Wednesday, June 03, 2015
More Warmist lies
What they say is cautiously worded. They know they are skating on thin ice. They say only that CO2 is causing changes. But how is CO2 supposed to cause anything? Only through its alleged effect on global temperature. And there have been NO global temperature changes for over 18 years. So the effects that they allege CANNOT be caused by temperature changes. Things that don't exist don't cause anything. Does CO2 make it rain through some other mechanism? Crickets!
That rainfall has improved in much of Africa is not disputed. But it is certainly not an effect of global warming. It could however be a cyclic change in ocean currents that is responsible
Climate change means rain is returning to previously drought-stricken areas of Africa exactly 30 years since Live Aid raised £150million to help starving people there, a new study has revealed.
A severe lack of rainfall during the 1970s and 80s led to a persistent drought and famine, killing more than 100,00 people in countries such as Ethiopia.
The crisis prompted singers Sir Bob Geldof and Midge Ure to organise the Live Aid concerts in July 1985 to raise cash for the relief fund.
But now research by scientists at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading, has shown how increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which have caused climate change, have triggered a return of crucial seasonal rains to the Sahel region.
The researchers used a supercomputer climate simulator to study different influences on North African rainfall.
And when they examined the increases in rainfall since the 1980s, they found around three-quarters of the additional rain was caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations.
Professor Rowan Sutton, who led the research published in the journal Nature Climate Change, said: 'Scientists often study how greenhouse gas levels in the future will influence the climate.
'These findings show how even the greenhouse gases already emitted by humans, while only a fraction of those projected for the future, have nevertheless affected rainfall on a continental scale.
'This shows how climate change can hit specific countries and regions in a much more complicated way than the simple idea of "global warming" might suggest.
'In particular, we are beginning to discover how climate change is influencing rainfall patterns. What we are learning shows that human activity is already having a major impact.'
But despite the beneficial impact of global warming on Africa, the scientists have warned that the long term impacts will be very differenct as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.
It comes as the latest UN assessement of climate change impacts, shows Africa will face increased risk from heatwaves, sea level rises, flooding and drought, leading to potential crop failures, water shortages and disease.
Professor Sutton added: 'These positive short-term impacts were accidental. No-one was trying to bring them about. 'Nevertheless, such major changes show that by continuing to emit greenhouse gases, we are seriously upsetting a natural system that we don’t even fully understand, and this system is our home.
'Our new study shows that our activities are not just causing problems for future generations. They are causing major changes now. 'Continuing on the current path of greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more serious and widespread impacts.
'I trust the governments meeting later this year in Paris will appreciate the gravity of this message.'
It takes "vibrant graphics" to explain global warming
When the book is not vibrating, one wonders if the triviality of global average temperature change over the last 150 years gets a mention
If you find it difficult to fully grasp the concept of climate change, you’re not alone. But, thanks to esteemed climate scientists Michael E. Mann and Lee R. Kump at Pennsylvania State University, understanding the reality of climate change has never been easier.
Mann and Kump’s new book, Dire Predictions, expands upon the essential findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 5th assessment—which evaluates the risk of climate change brought on by humans—in a visually stunning and extremely powerful way. If you’ve always wanted to better understand the data behind climate change and be able to share this information with your family and friends, this illustrated guide is for you.
I had the chance to interview Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, last week about his book and here’s what he had to say:
Q. Your book provides difficult to understand information in a very digestible way. What was your biggest challenge in boiling down the IPCC data in a clear-cut way?
A. Yes indeed. As a scientist who does research on this topic, it is always a challenge to look that at the data, graphs and projections, not as I would as a practicing climate scientist, but as someone who is not familiar with the topic, does not have a technical background and is seeing this stuff for perhaps the first time. Fortunately, I have a lot of experience in doing that now because of the time I spent on public outreach more generally. This book is a joint venture of both Pearson (a traditional academic publisher) and DK (who specialize in picture/photo-driven guides and books), and the supporting cast at Pearson and DK really helped us digest the information and bring it alive in the form of vibrant graphics that come out of the page, and supporting prose pitched at the right level for our audience.
No, Rains in Southern Plains Not Linked to Global Warming
It’s been an amazing month in the southern Plains, particularly in states like Texas and Oklahoma, where a major atmospheric pattern shift has channeled a steady stream of moisture, leading to record rainfall and, unfortunately, fatal flooding.
One good thing we can say about all the rain is it has largely eviscerated the multi-year drought (and some meteorologists say moisture-laden California will see relief soon). But not everyone is celebrating, and, all too predictably, the Leftmedia, which blamed the Texas and Oklahoma drought on global warming, is now blaming our addiction to fossil fuels on exceptional rainfall.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews this week said “climate change contributes to harsh climate conditions like the flooding in Texas and drought in California happening right now.” Huffington Post editor James Gerken posited, “At minimum, the recent downpours in Texas probably offer a glimpse of what certain parts of the U.S. can look forward to in the coming decades.” Tod Robberson of The Dallas Morning News laughably claimed, “[I]t’s amazing how accurate many of [Al] Gore’s predictions have turned out to be.” The Christian Science Monitor asserted that extreme conditions “may grow more pronounced as nature adjusts to climate change.” And according to Think Progress, “Going from one extreme to another is a hallmark of climate change.”
But there’s at least one group of scientists — from a government agency, no less — that isn’t linking the abrupt weather shift to man-made global warming, or at least they’re not being forthright about it. In a report released this week, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center explained, “This type of pattern along with the excessive rainfall anomalies evident over the eastern equatorial Pacific offers a strong clue as to a potential culprit – El Nino. Anomalous rainfall over the eastern equatorial Pacific with alternating areas of above and below normal rainfall extending into midlatides is a classic El Nino teleconnection pattern.”
Recall also that last year Martin Hourlong, a NOAA researcher, likewise downplayed the California-global warming link. El Ninos typically bring wet weather to the southern half of the United States, and this one appears no different. It’s not global warming; it’s science.
EPA’s Latest Target Has 18 Wheels
Whether you watch the regulatory actions of the Environmental Protection Agency with support, amusement, disbelief or horror, it’s worth noting what’s coming next.
In this case, it’s the rumble of the tractor trailer that could be the next target of EPA’s chomp-chomp-chomp regulatory battle against global warming.
This week, EPA is likely to propose regulations cutting greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty trucks, reported Aaron M. Kessler and Coral Davenport in The New York Times.
It means the government will provide a steeper challenge for tractor-trailer fuel efficiency, seeking to raise the average from the current five to six miles a gallon of diesel up to nine miles a gallon by 2027.
This could be a welcome development for those who’ve gotten stuck behind exhaust-heavy tractor-trailers in traffic, but it’s a worry for America’s transportation industry -- including plenty of trucking companies that hit the highway on West Virginia’s strategically-located interstates.
“Talk is cheap, but I don’t see how they get there,” John Yandell Jr., president of Yandell Truckaway in Pleasant Hill, Calif., told the Times.
The Times story calls the trucking industry “the beating heart of the nation’s economy,” noting the food, raw goods and freight crisscrossing America’s highways.
It’s worth watching how much cost of meeting new regulations gets passed on to consumers.
The new rules could add $12,000 to $14,000 to the cost of building each new tractor-trailer. EPA estimates, though, that the cost could be recouped after 18 months through fuel savings.
EPA helpfully suggests that truck operators could benefit from regulation in a way that the market presumably could not point. “Fuel is either at the top or near the top of truck operators’ costs,” Christopher Grundler, director of the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, told the Times.
This next regulatory chapter is in its early stages. Once the proposed regulations are introduced, there’s still a public comment period ahead before EPA comes out with a final version.
There’s always something new up around the bend with EPA. It pays to keep your eyes on the regulatory road.
Big business is running scared
Big business is not your friend
Shell and BP call for international carbon pricing deal
Oil majors are pushing for scheme to limit emissions as they face growing criticism surrounding global warming
Europe’s biggest oil companies, including Royal Dutch Shell and BP, have written an open letter calling for a binding global system of carbon trading in a bid to head off climate change critics.
In a joint statement, the chief executives of Shell, BP, Total, Eni, Statoil and BG Group said: “We need to meet greater energy demand with less CO2. We are ready to meet that challenge and we are prepared to play our part. We firmly believe that carbon pricing will discourage high carbon options and reduce uncertainty that will help stimulate investments in the right low carbon technologies and the right resources at the right pace.”
Oil majors have been targeted in a growing campaign by activists to force institutions such as the Church of England and large university endowments to disinvest from fossil fuel producers in order to limit global warming.
The statement by the five European oil and gas giants also comes ahead of crunch UN talks scheduled for December that are aimed at creating a binding deal among world powers and emerging nations to limit global warming and emissions.
According to the so-called “carbon bubble” theory, billions of pounds worth of investors’ money becomes stranded as more fossil fuel reserves are left unexploited in an effort to reduce the impact of climate change.
“We now need governments around the world to provide us with this framework and we believe our presence at the table will be helpful in designing an approach that will be both practical and deliverable,” said the statement by the oil majors.
Despite the call by oil companies to create more robust international frameworks to govern carbon trading, in practice the system has so far proved ineffective in limiting global warming.
Last month, President Barack Obama caused controversy in the US when he claimed in a speech that global warming posed one of the biggest threats to America.
“Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security,” he warned.
German doctors push to halt building of wind turbines
The “parliament” of Germany’s medical profession has called on its leaders to support a halt to further wind farm developments near housing until more research has been undertaken into the possible health impacts of low-frequency noise from wind turbines.
The issue was debated at the German Medical Assembly in Frankfurt on Friday and transferred to the executive board of the German Medical Association.
Association policy adviser Adrian Alexander Jakel confirmed a motion calling for research had been forwarded to the board “for further action”.
Germany is considered a world leader in adopting renewable energy and the minutes of the Medical Assembly meeting said that, with the phase-out of nuclear power, more wind energy would be used in future. But it said the entire life cycle of renewable technologies, from the initial raw material supply to disposal and the planning and risk considerations, should be considered in advance.
The Medical Assembly motion said this required “scientifically sound findings of potential health effects, and a deliberate balance between benefit and validity to be able to make conscious weightings between the benefits and of the disadvantages and risks”.
“In particular regarding emissions in the low frequency and infrasound range there are no reliable independent studies that investigate field measurement methodology suitable for this sound field below the threshold of hearing,” they said.
The assembly called for the federal government to close the gaps in knowledge about the health effects of infrasound and low-frequency sound from wind turbines through scientific research.
It said research should clarify open questions concerning measurement methods and, where appropriate, adjust regulations to “allow the expansion and the operation of wind turbines wisely, carefully, with integrated expertise, sustainability and overall societal responsibility”.
It said the health effects of infrasound (below 20 Hz) and low-frequency sound (below 100 Hz) in relation to emissions from wind turbines were “still open questions’’, as were “the effects of noise below the hearing threshold or lower frequencies with increasing exposure duration”. The assembly said the erection of more turbines close to settlements should be stopped until there was reliable data to exclude a safety hazard.
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 12:36 AM