Munshi on the warpath again

I am a great admirer of the work of Jamal Munshi.  He really hits Warmists where it would hurt if they were real scientists.  As it is, of course, neither evidence nor logic is really of interest to them.

In the paper below, he hits at the most basic assertion of Warmism: That fossil fuel emissions influence the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I have read the full paper and have no quarrel with its theory or methodology.  I am however a little uneasy at the criterion used for statistical significance.  He uses the more severe standard emanating from all the recent work on unreproducible results.  And none of the effects he observed survive application of that criterion.  By the traditional .05 criterion, however, we do see a weak but significant effect.  So the findings could in fact be sen as consistent with industrial CO2 emissions having an effect -- but a very slight one.  But there is certainly nothing like the dominant effect that Warmists assume


Changes in the 13C/12C Ratio of Atmospheric CO2 1977-2014

Abstract:    

Data for the 13C fraction in atmospheric CO2 from six different measurement stations in the sample period 1977-2014 are studied to estimate its dilution by fossil fuel emissions. No correlation between the annual rate of fossil fuel emissions and annual change in the 13C fraction of atmospheric CO2 is found. We conclude that the 13C data for atmospheric CO2 do not serve as empirical evidence that changes in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution can be attributed to fossil fuel emissions.

SOURCE  





Is Antarctica about to lose a huge chunk of ice?
   
These guys are incredible.  From the headline above you would think that the event concerned is imminent.  Read a bit further down, however, and you find that they are talking about next century.  They cannot predict next week's weather but they can predict next century's?  This is the most gross speculation and, as such, deserving of no attention

Giant slabs of sea ice carving off of glaciers and crumbling into the sea could become a common sight if the climate continues to warm, warn scientists.

The bleak outlook comes from a new study in which researchers claim that the Antarctic ice could shrink by 186 miles (300 km) if the climate change continues unabated.

Such a huge loss of sea ice would result in global sea levels rising by almost three metres over the course of the next few centuries, they add.

An international group of scientists, comprising researchers from the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the US, made the predictions based on measurements of a huge glacier in the Antarctic.

Totten Glacier drains one of the largest ice masses in the world, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

By studying how the glacier has grown and shrank over time, they found that it may be teetering on the edge of a critical threshold.

Scientists say that if climate change continues on the ‘business as usual’ trajectory – without intervention – the glacier could cross this threshold sometime in the next century, leading to an irreversible melting on a massive scale and causing the glacier to retreat rapidly.

The evidence coming together is painting a picture of East Antarctica being much more vulnerable to a warming environment than we thought,’ said Professor Martin Siegert, co-director of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London.

‘This is something we should worry about. Totten Glacier is losing ice now, and the warm ocean water that is causing this loss has the potential to also push the glacier back to an unstable place.’

According to the researchers, the glacier’s rapid retreat would cause it to withdraw up to 300 kilometres inland over the following centuries. The vast quantities of water locked up in the ice would be released, contributing as much as 2.9 metres to global sea-level rise.

Antarctica has been a complex system to study, as despite the warming average global temperature, the region has gained ice mass - contrasting the rapid loss seen in the northern polar regions.

But despite these gains, the warming waters are causing chunks of ice to crumble into the sea, just as is seen in the north.

While the gains may outweigh the losses at the moment, as more of the ice sheet crumbles, it exposes more of the ice to warming waters which causes further melting.

SOURCE  





Wow!  Somebody who knows what he is talking about on coral bleaching

There is a long article on Watts that reviews the science of what is known of the coral reef life-cycle.  It has lots of surprises for people who have heard only the cries of disaster from Warmists.  The single fact that stood out to me was that coral bleaching is most often a response to COOLING, not warming.

The article gives particular attention to the utterances of Warmists like Hoagy and completely demolishes them.  It gives good grounds for regarding Hoagy as nothing but a fraud.

I have previously noted that coral bleaching is not coral death and that corals are very resilient to damage but this article gives chapter and verse of that.  Anyone interested in the health of coral reefs needs to read this article.  You will laugh at all future Warmist claims if you do.




Increased vegetation in the Arctic region may counteract global warming

Summary:

Climate change creates more shrub vegetation in barren, Arctic ecosystems. A new study shows that organisms, such as bacteria and fungi, are triggered to break down particularly nutritious dead parts of shrubbery. Meanwhile, the total amount of decomposition is reducing. This could have an inhibiting effect on global warming.

Climate change creates more shrub vegetation in barren, arctic ecosystems. A study at Lund University in Sweden shows that organisms, such as bacteria and fungi, are triggered to break down particularly nutritious dead parts of shrubbery. Meanwhile, the total amount of decomposition is reducing. This could have an inhibiting effect on global warming.

A large amount of the Earth's carbon and nitrogen is stored in arctic ecosystems where the ground is permanently frozen, known as permafrost. Climate change causes such soil to heat up. Johannes Rousk at Lund University, together with colleagues Kathrin Rousk och Anders Michelsen from the University of Copenhagen and the Center for Permafrost (CENPERM), have conducted field studies outside Abisko in the very north of Sweden, studying what happens to the decomposition of organic material as the climate gets warmer.

"As the Arctic region becomes warmer, more shrubs start to grow, rather than moss which is difficult to break down. The shrubs have leaves and roots that are easy to break down and secrete sugar. What we have shown is that decomposition organisms, such as bacteria and fungi, are triggered to look for nutrient-rich organic materials that contain more nitrogen, while decomposition as a whole is reduced," says Johannes Rousk.

When the nutrient-rich material is decomposed, the nutrient-poor part of the organic material is enriched, probably causing the amount of carbon to increase. Current climate models do not consider the connection between increased shrub vegetation as a result of ongoing climate change, and soil becoming less nutritious.

"It will be exciting to see how this will affect the soil carbon turnover in the long term. Perhaps our results will help complement future climate models," says Johannes Rousk.

Today no one knows what less nutritious soil in the Arctic ecosystem and an overall decreased decomposition of organic material will lead to. However, Johannes Rousk dares to venture a guess:

"I suspect it will have an inhibiting effect on global warming," he says.

SOURCE

Journal Reference: Kathrin Rousk, Anders Michelsen, Johannes Rousk. Microbial control of soil organic matter mineralisation responses to labile carbon in subarctic climate change treatments. Global Change Biology, 2016; DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13296





Relax: Extensive Study Says GMOs Are Beneficial

A new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, titled “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects,” bodes well for advocates of genetically engineered (modified) crops. According to NBC News, the study found:

“There is no evidence of large-scale health effects on people from genetically modified foods

"There is some evidence that crops genetically engineered to resist bugs have benefited people by reducing cases of insecticide poisoning

"Genetically engineered crops to benefit human health, such as those altered to produce more vitamin A, can reduce blindness and deaths die to vitamin A deficiency

"Using insect-resistant or herbicide-resistant crops did not damage plant or insect diversity and in some cases increased the diversity of insects.

"Sometimes the added genes do leak out to nearby plants — a process called gene flow — but there is no evidence it has caused harm.

"In general, farmers who use GM soybean, cotton, and corn make more money but it does depend on how bad pests are and farming practices.

"GM crops do reduce losses to pests

"If farmers use insect-resistant crops but don’t take enough care, sometimes pest insects develop resistance”

There’s nothing particularly alarming in those bullet points, and in fact the news is mostly positive. And this study agrees with what numerous other studies show — GMOs are safe and effective.

This only adds to the silliness of Vermont to mandate GMO labels. If Democrats are so worried about hunger in both America and around the world, why do they continue waging a war against a promising and health-smart solution?

SOURCE





That good ol' Green/Left projection again

She sees in skeptics what is true of herself.  If you want to see what is true of Lreftists, see what they say of conservatives.  As ego-maniacs they know only themselves.  So she attributes attitudes to self-interest, in the traditional Marxist way.  She fails to face the fact that Warmism suits her very well

Speaking at Planet Forward 2016, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says that climate change is “impacting public health” and “every human being on the face of this Earth”. McCarthy says that ‘Climate deniers are not about a lack of data. They’re deniers as to whether or not the solutions, once you recognize the problem, are going to be to their advantage or not.”

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “…if you think that climate change isn’t impacting public health then you have to open your eyes and take a closer look because the data is there, the understanding is there. And, so while EPA struggles to bring good quality air to everybody, safe drinking water, healthy safe places for kids to live and work, we also have to recognize that an unstable climate is impacting every human being on the face of this Earth, and if we do not do something, you are the very people whose future is being robbed and taken from you.” […]

FRANK SESNO: “How about more science in our leaders? How about more data?”

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “You know I don’t know if it’s more data or forcing people to look at the data. I mean really. Climate deniers are not about a lack of data. They’re deniers as to whether or not the solutions, once you recognize the problem, are going to be to their advantage or not.”

SOURCE

***************************************

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

*****************************************