extinct? If that’s the case what steps should be taken to prevent that? Under the Endangered Species Act that requires setting aside “suitable habitat”, which can include ridiculous amounts of acreage. And it doesn’t stop there. Anything done around that “suitable habitat zone” can be restricted because some bureaucrat decides it’s detrimental to some bug, or plant that’s been designated as endangered. That stopped the Keystone Pipeline. How is that going to reduce hunger and support good economic policy?
Let’s take a look at the comments made by Ban and Diaz.
1. Ban is quoted saying: “biodiversity is essential to sustainable development and eradicating poverty.” - If there ever was a logical fallacy – this is it! Okay, so now we have to ask - why and how? If biodiversity is essential to eradicating poverty there must be some firm logical foundation to support that statement. What is it? Just exactly how is biodiversity going to eradicate poverty? If anything - it will increase it! Unless of course you reduce the world’s population dramatically, which is the underlying motive of the environmental movement, and that doesn’t really supply an answer to endng poverty. Poverty has been with mankind for all of human history. The idea of eradicating poverty is just more leftist utopian blather, and will never be achieved by any of the means discussed. It’s a red herring to deflect attention from the real goal. World governance by the most corrupt and incompetent organization the world has ever known. The United Nations!
2. “Ban said reducing deforestation and land degradation and enhancing carbon stocks in forests, dry lands, range lands and crop lands generate significant benefits and are cost-effective ways to mitigate climate change.” - What exactly does “enhancing carbon stocks mean”? First let’s define REDD+. “Launched in September 2008, the United Nations Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, known better simply as UN-REDD was created with the goal of helping countries implement REDD+ strategies. What are REDD+ strategies? To quote the UN: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) - is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development. “REDD+” goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
A key component of the REDD+ strategy, it includes forest management activities such as restoring existing but degraded forests and increasing forest cover through environmentally appropriate afforestation and reforestation.
So this is all about CO2 and the false premise that CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming! Since the incredibly small amount of warming that was taking place ended over 18 years ago it’s now “climate change”, in spite of the fact that levels of CO2 has increased. The very premise for Ban’s comments is fraudulent. Ban’s solution to end poverty is to take farm land and turn it into forests. Did I understand that correctly? Not the Sahara desert, or the Gobi desert, or some other largely “pristine” but desolate area of the world, but areas that are already inhabited with large populations needing agricultural acreage. Acreage that’s being eaten up with crops to make ethanol. A policy the UN and the green movement supports. Does this seem like cognitive dissonance, or is it a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the facts?
3. Ban claims, “any sustainable development framework must provide conditions for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for more equitable sharing of benefits”. What does, “the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for more equitable sharing of benefits”. What does that mean? And how is that to be accomplished? We come right back to the leftist's desire of controlling outcomes that are acceptable to leftist elites. In effect - when the word’s conservation, sustainability and biodiversity are used by leftists they're nothing more than triggers to promote worldwide socialism under the guise of equitability. In short - it's the same old socialist theme - you are being cheated by the rich so we're going to forcibly take it from them and give it to you. Just give us the power!
4. Souza Dias claims, "Biodiversity underpins all those ecosystem functions and benefits essential to human well-being, not only in terms of our economies, but also for our health, food security, prevention of natural hazards, and our cultural roots”…..“biodiversity sustainably can provide solutions to a range of challenges to sustainability and human well-being, including poverty eradication, food security, sustainable production and consumption, water security, disaster risk reduction and climate change.” - First of all there’s no such thing as an eco-system other than the planet itself. These ‘eco-systems’ they talk about are never stable. Too much rain and plant and animal species are changed. Too little water and another change will take place. Forest fires destroy untold acreage and the plants and animals inhabiting the area changes. Furthermore, species become extinct as a result of being biologically incompetent, and will be replaced by plants or animals that can adapt to change. How many species have gone extinct? Over 95% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, and all the species living today will become extinct. Extinction is the rule, not the exception!
Let’s break down Dias’ thoughts individually.
"Biodiversity underpins all those ecosystem functions and benefits essential to human well-being". That statement is a red herring. What is it he wants to implement? Controlled habitat that prevents use by humans so certain species will not be effected?
"Not only in terms of our economies", How is this really an economic issue? Explain!
"But also for our health," How is this a health issue? Explain!
"Food security" - How does committing to a UN biodiversity project provide food security? Explain!
"Prevention of natural hazards" - How does biodiversity prevent natural hazards, and what exactly qualifies as a natural hazard, and if they’re natural, how could they be prevented? Do we really believe global warming causes hurricanes, tornadoes, etc? We know those claims have been proven false. Perhaps a commitment to biodiversity prevents earthquakes?
Cultural roots” - And the least definable and least meaningful of them all….cultural roots. What does that mean? Never change what we do…forever? End cultural patterns disapproved by the UN? Perhaps it means destroying the US Constitution. Since the green movement is so hot on "going back to nature" perhaps it means abandoning all the advances that make modern life possible.
Dias claims “biodiversity sustainably can provide solutions to a range of challenges to sustainability and human well-being, including poverty eradication, food security, sustainable production and consumption, water security, disaster risk reduction and climate change.”
All these sound bites sound appealing, but this is nothing more that another emotional appeal by the left claiming they have the answers that will bring about utopia. The problem is all they ever deliver is dystopia. Following a UN sponsored biodiversity program will not end poverty, provide food security, disaster risk reduction (whatever that means) or climate change. Oh, it will provide “production and consumption” controls, but I don't think anyone except the ruling elite will like that outcome. Because misanthropic leftists will be telling the world what to produce and how much of it everyone will be allowed to consume.
They will also control how much water you may use and for what. If we have any delusions about what that will mean then just take a look at what's being done in California (which is facing a devastating drought) with the delta smelt, allowing thousands of gallons of fresh water to flow into the delta for the benefit of a bait fish, while destroying the farms that need it.
As for climate change? It’s the greatest fraud perpetrated by any human organization in all of human history. The mere fact the UN continues to use this as a reason to adopt any of their schemes is a clear demonstration of the deliberate fraudulence behind their sustainable development and biodiversity programs.
Let's not be fooled by clever sounding rhetoric. The answer is in the history. The history of the left is filled with tyranny, misery, squalor, suffering, disease and early death, and if the world accepts these deliberate misrepresentations and red herrings of "sustainable development" and "biological diversity" - that's what will follow, and their warnings are as valid as The Monkey Stampede!
More solar panel subsidies die
Waste of money in Spain, USA, Britain and Germany and now Australia. Aussie solar panels suck money from the poor and hand it to the rich
The cost of climate-change-inspired subsidies to boost the installation of rooftop solar systems has forced consumers who don’t have solar panels (the poor people) to pay $14bn to the rich people who do, but the Aussies are coming to their senses.
With 1.4m households having solar panels, Australia has the highest proportion in the world of households with solar panels, but the ill-advised subsidies that allowed them, plus presumably their marketing, outweigh any good they do by $9 billion. Unbelievable.
A report on the electricity market by the Grattan Institute think tank reveals that solar feed-in tariffs, which over-pay owners of solar panels for the power they supply to the grid, have created “a policy mess”. Well, that’s hardly surprising, considering the subsidies were the only financial reason to instal the things.
Anyway, it wants pricing reforms. The electricity price does not increase at peak times, so consumers who don’t have solar panels subsidise those who do, even though solar owners place the same strain on the distribution network. That’s because peak use of power usually occurs in the early evening when (surprise) the sun goes down.
While solar panels have cut emissions they have proved very costly—the equivalent of a carbon price of $170 a tonne. Emissions could have been reduced more cheaply and fairly. The Australian carbon price right now sits at $13.95 a tonne. The electricity regulator will require those with solar panels to pay more than before, so the installation of new solar panels in most capital cities will no longer be profitable.
Climate sceptics have been asking about discrepancies in the economics of solar panels for years. We still have questions about their carbon footprint, but they become moot as solar panels are killed off by economics.
Solar panels are fine in deserts, coral atolls and yachts, but they’ll never securely run a household or a steel mill—especially at night.
Record-breaking plunge into cold weather in Ontario
Looks like global warming missed Canada. A pity. There's rather a lot of Canada and I am sure they'd like to cut their heating bills
Vineyard owners in Prince Edward County and the Niagara region are assessing the damage from a record-breaking plunge into cold weather late Friday night and into Saturday morning.
Farmers were sent scrambling to prevent frost from killing their fruit. They rented helicopters, turned on wind machines and set bales of hay on fire in an attempt to save what they could.
Some smaller wineries say their crop was practically gutted in the deep-freeze.
Clark Tyler, manager at Harwood Estate Vineyards in Prince Edward County, estimates that a mere five per cent of grapes at his four-hectare vineyard survived the frost.
“It’s just complete and utter devistation, anger and just makes me feel really upset,” said Tyler.
He said some of his friends lost nearly everything.
However, some farmers are hoping for a stroke of luck.
Liz Dobson Lacey, sales manager at Lacey Estates in Prince Edward County, says it will take another several weeks to assess the damage to her grape crop.
“This year was looking like a really great year and in less than six hours that was really taken away,” said Lacey.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here
Posted by JR at 12:39 AM