Tuesday, September 06, 2016

Storm Hermine's damage fueled by global warming, scientists say

The usual suspects Oppenheimer, Mann etc are lying again -- blaming sea level rise caused by subsidence on anthropogenic global warming

Storm surges pushed by Hermine, the hurricane-turned tropical storm that on Sunday was moving up the US eastern seaboard, could be even more damaging than previous such surges because sea levels have risen by a foot due to global warming, climate scientists said.

Michael Mann of the Pennsylvania State University noted that this century’s one-foot sea-level rise in New York City meant 25 more square miles flooded during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, causing billions more in damage.

"We are already experiencing more and more flooding due to climate change in every storm," said Michael Oppenheimer, a geosciences professor at Princeton University. "And it’s only the beginning."

Overnight, the center of the storm moved further east and away from the coast than previously forecast, said Rick Knabb, director of the National Hurricane Center (NHC), in a webcast.

"That’s good news, but this is not over yet because we still are forecasting it to slow down and meander generally northward," Knabb said, adding that "we think it could become hurricane force again" as the storm was likely to strengthen as it moves over warm water.

The NHC maintained its tropical storm watch for Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket and said dangerous storm surges would continue along the coast from Virginia to New Jersey.

"The combination of a storm surge and the tide will cause normally dry areas near the coast to be flooded by rising waters moving inland from the shoreline," it said in a morning advisory.

Authorities up and down the coast ordered swimmers and surfers to stay out of treacherous waters on the Labor Day holiday weekend, when many Americans celebrate the end of summer. Projections showed the outer reaches of the storm could sweep the coastlines of Rhode Island or Massachusetts later in the week.

Hermine rose over the Gulf of Mexico and hit Florida on Friday as a category one hurricane before weakening to a tropical storm across Georgia, packing sustained winds of up to 65mph.

At 11am on Sunday, top sustained winds were 70mph as the storm moved east-northeast at 10mph. The storm was centered about 301 miles east-south-east of Ocean City, Maryland. Forecasters expected winds to return to hurricane force of more than 74mph by Sunday evening.

"It’s going to sit offshore and it is going to be a tremendous coastal event with a dangerous storm surge and lots of larger waves probably causing significant beach erosion, for the next few days," said senior NHC hurricane specialist Daniel Brown.


Methane release not likely to be a problem any time soon

Even in an era much warmer than today, methane release was slow

Mechanistic insights into a hydrate contribution to the Paleocene-Eocene carbon cycle perturbation from coupled thermohydraulic simulations

T. A. Minshull et al.


During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), the carbon isotopic signature (δ13C) of surface carbon-bearing phases decreased abruptly by at least 2.5 to 3.0‰. This carbon isotope excursion (CIE) has been attributed to widespread methane hydrate dissociation in response to rapid ocean warming. We ran a thermohydraulic modeling code to simulate hydrate dissociation due to ocean warming for various PETM scenarios. Our results show that hydrate dissociation in response to such warming can be rapid but suggest that methane release to the ocean is modest and delayed by hundreds to thousands of years after the onset of dissociation, limiting the potential for positive feedback from emission-induced warming. In all of our simulations at least half of the dissociated hydrate methane remains beneath the seabed, suggesting that the pre-PETM hydrate inventory needed to account for all of the CIE is at least double that required for isotopic mass balance.


Tell the Obama Administration to Stop Using a 1970's Relic to Pursue His Radical Environmental Agenda

Have you noticed how the price of electronics and appliances like TVs, refrigerators, computers, or cell phones have been continuous declining as a result of technological progress, but the cost of new cars has been increasing? This is not some special quirk of the car market; it is the result of a deliberate policy by the federal government, prodded by radical environmentalists, to increase the cost of purchasing a new car. One of the chief mechanisms for this war on affordability are Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) mandates, which cost consumers tens of billions of dollars per year. Punishingly high CAFE standards have become a weapon of choice for radical leftists in their efforts to dictate how Americans must live.

In the 1970’s after the Arab oil embargo, the federal government created the mandated fuel efficiency standards for cars known as CAFE standards. These mandates were one of many big government economic interferences imposed during that decade in an effort to be seen to be responding the embargo. Unlike similarly foolish price and supply controls, however, CAFE mandates were never repealed, lingering on as a market-distorting anachronism. In 2009, the new Obama administration found a novel use for these outdated regulations: as a tool for pushing its radical global warming agenda. The Obama administration proceeded to nearly double CAFE mandates, demanding radically higher mandates by 2025.

The results of this radical departure from previous practice will not surprise you. According to Salim Furth from the Heritage Foundation:

"When the Obama Administration began implementing stricter CAFE standards in 2009, scholars predicted that the standards would cost consumers at least $3,800 per vehicle. Vehicle prices, which had been falling, began rising in 2009 and have not stopped. The average vehicle now costs $6,200 more than if prices had followed their previous trend. Prices will continue to rise, by at least $3,400 per car through 2025, unless this costly policy mistake is undone."

As part of the decision to radically increase CAFE mandates, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Transportation Administration (NHTSA) were required to prepare a study on the implementation of these mandates in 2016. This study was released last month, and it is now open for public comment.

The study found that the CAFE mandates set by the Obama administration were unlikely to be reached, mainly because Americans continue to choose to buy SUVs, crossovers, and light trucks. While looked down upon by radical environmentalists, demand for these vehicles has continued with lower gas prices from the American energy boom.

In a logical world, the federal government would recognize reality and abandon this costly and unnecessary crusade, but bureaucrats have never been strong on logic. The Obama administration insists that it will press forward with its mandates. The administration’s radical environmentalist allies have even begun commenting on the EPA study demanding even higher CAFE mandates.

Don’t let the environmentalists have their way. Make your voice heard at this link and tell the federal regulators to abandon their radical, costly mandates.


College Profs Tell Students To Drop Out If They Don’t Believe In Global Warming

They can't hack dissent and debate, in a complete abandonment of science and scholarship

Three University of Colorado professors told students to drop out of class if they did not believe in man-made global warming, stressing in an email there will be no debates on the subject in class.

"The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring," reads the email from UC Colorado Springs professors to their students obtained by The College Fix.

"We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course," reads the email sent after some students voiced concern about their future in the class after the first online lecture on global warming.

"Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course," the professors wrote in their email.

"If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next," they wrote.

The three professors teach the online course "Medical Humanities in the Digital Age," but also delves into global warming and even the "health effects of fracking," according to the course syllabus. There’s also a lecture on "our relationship with the natural world and its healing power."

The lecture on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, relies on sources from environmental activists that want to ban the drilling technique despite federal and state studies finding little to no evidence it contaminates water or negatively impacts human health.

Professors even encourage students to measure their own carbon footprint, reports the College Fix, which notes the teachers even banned challenging global warming on online forums unless they cite research reviewed by the United Nations.

Public schools have also taken up the climate crusade. The Portland Public Schools Board voted in June to "abandon the use of any adopted text material that is found to express doubt about the severity of the climate crisis or its root in human activities."


Warmists force revision of Irish science textbook

Skeptical view purged

Ireland’s largest publisher of school books has revised a chapter in its sixth class school geography book after environmental group, An Taisce, raised concerns about what the book says about global warming.

'Unlocking Geography', published by Folens, quotes a fictional meteorological researcher, who suggests that global warming is caused by nature and that humans are not to blame.

The book was published four years ago and has been used for sixth class pupils in primary schools ever since.

In chapter ten of the book, 'Barry' a fictitious climate scientist outlines the effect that human activity is having on the environment.

He is followed by 'James', a fictitious meteorological researcher, who disagrees. James says "Most of the things that have led to Global Warming were caused by nature itself".  He goes on to say that "Humans are not to blame because we have very little control over nature.

The chapter asks children to discuss these points of view.  It quotes from blogs that state "All this talk of Global Warming is silly", and "Those scientists are always trying to scare us!".

The book came to the attention of An Taisce when the daughter of one of its members alerted her parents to its arguments. Following representations from An Taisce, Folens agreed to revise the chapter. Today a new booklet was sent to schools, replacing chapter ten of the book.

This new section was drawn up in conjunction with An Taisce and scientists. The fictitious meteorological researcher, and his arguments against global warming, are gone.

Folens has told RTÉ News that the original content reflected the "balanced opinion" on climate change which was prevalent a number of years ago.

Managing Director John Cadell said that scientific opinion had now changed and the company was happy to update its book. Folens has written to primary schools today asking them to replace chapter 10 with the new booklet that the publishers has issued.

Folens said it would be too expensive to republish the entire book.

An Taisce has welcomed the revision. Its Climate Change Spokesperson, John Gibbons, told RTÉ News it was incredibly important that children and their teachers were armed with the most accurate information.


EPA’s dangerous regulatory pollution

Agency’s deceptive practices, human experiments and unjustified regulations cost us dearly

Paul Driessen

If you’re wondering whether to trust the Environmental Protection Agency on mercury, ozone, climate change or other regulatory actions, you need look no further than how it has handled particulates.

EPA whitewashed the toxic flashflood it caused in Colorado. But it says particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10) is risky and worries incessantly about 2.5-micron particles. (A human hair is 50-70 microns; dust, pollen and mold are around 10; combustion exhaust particles are 2.5 microns or smaller.)

The tinier specks, EPA asserts, "can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream." Eliminating all such particles in our air is absolutely essential to human health, longevity and well-being, the agency insists. There is no threshold below which there is no risk, its advisors say.

Studies demonstrate "an association" between "premature mortality and fine particle pollution at the lowest levels measured," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told Congress. They have not found a level "at which premature mortality effects do not occur." Reducing emissions and exposure always yields health benefits.

Broad population-based epidemiological evidence "links" short term PM2.5 exposures (hours or days) to cardiovascular and respiratory mortality, an EPA report claims. Long-term exposure (years or decades) has been "linked" to respiratory disease and cardiovascular and lung cancer mortality.

Particulate matter doesn’t just make you sick; it is directly related "to dying sooner than you should," former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified to Congress. "If we could reduce particulate matter to levels that are healthy," it would be like "finding a cure for cancer" – saving up to 570,000 lives a year.

Indeed, EPA says all but a sliver of the hundreds of billions of dollars in health and environmental benefits that it claims result from its mercury, climate change and "clean power" regulations are actually due to the "ancillary" benefits of reducing PM2.5 emissions from power plants, factories, refineries, petrochemical plants, cars, light trucks, and diesel-powered trucks, buses and heavy equipment.

But wait! Just when you thought life couldn’t get more dangerous, and thank the lord for EPA, the agency changed its rules and health advisories – though not its regulations for permissible particulate levels.

Epidemiological studies are corrupted by uncontrollable "confounding factors" and thus cannot reliably identify causes and effects, or attribute all the asserted deaths to particulates. How can you separate PM2.5 particles emitted by vehicles, power plants and factories from particles due to volcanoes, forest fires, construction projects, dust storms or pollen – or from cigarettes that rapidly send 1000 times more tiny particles into lungs than what EPA says is lethal if they come from other sources? It can’t be done.

How can you tell whether a death was caused by airborne particles – and not by viruses, bacteria, dietary habits, obesity, smoking, diabetes, cold weather and countless other factors? It’s impossible.

In fact, EPA has not even come up with a plausible biological explanation for why or how super-tiny particles can cause a plethora of diseases and deaths simply by getting into lungs or bloodstreams. Its concept of "premature" deaths primarily reflects the fact that more people die on some days than others.

So EPA needed additional studies, to back up its expansive, bogus epidemiological assertions. The new studies, JunkScience.com director Steve Milloy discovered, involved human test subjects. They raised numerous new legal, ethical and scientific problems.

Not only do US laws, the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Accords and EPA Rule 1000.17 make it unethical or illegal to conduct toxicity experiments on humans. When California, Washington, Rutgers and other University researchers explained the experiments to their volunteers, they generally failed to advise them that EPA says the pollution they were going to breathe was toxic, carcinogenic and deadly.

Instead, volunteers were told they would face only "minimal risks," the kind they would ordinarily encounter in daily life, in performing routine physical activities. Others were told they might experience claustrophobia in the small study chambers, or some minor degree of airway irritation, shortness of breath, coughing or wheezing. There is no way such advisories can lead to "informed consent."

Moreover, the people who EPA claims are most at risk, most susceptible to getting horribly sick and even dying, from exposure to these particulates were precisely the same people recruited by EPA and its EPA-funded research teams: the elderly, asthmatics, diabetics, people with heart disease, children. And to top it off, the test subjects were exposed to eight, thirty or even sixty times more particulates per volume – for up to two hours – than they would breathe outdoors, and what EPA claims are dangerous or lethal.

So which is it?

How can it be that PM2.5 particulates are dangerous or lethal for Americans in general, every time they step outside – but harmless to human guinea pigs who were intentionally administered pollution dozens of times worse than what they would encounter outdoors? How can it be, as EPA-funded researchers now assert, that "acute, transient responses seen in clinical studies cannot necessarily be used to predict health effects of chronic or repeated exposure" – when that is precisely what EPA claims they can and do show?

If PM2.5 is lethal and there is no safe threshold, shouldn’t EPA officials, its researchers and their institutions be prosecuted for deliberately misleading volunteers and conning them into breathing the poisons? Shouldn’t they be prosecuted for experimenting on children, in direct violation of EPA’s own rules banning such experiments – and for deleting evidence describing those tests?

Thankfully, none of the test subjects died, or the charges would be much more serious.

But if no one died, doesn’t that mean EPA is lying when it says there is no safe level, that all PM2.5 particulates are toxic, that its regulations are saving countless lives, and that the direct and ancillary benefits vastly outweigh their multi-billion-dollar annual costs? And if that is the case, shouldn’t EPA officials be prosecuted for lying to Congress and public, and imposing all those costs for no real benefits?

Doesn’t it also mean there really are safe levels and PM2.5 particles are not really toxic or lethal? Doesn’t it mean EPA’s draconian standards should be significantly modified, and companies and communities should be compensated for their costs in complying with excessive, unjustified particulate regulations?

Shouldn’t EPA officials be prosecuted for imposing unnecessary regulations that cost billions of dollars, kill thousands of jobs, shut down electricity generation, reduce living standards, raise prices for food and construction projects, and actually lower health, welfare and life spans for numerous people?

In either event, shouldn’t the researchers and universities be compelled to return the hundreds of millions of dollars they received for these deceptive, unethical, illegal human experiments – and compensate the test subjects for subjecting them to emotional distress when they realize they received "lethal" doses? Shouldn’t EPA officials be fired and prosecuted for their roles in all of this?

And now, during the past few months, EPA has been trying to use the prestigious National Academy of Sciences to cover-up and whitewash the agency’s illegal experiments on humans. In secret, and with no public notice or opportunity to comment, the agencies held meetings and issued a draft report.

Milloy got wind of what was going on. He and four other experts sought and received an unprecedented opportunity to testify before the NAS on August 24. Their presentations and other information used in this article can be found here, here and here. Will their efforts bring change? Time will tell.

Up to now, EPA has said and done whatever it deems necessary or convenient to advance its regulatory agenda. The health, environmental and societal costs are unjustified and can no longer be tolerated. It’s time to clean house – and start enforcing laws against human experiments and fraudulent research.

Via email


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


No comments: